Govt pushing exploration deal with China — Palace
BY RALPH VILLANUEVA ON OCTOBER 3, 2018 Manila Times
A joint exploration by China and the Philippines in the disputed South China Sea (SCS) will help alleviate rising oil prices in the country, Malacañang said on Tuesday.
On Tuesday morning, Caltex, Eastern Petroleum, Flying V, Petro Gazz, Pilipinas Shell, Phoenix Petroleum, PTT Philippines, Seaoil, Total and Unioil adjusted their pump prices.
The price hike brings the common price of diesel to P48.30 per liter, gasoline to P59 per liter and kerosene to P53.67 per liter.
In a news briefing, Palace spokesman Harry Roque Jr. said that according to past studies, Service Contract (SC) 72 in the Recto Bank (Reed Bank) houses abundant oil supply, which would lessen the Philippines’ reliance on imported fuel.
“Filipinos understand that we cannot do anything if there are no [stocks of]gasoline in our country. Which is why we are studying and pushing for the joint exploration in the West Philippine Sea, because as we understand it, based on studies, there are natural gas and oil in SC 72,” Roque added.
“The President said if we will let rifts [with China]stop the exploration in SC 72, what will happen to us? We will still rely on the imported oil. Now, it is clear. We need to push for the joint exploration,” he said.
There are no other places in the Philippines that have oil and natural gas, but SC 72, according to Roque.
He said both countries are looking into signing a treaty on the joint exploration before Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives in the Philippines in November.
Xi is expected to visit the country after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Papua New Guinea next month.
“We are doing everything we can to make sure that when President Xi comes here, we can sign a joint exploration and we can start finding natural gas and oil, so we will have energy security,” Roque said.
Duterte has kept a cordial relationship with China since taking his oath as President.
He has also visibly taken a much softer stance against China over land and water disputes compared to his predecessor, Benigno Aquino 3rd, who filed an arbitration case against Beijing over the disputed SCS (West Philippine Sea).
This is despite China’s installation of missiles and other militarization efforts in the area and the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration’s thrashing of China’s “nine-dash claim” on the entire West Philippine Sea, after the issuance of the The Hague ruling on July 12, 2016.
The ruling declared that Filipino fishermen should enjoy fishing rights at the Panatag Shoal and that the Spratly Islands, as well as the Panganiban (Mischief) Reef and Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal.
Duterte has repeatedly said he is willing to have a joint exploration in the area with China.
He also defended his approach, saying it would be better if the Philippines was kept in China’s good side because if not, an unwinnable war might follow.
A joint exploration by China and the Philippines in the disputed South China Sea (SCS) will help alleviate rising oil prices in the country, Malacañang said on Tuesday.
On Tuesday morning, Caltex, Eastern Petroleum, Flying V, Petro Gazz, Pilipinas Shell, Phoenix Petroleum, PTT Philippines, Seaoil, Total and Unioil adjusted their pump prices.
The price hike brings the common price of diesel to P48.30 per liter, gasoline to P59 per liter and kerosene to P53.67 per liter.
In a news briefing, Palace spokesman Harry Roque Jr. said that according to past studies, Service Contract (SC) 72 in the Recto Bank (Reed Bank) houses abundant oil supply, which would lessen the Philippines’ reliance on imported fuel.
“Filipinos understand that we cannot do anything if there are no [stocks of]gasoline in our country. Which is why we are studying and pushing for the joint exploration in the West Philippine Sea, because as we understand it, based on studies, there are natural gas and oil in SC 72,” Roque added.
“The President said if we will let rifts [with China]stop the exploration in SC 72, what will happen to us? We will still rely on the imported oil. Now, it is clear. We need to push for the joint exploration,” he said.
There are no other places in the Philippines that have oil and natural gas, but SC 72, according to Roque.
He said both countries are looking into signing a treaty on the joint exploration before Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives in the Philippines in November.
Xi is expected to visit the country after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Papua New Guinea next month.
“We are doing everything we can to make sure that when President Xi comes here, we can sign a joint exploration and we can start finding natural gas and oil, so we will have energy security,” Roque said.
Duterte has kept a cordial relationship with China since taking his oath as President.
He has also visibly taken a much softer stance against China over land and water disputes compared to his predecessor, Benigno Aquino 3rd, who filed an arbitration case against Beijing over the disputed SCS (West Philippine Sea).
This is despite China’s installation of missiles and other militarization efforts in the area and the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration’s thrashing of China’s “nine-dash claim” on the entire West Philippine Sea, after the issuance of the The Hague ruling on July 12, 2016.
The ruling declared that Filipino fishermen should enjoy fishing rights at the Panatag Shoal and that the Spratly Islands, as well as the Panganiban (Mischief) Reef and Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal.
