China Sanctions Former Filipino Lawmaker Over South China Sea Claims
'For some time, some anti-China politicians in the Philippines have adopted a series of malicious words and deeds on issues related to China for their own selfish interests, which have harmed China's interests and undermined China–Philippines relations,' said the statement. 'The Chinese government is determined to defend its national sovereignty, security and development interests.'
In a statement on X Tuesday, Tolentino said he will continue to fight for what rightfully belongs to our nation, adding the sanction was a 'badge of honor' and that no foreign power could silence him.
Tolentino sponsored a bill called the Philippine Maritime Zones Act, which was signed into law last November. That law and a second one called the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act reaffirmed the extent of the country's maritime territories in the South China Sea and right to resources from these areas.
The laws drew quick condemnation and dismissal of their legitimacy from China, which claims virtually all of the South China Sea. 'Any objections from China must be met with unwavering defense of our sovereign rights and adherence to lawful arbitration outcomes,' said Tolentino at the time.
The Philippines and China have been engaged in verbal and physical clashes over their claims in the offshore region. Confrontations between Chinese and Philippine coast guard and naval forces in the disputed sea have become increasingly common in the past two years, with the Philippine side publicizing videos of Chinese boats firing water cannons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Ensuring the Middle East becomes a WMD-free zone
There are quite a few lessons to be learned from the 12 days of war between Iran and Israel last month, especially from their mutual readiness to inflict severe pain on one another. One is the need to embark on urgent discussions with full commitment to ensure the Middle East becomes a weapons of mass destruction-free zone. The entire Cold War-era nuclear doctrine — and, with it, many other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological — was based on an understanding that these weapons were not to be used, but rather to deter the other side from using them. No rational actor in international relations would dare to use them if it would also mean a devastating retaliation — in other words, mutual assured destruction. There is a real danger that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be more likely to bring nuclear madness than mutual assured destruction. It is still too early to assess the damage caused to the Iranian nuclear program and whether its piles of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, which had brought the country closer to developing nuclear military capability, were destroyed or were safely hidden away. After the fatal exchange of blows between Iran and Israel that caused widespread death and destruction must come a period of reflection on the dangers of the presence of WMDs in the region and the need to eliminate them. The working assumption is that there is only one country in the region that is in possession of nuclear military capabilities — Israel — while others, including Iran, Iraq and Libya, have chemical weapons. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, it is estimated that Israel has about 80 nuclear weapons, although the country's official policy is one of nuclear ambiguity, claiming that it will not be the first country to 'introduce' nuclear weapons to the Middle East. Yet, one of its Cabinet ministers proposed, at the beginning of the war on Gaza, to nuke the place — and it is hardly plausible that he would make such a threat unless Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons. There must be a period of reflection on the dangers of the presence of WMDs in the region and the need to eliminate them Yossi Mekelberg The 19th-century Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once wrote that, 'if in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise, don't put it there.' Thus far, nuclear weapons have been used 'only' twice, toward the end of the Second World War. But this tells us very little about what might happen if the Middle East were to embark on a nuclear arms race. Just imagine that both Iran and Israel were armed with nuclear weapons and, at a certain point, each felt that their country's very existence was in danger. Could we completely exclude the possibility of them employing this doomsday weapon? Not a scenario that anyone would like to find themselves in. Israel's ambiguity has, in a roundabout way, contributed to preventing a nuclear arms race in the region. By not announcing it publicly, it has not forced others to compete with it in this arena. Moreover, prior to becoming a major regional military power and signing peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan — and, more recently, the Abraham Accords to normalize relations with the UAE, Morocco and Bahrain — Israel's nuclear capability was regarded as one of last resort. It was there in case it faced a cataclysmic scenario of being on the verge of military defeat, in addition to assuming it was being governed by a more rational government than the current one. It is hardly facing an existential threat anymore and the rationality of its current government is at best questionable. What also makes a Middle East WMD-free zone a matter of urgency is the inherent political instability and volatility of some parts of the region, let alone their appalling lack of respect for international law. The idea of a WMD-free zone is not new. It was first introduced by Egypt in 1990, as an extension of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and later as part of a series of decisions derived from the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which 191 states have so far joined, but not India, Israel, Pakistan or North Korea. Israel is hardly facing an existential threat anymore and the rationality of its current government is at best questionable Yossi Mekelberg The 1995 NPT review conference called for 'the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems.' Regrettably, hardly any progress has been made toward a negotiated elimination of WMDs, including nuclear, despite five international summits being held on the issue, the last of them in November 2024. The risks caused by the presence of WMDs in areas where conflict is ever-present, where enmities are usually defined in absolute terms and where threats are seen as existential are too dangerous to allow. They are made worse where there is asymmetry in terms of conventional military capabilities, as is the case in the Middle East. In the event of a side facing defeat, while in possession of nuclear weapons, there might be the temptation to use them either as a tool to change the course of the war or as some sort of Samson-like option of bringing the roof down on everyone. If the dreadful consequences of using nuclear or other WMDs is one aspect of the need to ensure that countries do not pursue this route, there is also the futility of investing endless resources in developing and acquiring such lethal weapons. Such programs are expensive, meaning there are other more urgent and fundamental social and economic needs that are deprived of resources. And in the case of nuclear, it is in many cases a vanity project; or worse, as we just witnessed in the case of Iran, one that leads to needless wars. Last year, I participated in a nuclear disarmament workshop in Hiroshima, where we met with survivors of the nuclear bomb dropped by the US on the city 80 years ago next month. They told us of the horrific experience suffered by themselves, their families and their city, as could also be seen in photographic evidence in the local museum. Their message was very clear: there is no place in our civilization for such weapons. This should be a lesson for anyone who is contemplating developing or possessing nuclear weapons, whether in the Middle East or anywhere else.
