No Ambiguity in US Policy@SCS, Only in Powell’s Pea Brain
By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan
May 26, 2025
Part 11: Where Brawner sees War, China sees Diplomacy
An American new hire by Stratbase Albert del Rosario Institute is once again spreading a fake and dangerous narrative.
Raymond Powell, a 36-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and erstwhile director of the SeaLight and the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation, funded by the US Naval Institute to do civilian cover operations, has introduced a new yarn, after the dismal failure of his Project Myoushu at Stanford University.
Powell told the Philippine Star, “the May 21st water cannon attack by a China Coast Guard ship against Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) vessels near Sandy Cay represents a dangerous escalation and demonstrates that the time for American strategic ambiguity on the Philippines’ claim to Pag-asa (Thitu) Island has long since passed.”
With all due respects, the United States does not have a strategic ambiguity on the Philippines claim to any of the Spratly Islands. The official policy is that it’s none of their business, except on the matter of freedom of navigation.
The only justification they use for their meddling in the devil of the details, is our severely misinformed government leaders use the Americans as neo-colonial patrons, and as a tit-for-tat, the Philippines allows itself to serve as a proxy to US interests. The common agenda between the two is fishing for false starts, for the US to demonize China and build a case for a hot war in the region and for the Philippines to leverage its weak territorial and maritime claims.
Another fake news, “This incident—the first time Chinese forces have deployed water cannons against Philippine ships in the Pagasa Cays—shows that Beijing has already dismantled the status quo the U.S. sought to preserve through decades of deliberate ambiguity in the Spratly Islands.”
First, there is no such animal as “Pagasa Cays”, which is yet another johnny-come-lately nomenclature the Philippine side has invented for propaganda purposes. The feature goes either by the name Sandy Cays given the British Royal Navy survey vessel HMS Rifleman or by its name registered with the International Hydrographic Organization, as “Thitu Reefs” as distinguished from the Thitu Island that has been occupied by the Philippines 1971, and renamed “Pagasa”.
Second, the People’s Republic of China that uses the name Tiexan (铁山), meaning “Iron Mountain,” for Sandy Cay, has not made any status quo arrangements with the Americans on this feature for the simple reason that the United States has no legal interest when it comes to the South China Seas except as a transient state. It is not even a member of the UN Convention of the Laws of the Seas (UNCLOS) and obviously neither a coastal or claimant state within the area.
Third and on the contrary, China continues to serve as the civilian law enforcer of the South China Seas, by virtue of its effective control asserted in consistency with titles acquired through treaties and throughout history.
The Twitter (X) statement of US Ambassador Mary Cay Carlson, that the Chinese coast guard challenged a “peaceful civilian” mission by the Philippine Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, is false.
Powell’s seconding of Carlson’s lie is worse – “Chinese forces attacked civilian researchers collecting sand samples just 1.5 nautical miles from Pag-asa Island… The attack occurred well within Pag-asa’s 12-nautical mile territorial waters, targeting scientists conducting routine marine research, not military personnel.”
The problem with this airman who served the US navy and is now under the patrol of a Filipino thinktank serving as local agent for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, one of the staunch lobbyists for the Deep State at the US Capitol, is that he is an ignoramus when it comes to international law and maritime dynamics.
Carlson is also in a fog.
For the education of both that is long overdue, under Article 19 of UNCLOS, fishing and research are not innocent behavior that allows passage.
“2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
“(i) any fishing activities;
“(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
:(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.”
So to reiterate, the BRP Datu Sanday of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, was not engaged in an innocent activity, and in fact violating international law.
Second, that this occurred within Pagasa’s 12-nautical miles territorial sea, that can be considered as Philippine territory is only half-true.
Sandy Cay has already transformed itself as “rock” as of 2017, and is therefore now classified as having its own 12 nautical mile territorial sea.
When the Philippines filed for arbitration in 2013, the Philippine side attempted to mislead the tribunal that the feature continues to be low-tide elevations, which would classify it to belong to Pagasa Island’s 12 nautical mile territorial sea. It seems the Philippine positioned has not changed its deceitful position and refuses to conform with 2016 Arbitral Award’s decisionto consider the Sandy Cays as high tide elevations, thus a rock.
As such it is capable of being appropriated with a sovereignty claim and generating its own 12 nautical mile territorial sea (¶373) and China is obviously confirming its earlier claim on the feature by virtue of historic title that precedes the 1956 claim of Vietnam and the 1971 occupation of the Philippines of Pagasa.
Does this mean that the Philippines and China have overlapping territorial seas between Pagasa and Sandy Cays? Claims, yes but in fact, no.