Duterte has repeatedly said he is willing to have a joint exploration in the area with China.
He also defended his approach, saying it would be better if the Philippines was kept in China’s good side because if not, an unwinnable war might follow.
The true independent foreign policy
By Gil Santos, Manila Times, July 3, 2017
IN this 21st-century age of information, communications, knowledge and advanced technologies, there appears to be some confusion on the interpretation—and application in real life—of what is the meaning of an independent foreign policy.
Some of my friends in civil society and even in school criticize President Rodrigo R. Duterte for “being too friendly with China—and Russia. And he is grossly misled by anti-Americans in his circle to abandon and blast away at the US, a tested ally from way back after we suffered a lot from the Spanish colonial oppression.”
They add “he should be aware that China is using its newly found economic (and growing military power) prowess as a tool to influence and control the less developed countries in the world.”
“We must all be wary of the Chinese financial aid and its offer to build the railway infrastructure to connect Beijing with the rest of the world. It is now doing this to stretch its geopolitical persuasion in the Southeast Asian region, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America.”
On the other hand, some pro-Chinese friends (and also my students) clearly state by asking: “But is it not a fact that the Chinese and the Russians—regardless of their communist ideologies—are only interested in promoting trade and total economic activities which will eventually result in progress for all?”
But in comparison, consider what the Americans have done to us. They made us a dumping ground of their exports since they started colonizing us before the turn of the 20th century. And they made exporters of raw materials exclusively to the US for more than half a century. Washington even murdered our people who did not want to surrender to them. Remember how General Pershing ordered the development of the .45 caliber automatic hand gun against our Muslim brothers they could not conquer? And their Balangiga massacre and how they murdered Gen. Gregorio del Pilar?
“And China never invaded nor conquered any country.”
The culprit here, and that is no-brainer, are their respective biases, or lack of historical background, lack of verified information and a lot of perception. In the end, there is only one logical solution to this misunderstanding of what true sense of Filipino nationalism: A rewritten—or correction of—Philippine history to set our national unity and even to understand the need for regional (Asean) unification in this 21st century.
Rewriting history for accurate knowledge of our past, so we can truly understand and appreciate how we came to our present state of mind and economic-political development—and enable ourselves to strategically plan our common future—is no joke. Easily, it will need some five years of detailed and thorough research and vetting even with the scientific and communications (internet) technologies which forces manufacturers to set shorter obsolescence period of miniaturized mobile devices.
It will need a set of researchers, writers and editors to accomplish—and millions of pesos. My argument in favor of rewriting our past and present is simple: Yes, it is expensive. But do you want ignorance and confusion instead?
I agree that there should be an assessment of President Durerte’s first year in office. But his record, efficiency or effectiveness must not be compared with that of the other Presidents we had because the circumstance under each elected President are not the same.
All factors affecting foreign policies of any nation are dynamic. Domestic and global factors that affect foreign polices of nations change daily; and these must be scrutinized in evaluating public policies. Otherwise, any assessment that skips that process will end up convoluted and irrelevant at best.
Don’t believe. Ask our able and retired diplomats and former national public figures who are members of the Philippine Council of Foreign Relations under the leadership of former Ambassador Jose V. Romero Jr. and former national security deputy director Dr. Alan Ortiz.
One cannot just depend on the daily domestic media commentators and columnists or newspapers and hearsay. You must have the necessary network of sources of data and the capacity to get policy statements from the horses mouth, so to speak. That requires a good amount of experience, personal networking developed over years of actual work, and maturity.
There are always two sides of any event, person or historical period one analyst and interpretative writer must go over with a fine-tooth comb. For example, some Japanese scholar I have met in Tokyo know that the Chinese emperors tried to invade Tokyo centuries ago, But the Chinese naval commanders did not foresee the weather and in two separate occasions, their attacking junks and troops were beaten by the typhoons that sank them in the Bay of Tokyo.
True, the present Chinese leadership know they can use their new international economic status to help world development because their offer of railway systems to to the Asean members will increase trade for the developing, less wealthy nations of Southeast Asia.
The Americans were in the same situation when Henry Ford went into mass-producing the motor vehicle so “our citizens can realize the American dream of owning a home and two cars”. That was the beginning of the American economic dominance in the world.
The Germans and the Japanese had the same experiences or historical eras of their own that propelled their economies to new heights. So did the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Romans, the Dutch, the British, the Scandinavians before and during the first industrial revolution.
In all cases, the desire or ambition to be the word hegemon were fired in all of them—without exception.
So what will make China and Russia exceptions, when the trigger of all world conflicts is the burning desire in each national leadership—particularly when their countries become world powers (and they necessarily build up their military powers or offense weapons in the diplomatic guise of “defense weaponry to protect our sovereignty”). I’m not saying China and Russia will colonize us.