Saudi Gazette
3 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
US Senate holds marathon overnight vote on Trump's 'big beautiful bill'
WASHINGTON — The US Senate has held a marathon voting session through the night on a sprawling budget bill that is critical to President Donald Trump's agenda. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act - running to nearly 1,000-pages - includes increased spending for border security, defence and energy production - offset to a degree by cuts to healthcare and food-support programmes. Its fate hangs in the balance as Trump's Republicans - who control both chambers of Congress - remain split over how much to cut welfare programs by as they seek to extend tax breaks. If approved in the Senate, the bill will return to the lower House of Representatives for a final vote before being sent to Trump to be signed into law. Overnight from Monday into Tuesday, senators argued for or against amendments - each voted on separately in a process called "vote-a-rama". The process has lasted more than 22 hours so far. Just after 06:00 EST (11:00 GMT) Vice-President JD Vance arrived on Capitol Hill, indicating Senate Republicans may need him to cast a tie-breaking vote to push the legislation in the Senate can only afford three defections in order for the bill to pass. If they lose three votes, Vance will have to cast a tie-breaking bill's critics include Elon Musk - who has stepped up his criticism of Republicans who "campaigned on reducing government spending" and then "immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history".The tech billionaire was in charge of Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, which has been tasked to find ways of cutting government spending, until he fell out with Trump over the One Big Beautiful Bill US national debt currently sits at $36tn (£26tn), according to the treasury department. According to new estimates, the bill will add $3.3tn to that debt if it is cuts contained in the legislation could strip nearly 12 million Americans of their health insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal Republican debate has focused on how much to cut welfare programmes in order to extend $3.8tn in Trump tax of their amendments, by Senator John Cornyn, proposed reducing federal Medicaid payments - the programme that helps low-income groups cover healthcare costs - to states that provide coverage to undocumented immigrants charged with specific crimes. It was not have criticised the proposed cuts and have attempted to slow proceedings in the Ed Markey, for instance, proposed an amendment to delete provisions which he argued would force rural hospitals to limit their services or shut down amendments proposed by Democrats concerned the bill's cuts to food assistance. They were all voted down along party Republicans sided with Democrats in voting against opening debate on the bill at all - arguing for further changes to the of those Republicans, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, announced his retirement following that vote and said the legislation broke promises that Trump and Republicans made to voters."Too many elected officials are motivated by pure raw politics who really don't give a damn about the people they promised to represent on the campaign trail," Tillis wrote in his Republican Senator Rand Paul objected to the debt increase, and cuts to the bill passes the Senate, it will then return to the House of Representatives, where a full vote on the Senate's version could come as early as Wednesday original version was passed with a razor-thin majority of one last hawks of the Republican-led House Freedom Caucus have threatened to torpedo the Senate package which they say adds over $650bn to the national the uncertainty, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said Trump is "confident" the bill will be on his desk for a final signature by 4 his part, Musk has, once again, threatened to set up a new political party if the bill clears a sign of further alienation between the pair, Trump has suggested that Doge should take a look at cutting the subsidies that Tesla CEO's companies have received."Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. — BBC
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Manila's negotiator to China takes oath as Philippines' new top diplomat
MANILA: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has sworn in Theresa Lazaro, a veteran diplomat who previously led Philippine negotiations with China, as the country's new foreign affairs secretary. Lazaro took her oath on Tuesday at the presidential palace in Manila where she was also conferred with the Order of Sikatuna, a national honor of diplomatic merit, 'in recognition of her leadership and vital contributions' to Philippine foreign policy and diplomacy, Marcos' office said in a statement. 'The president underscored Lazaro's pivotal role in advancing Philippine interests in critical foreign policy issues, including maritime security, regional peace and stability, and multilateral cooperation under the ASEAN Political-Security Pillar,' it said. 'The president also recognized her leadership in establishing and revitalizing diplomatic mechanisms with traditional and emerging partners.' Lazaro served as undersecretary for bilateral relations and Association of Southeast Asian Nations affairs under her predecessor, Enrique Manalo, who will return to his role as the Philippines' permanent representative to the UN in New York. Her appointment was first announced in late May, a day after Marcos asked his cabinet members to resign as he attempted to address the people's dissatisfaction over his administration's performance and improve the quality of public service. The president has since retained some and replaced others, including the national police chief, solicitor general and foreign secretary positions. Lazaro, whose career in foreign service began in 1984, had also served as the Philippine ambassador to France and Monaco, as well as Switzerland. She is now the second woman to lead the Philippines' Department of Foreign Affairs after Delia Domingo Albert in 2003. As the foreign affairs undersecretary, Lazaro led the Philippines' negotiations with China last year over the Ayungin Shoal, also known as the Second Thomas Shoal. Between 2023 and 2024, the area in the disputed South China Sea was a flashpoint where clashes often occurred between the Philippines' navy personnel and the Chinese coast guard. Under Lazaro, the two countries reached a 'provisional understanding' in July 2024 that has since kept Philippines' resupply missions to the shoal peaceful. 'The added bonus here is that incoming Secretary Lazaro's experience being front and center in the bilateral consultative mechanisms with Beijing gives her that expertise in dealing with the Chinese. And of course, that will come in handy in future negotiations as well,' geopolitical analyst Don McLain Gill told Arab News. He added he did not expect her appointment to mark a shift in Philippine foreign policy, rather a continuity of the efforts that Marcos' administration has been pursuing, with the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East regions as 'priority areas.' 'The Indo-Pacific's Western Pacific and the Middle East, particularly the West Asia, North Africa sub-regions … these are very important and will continue to become very important,' he said.