UNCLOS mandates that neither state can extend its territorial sea beyond the median line unless they agree otherwise. The median line is a line where each point is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the territorial sea of each state is measured. This principle aims to ensure an equitable solution and prevent one state from infringing on the territorial claims of another. (UNCLOS Article 15)
The only logical explanation is that BRP Datu Sanday was already operating beyond the median on the side of Pagasa, hence enforced to sail within its proper space.
Third, the Philippine ship was not “attacked” in the sense that should call American attention. The use of water cannon in civilian law enforcement is authorized under international standards for non-lethal weapons (NLWs).
Even the Pentagon or the US Department of Defense says so. Its DIRECTIVE Number 3000.03E April 25, 2013 Incorporating Change 2, August 31, 2018, defines NLWS as “Weapons, devices, and munitions that are explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate targeted personnel or materiel immediately, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property in the target area or environment.”
US Official Policy on the SCS
Digging deep into the archival database US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger issued a memorandum on June 9, 1975 responding to Ambassador to the Philippines William H. Sullivan’s request for the official policy regarding the continuing occupation of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. in the Spratlys since 1971.
The document that has been declassified since July 2006, blows Powell’s theory of US ambiguity in the Spratlys, into smithereens.
Kissinger articulated the US position that Spratly Islands do not fall within either of the first two categories of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and the Philippines, relating to territories.
Minutes of a 1974 staff meeting in Washington DC:
MR. HUMMEL: Well, I think the atmospherics surrounding our repeated statements about these islands certainly conveyed already to the Filipinos that we don’t intend to or that we don’t want to.
SECRETARY KISSINGER: I don’t think we want to encourage the PRC in believing that they have a free shot at military moves, and we don’t want to encourage our allies there to believe that we are needlessly panicky.
Our answer is the right answer. I do not think that we should have indicated that we would defend it. The question is whether we should have left some ambiguity in other people’s minds, not in ours.
“First category evidently covers those territories over which a party is considered sovereign. We note that at time MDT [was] signed, GOP [government of the Philippines] had asserted no claim to any of Spratly Islands, and had protested neither Vietnamese nor Chinese claims, which had been reiterated at time of negotiation of [the] 1951 Japanese Peace Treaty (of San Francisco). Furthermore, Spratly Islands all fall out- side Philippine territory as ceded to us by 1898 treaty with Spain. USG maps accompanying presentation of MDT also exclude Spratlys from ter1ritories covered by MDT.”
Kissinger also qualified the second category: “island territories under either party’s jurisdiction, was intended to cover other territory which a party administered by international agreement but was not sovereign over, e.g., UN [United Nations] trust territories and (at that time) Okinawa. We are not aware of any Philippine-administered territory falling within this category.”
The document even struck an application of customary law that is antithetical to Philippine interests, and favorable to China – “Continuous, effective and uncontested occupation and administration of territory is a primary foundation for establishing sovereignty in absence of international settlement, but Philippine occupation could hardly be termed uncontested in face of claims and protests of Chinese and Vietnamese.”
On the matter of the third category, “on armed forces, public vessel and aircraft of either party in Pacific,” the Secretary of State provided a thin distinction, “Under most foreseeable circumstances, the treaty would apply if either party were attacked on high seas or in international air space.” (but) almost all of the South China Seas is claimed by China as territorial seas, specifically the Spratlys, Paracels, Pratas, Hainan and the Penghu (Pescadores).
To be more precise, he said hypothetical attack on [Philippine] garrisons in Spratlys presents different case (but) “we have also not recognized [Philippine] sovereignty over (any of those) islands. MDT does not obligate us to support this type of deployment in event of armed attack.”
Kissinger drove the final nail in terms of realpolitik, “As a practical matter, we see precious little chance Congress or the American people would support US intervention in Spratly dispute. If the [Philippine] garrisons ever were attacked, it seems to me less harmful politically to deny our obligations on legal grounds, than to leave unfulfilled an acknowledged commitment.”
His last sentence opened yet another can of worms – “contrary interpretation would also create difficulty for us if [Philippines] ever tried to invoke MDT with respect to Sabah”…in which case the Americans will just be dragged into a controversy with the British and the Malaysians endangering abdication of the Convention Treaty of 1930 that set the boundary line between the Sulu Archipelago and North Borneo.
Powell’s dubious intentions
For the record, China has not meddled with any innocent passage between any part of Palawan and Pagasa Island, involving humanitarian and development needs of the people residing there. Even the building of infrastructures, such as an air strip, a landing port and buildings, has not been interrupted by China.
However Chinese coast guards have challenged any stopovers between Palawan and Pagasa such as prolonged parking especially at Sabina Shoal where we have no claims whatsoever. They have also challenged “propaganda activities” enroute to Pagasa because that is prohibited by UNCLOS as a violation of the principle of innocent passage.
They have also prevented any action tending to occupy Sandy Cay as that is in violation of the 2002 DOC.