My point is simple: an independent foreign policy like President Duterte is now practicing, means being friendly and trading with every other nation we can export to and import less from, regardless of ideological considerations.
It requires the implementers to consider what is best for the Philippines and the Filipinos first before going into any deals of any sort—bilateral or multilateral.
In this century of globalization, and to a certain extent regionalization, progress means –in simple terms and Philippine context—having internal peace and stability, with food and water security in a sustainable environment rich in natural resources.
The urgent need now—in the Philippines and the entire Asean—are communicators to get accurate information to trickle down to the grassroots level and cost-efficient managers of our natural resources to insure sustainable development.
Comments and reactions to [email protected]
IN this 21st-century age of information, communications, knowledge and advanced technologies, there appears to be some confusion on the interpretation—and application in real life—of what is the meaning of an independent foreign policy.
Some of my friends in civil society and even in school criticize President Rodrigo R. Duterte for “being too friendly with China—and Russia. And he is grossly misled by anti-Americans in his circle to abandon and blast away at the US, a tested ally from way back after we suffered a lot from the Spanish colonial oppression.”
They add “he should be aware that China is using its newly found economic (and growing military power) prowess as a tool to influence and control the less developed countries in the world.”
“We must all be wary of the Chinese financial aid and its offer to build the railway infrastructure to connect Beijing with the rest of the world. It is now doing this to stretch its geopolitical persuasion in the Southeast Asian region, Africa, Central Asia and Latin America.”
On the other hand, some pro-Chinese friends (and also my students) clearly state by asking: “But is it not a fact that the Chinese and the Russians—regardless of their communist ideologies—are only interested in promoting trade and total economic activities which will eventually result in progress for all?”
But in comparison, consider what the Americans have done to us. They made us a dumping ground of their exports since they started colonizing us before the turn of the 20th century. And they made exporters of raw materials exclusively to the US for more than half a century. Washington even murdered our people who did not want to surrender to them. Remember how General Pershing ordered the development of the .45 caliber automatic hand gun against our Muslim brothers they could not conquer? And their Balangiga massacre and how they murdered Gen. Gregorio del Pilar?
“And China never invaded nor conquered any country.”
The culprit here, and that is no-brainer, are their respective biases, or lack of historical background, lack of verified information and a lot of perception. In the end, there is only one logical solution to this misunderstanding of what true sense of Filipino nationalism: A rewritten—or correction of—Philippine history to set our national unity and even to understand the need for regional (Asean) unification in this 21st century.
Rewriting history for accurate knowledge of our past, so we can truly understand and appreciate how we came to our present state of mind and economic-political development—and enable ourselves to strategically plan our common future—is no joke. Easily, it will need some five years of detailed and thorough research and vetting even with the scientific and communications (internet) technologies which forces manufacturers to set shorter obsolescence period of miniaturized mobile devices.
It will need a set of researchers, writers and editors to accomplish—and millions of pesos. My argument in favor of rewriting our past and present is simple: Yes, it is expensive. But do you want ignorance and confusion instead?
I agree that there should be an assessment of President Durerte’s first year in office. But his record, efficiency or effectiveness must not be compared with that of the other Presidents we had because the circumstance under each elected President are not the same.
All factors affecting foreign policies of any nation are dynamic. Domestic and global factors that affect foreign polices of nations change daily; and these must be scrutinized in evaluating public policies. Otherwise, any assessment that skips that process will end up convoluted and irrelevant at best.
Don’t believe. Ask our able and retired diplomats and former national public figures who are members of the Philippine Council of Foreign Relations under the leadership of former Ambassador Jose V. Romero Jr. and former national security deputy director Dr. Alan Ortiz.
One cannot just depend on the daily domestic media commentators and columnists or newspapers and hearsay. You must have the necessary network of sources of data and the capacity to get policy statements from the horses mouth, so to speak. That requires a good amount of experience, personal networking developed over years of actual work, and maturity.
There are always two sides of any event, person or historical period one analyst and interpretative writer must go over with a fine-tooth comb. For example, some Japanese scholar I have met in Tokyo know that the Chinese emperors tried to invade Tokyo centuries ago, But the Chinese naval commanders did not foresee the weather and in two separate occasions, their attacking junks and troops were beaten by the typhoons that sank them in the Bay of Tokyo.
True, the present Chinese leadership know they can use their new international economic status to help world development because their offer of railway systems to to the Asean members will increase trade for the developing, less wealthy nations of Southeast Asia.
The Americans were in the same situation when Henry Ford went into mass-producing the motor vehicle so “our citizens can realize the American dream of owning a home and two cars”. That was the beginning of the American economic dominance in the world.
