Why our Philippine sovereign claim to Spratleys totally different from the Senkaku/Diaoyu isles dispute of Japan/China

I think the territorial disputes of the Philippines and Japan versus China are totally different cases, and shouldn’t be lumped together as the same or even similar?

Japan Prme Minister Abe meeting Philippine President Aquino in Manila, image below sourced from interaksyon.com

I think it is in the best national interest of the Philippines to pursue our sovereignty claims on their own merits and not to mix them altogether with the controversial Senkaku/Diaoyu isles dispute between Japan and China which has totally different historical and political dynamics?

I believe our Philippine territorial claim is stronger and has better chances than Japan's historically controversial claim, and that we in the Philippines can still have much better economic as well diplomatic ties with our traditional friend China than Japan can have with its traditional historic foe China too. 

Why?

First, I believe the territorial claims of both China and the Philippines---also those of Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam---are only recent or modern-day claims in the 20th century only?

In China’s case, their Nine-Dash Line claim was---I think---formulated a century ago by then Republic of China (ROC) regime? We in the Philippines have made our territorial claims to the inhabited isles of the Spratleys first with Admiral Tomas Cloma’s personal and private claims of "Freedomland" or what is now called Pag-Asa which President Marcos got from Cloma for the Philippines?

China's Nine-Dash Line claim was done in the early 20th century, the 1898 Treaty of Paris with Spain selling the Philippines to the United States, and our 1935 Philippine Constitution doesn't indicate the Spratleys, so my point is, these uninhabited isles in Spratleys are modern-era claims by the different claimants of Asia and considered by almost all as “disputed territories”?

Admiral Cloma commemorative postage stamp, imaged sourced from philippinephilatelist.net

Image below is Admiral Cloma's flag for his self-proclaimed "Free Territory of Freedomland", sourced from en.wikipedia.com

Second, in the case of Japan’s claim on Senkaku isles, those were deemed historically part of China during the Qing Dynasty which Japanese military war and colonization annexed in the late 19th century along with its takeover of Taiwan in 1895, so historically in the perspective of the Chinese nation, those isles are the Diaoyu isles which they believe rightfully belong to China. 

The issue of the Diaoyu/Senkaku territorial dispute is sensitive due to the history of Japanese military aggression in China which climaxed during World War II, and therefore it is prudent, wise and better for us in the Philippines to not lump ourselves and our own Spratleys sovereignty claims together with the age-old wartime grudges and conflicts between Japan and China, especially that Japan is now led by a hawkish political leader?

New York Times columnist and 2-time Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas D. Kristof wrote on September 19, 2012: "I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute  between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China:  the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case." Below is a link to his blog on this issue

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?_r=0

We have had over 1,000 years of friendly relations between the Philippines and China, therefore any territorial disputes can be a disagreement between old friends? On the other hand, China---similar to the Korean nation---has age-old and bitter war memories with Japan which therefore complicates their territorial disputes on a totally different level and dimension, so their territorial dispute is a disagreement between former enemies?

Isn't it strategically prudent, pragmatic and wiser for the benefit of our immediate and long-term national interests in the Philippines to not be lumped together or in the same light as Japan, in the consciousness of China's leaders and people?

Image below of the disputed Diaoyu or Senkaku isles between China and Japan, sourced from cananewslibre.com

I am posting these ideas here, in response to the news today, which I am sharing below:

 

Philippines, Japan leaders hold talks over China disputes

By MYNARDO MACARAIG   July 27, 2013 11:10am

Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met President Benigno Aquino on Saturday as the Philippines sought to boost cooperation over growing territorial disputes with regional rival China.

The meeting comes as tensions have steadily risen between China and Japan, which accuses its growing neighbour of sending an increasing number of ships to exert its claim over unpopulated Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea.

The Philippines has also charged that China has used assertive means to exert claims in the conflict-riven South China Sea.

The first visit to Manila by a Japanese leader since December 2006 highlights the growing strategic partnership between the two Asian nations who were bitter enemies in the World War II era, officials said.

"Japan is one of our two strategic partners (besides the United States). Certainly, it (Abe trip) would be a significant visit from a strategic partner," Aquino's spokesman Edwin Lacierda told reporters ahead of Abe's arrival late Friday.

Foreign Department spokesman Raul Hernandez said the territorial disputes will be discussed by the leaders.

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera, who visited the Philippines last month, said the two countries would cooperate "in terms of the defence of remote islands... as well as protection of maritime interests".

Political scientist Rene de Castro of Manila's De La Salle University said the growing proximity was helping both nations overcome bitter World War II memories.

"As a liberal democracy, we recognise that Japan right now, is totally different from the Japan of World War II" when it occupied the Philippines, de Castro told AFP.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, in an interview with the Financial Times last year said Japan would be a "welcome" counterbalance to China's rise.

The hawkish Abe has pledged to loosen limits on the military in Japan's pacifist, post-war constitution and stand up to China over their East China Sea dispute.

Abe's government pledged in February to provide 10 patrol boats to the Philippines, which is rushing to upgrade its antiquated navy and coast guard.

China seized the Scarborough Shoal, a South China Sea outcrop just 230 kilometres (140 miles) east of the main Philippine island of Luzon, last year after Manila backed down from a lengthy stand-off.

This year the Philippines has complained about the presence of Chinese navy vessels near Filipino-held Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratly islands. - Agence France-Presse