The escalations at Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin), a low-tide elevation, have been caused by President Bongbong Marcos departure from the pre-existing protocol, since the time of President Joseph Estrada, and his irresponsible attempt at a paradigm shift. The Arbitral Award also excluded the feature in our claimed EEZ because of the existence of a “quintessentially military situation.
Now that we are back to the same protocol, routine resupply missions for the humanitarian needs of our marines stationed at BRP Sierra Madre, have been going on smoothly.
Conflicts northwest to the Zambales coastlines have been due to two factors: first Philippine unilateral forays to the Chinese controlled Scarborough Shoals and its territorial waters, and second our stupid insistence to patrol the high seas beyond our 12 nautical mile territorial waters.
Other than preserving the status quo mandated by the 2002 Declaration of Conduct, there has been no ambiguity on China’s actions against any other claimant state.
In sum, China has allowed freedom of navigation in the South China Seas provided it conforms with UNCLOS’ rules on innocent passage.
On the other hand, its ministry of foreign affairs, the Chinese coast guard and the People’s Liberation Army have been consistent in announcing and enforcing China’s resoluteness that those who play fire, will perish by it.
Only those with agenda other than peace, continuously misintepret the situation at the SCS.
Powell’s instincts operate to fill-in a vacuum for war, and after an analysis based on wrong assumptions, he anomalously accuses the Trump government with three critical policy failures:
“Strategic ambiguity has failed to deter Chinese escalation. Despite repeated U.S. statements condemning Chinese actions and invoking the 2016 arbitral tribunal ruling, Beijing continues to escalate its coercive behavior.
“American ambiguity undermines alliance credibility. Philippine officials have repeatedly sought clarity on whether U.S. mutual defense commitments extend to disputed features like Pagasa Island.
“The policy assumes a static environment that no longer exists. Gray zone deterrence has failed across the broader South China Sea. More imaginative counter gray-zone policies are urgently needed.
Assuming these are nominally acceptable to US Secretary State Marco Rubio, the cure he is recommending is so insignificant such as the American explicit recognition of Philippine administrative control over Pagasa Island, which will be a departure to the Kissinger doctrine that has made possible; half-a-century of peace in the region.
To demonstrate his new approach, Powell recommends that Philippine and U.S. military forces to jointly conduct a civic action mission to Pagasa Island. He claims this mission would focus on medical outreach and civil engineering projects that directly benefit the island’s civilian population of approximately 350 residents in health services, dental care, and medical training to residents who have limited access to medical facilities.
Oh really? His malicious intentions are easily discernible.
The former air force colonel wants the world to acclimate to American presence in Pagasa Island, preconditioning its use as another forward operating base for the US Agile Combat Employment aka additional EDCA site.
China has of course already anticipated this and that is why they are signaling a stop to Philippine incursions into Sandy Cay.
Powell’s cold-war mentality prevents him from being objective about the South China Seas. “It’s time to stop allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by the risk of acting in our (American and Philippine) collective interests, because inaction risks not only the continued erosion of Philippine positions but the discrediting of the alliance framework that has underpinned regional stability for decades.”
Reckless statements like this, makes him even a bad soldier.
A good soldier would have accepted that at the end of World War II, the country that occupied most of Southeast Asia, Japan, renounced all its claims to the South China Sea in the 1951 Japan Peace Treaty (of San Francisco), and surrendered their possession of all its features to the China at the 1952 Treaty of Taipei reconfirming the same in the Japan-PROC Treaty of 1972.
Not to the United States, not to Taiwan, not to Vietnam, not to Malaysia, not to Brunei and not to the Philippines.
But only China.
To be continued.
Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan
is former diplomat who served as press attaché and spokesman of the Philippine Embassy in Washington DC and the Philippines’ Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York from April 1986 to 1993. Presently, he is vice-president for international affairs of the Asian Century Philippines Institute, a geopolitical analyst, author of books, columnist, a print and broadcast journalist, and a hobby-organic-farmer.
His best sellers, A Problem for Every Solution (2015), a characterization of factors affecting Philippine-China relations, and No Vaccine for a Virus called Racism (2020) a survey of international news attempting to tracing its origins, earned for him an international laureate in the Awards for the Promotion of Philippine-China Understanding in 2021. His third book, The Poverty of Power is now available – a historiography of controversial issues of spanning 36 years leading to the Demise of the Edsa Revolution and the Forthcoming Rise of a Philippine Phoenix.
Today he is anchor for many YouTube Channels, namely Ang Maestro Lectures @Katipunan Channel (Saturdays), Unfinished Revolution (Sundays) and Opinyon Online (Wednesdays) with Ka Mentong Laurel, and Ipa-Rush Kay Paras with former Secretary Jacinto Paras (Tuesdays and Thursdays). His personal vlog is @AdoPaglinawan.
Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH
Interestingly informative and clear. Thanks and God bless.