The Germans and the Japanese had the same experiences or historical eras of their own that propelled their economies to new heights. So did the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Romans, the Dutch, the British, the Scandinavians before and during the first industrial revolution.
In all cases, the desire or ambition to be the word hegemon were fired in all of them—without exception.
So what will make China and Russia exceptions, when the trigger of all world conflicts is the burning desire in each national leadership—particularly when their countries become world powers (and they necessarily build up their military powers or offense weapons in the diplomatic guise of “defense weaponry to protect our sovereignty”). I’m not saying China and Russia will colonize us.
My point is simple: an independent foreign policy like President Duterte is now practicing, means being friendly and trading with every other nation we can export to and import less from, regardless of ideological considerations.
It requires the implementers to consider what is best for the Philippines and the Filipinos first before going into any deals of any sort—bilateral or multilateral.
In this century of globalization, and to a certain extent regionalization, progress means –in simple terms and Philippine context—having internal peace and stability, with food and water security in a sustainable environment rich in natural resources.
The urgent need now—in the Philippines and the entire Asean—are communicators to get accurate information to trickle down to the grassroots level and cost-efficient managers of our natural resources to insure sustainable development.
Comments and reactions to [email protected]
Asean can defuse China Sea standoff
on February 25, 2017 JOSE V. ROMERO JR., PHD.
THE summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) being hosted by the Philippines this year has an opportunity to defuse the escalating tension in the China Sea. With all the claimants sitting around the table some progress can be achieved if the dialogue among the participants effectively moderate behavior and expectations in the South China Sea. With a spirit of give and take, the multilateral dialogues can produce new regional initiatives that can enhance cooperation on less sensitive issues, such as the environment, scientific research and eventually cooperative resource management. This in turn can lead to the final solution of the South China Sea dispute.
The disputed zones of the South China Sea have become more intractable with parties upholding and disavowing the decision of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In view of differing interpretations of UNCLOS and to long-standing conflicting historical claims, any resolution to this problem must involve more than legal resolutions and needs a political settlement.
Claimants to the vast ocean should consider the South China Sea not as a divisive “maritime territory” waiting to be carved up, or a venue for threats and incursions, as a writer has pointed out, and instead look at it as a source of animal protein and energy, a regional maritime bridge, and an international thoroughfare to be shared by the people living around it. It should be considered as a transport route for all the world’s merchant fleets and navies so that it could indeed be a boon to a region now vacated by colonialists. In sum, the vast China Sea should not produce a wall separating neighbors but rather a bridge to connect them.
After years of talks culminating in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002, which expressed the desire of claimants to the disputed territory to exercise restraint in the conduct of activities that may complicate or escalate the disputes, it appears that the DOC has failed to restrain its signatories.
Given the above, it is humbly suggested that Asean now break out of its narrow confines and reach out to East Asia to defuse the situations. It needs to move beyond the idea of “codes of conduct,” institution- building and norm-setting, and look forward to the establishment of a more comprehensive security scenario.
No less than a new governance approach, with emphasis on participation, partnership, negotiation and consensus, represents a system leading towards a soft regional integration in Southeast Asia and to some degree within East Asia as a whole.
This cooperative approach can be termed “soft governance” which can provide a way forward more effectively than “soft regionalism,” which often involves a loose, informal integration centered on consensus, as in the Asean system.
However, it is accepted that soft integration, based on continued dialogue and consensus, can be extremely difficult to effectively apply or engage in the case where key clashes of sovereign interest apply (as in a direct attempt to solve territorial claims in the South China Sea). However, a great deal of collaboration can be made in a range of other problems of transnational environmental pollution, biodiversity protection, illegal labor flows and piracy. Starting with collaboration on data collection and scientific research, the parties could slowly move towards the agreed grounds for cooperative action, e.g. shared “environmental security protocol” etc.
Given the environmental/ecological situation, the inadequacies of charts, the absence of search and rescue or pollution response capacity, and the virtual absence of monitoring and enforcement, the stakeholders of the South China Sea could perhaps agree on soft regional governance which could be most effective in enhancing the regional move towards preventive diplomacy.
Moves by China to develop its economic and military capabilities to enhance its comprehensive national strength has raised fears among her neighbors who view this as a prelude to a long-term strategy designed to secure a stronger control of the South China Sea and its resources. This negative perception has been moderated, however, by a greater appreciation of a new phase of Chinese policy, which has begun to explore a more cooperative approach with its Southeast Asian neighbors, including Vietnam and this country. The exchange of visits by the heads of state of these countries is mute testimony to the warming of relations which has helped to decrease tension among the claimant countries.
Chinese policies towards the South China Sea seemed to be locked in the two horns of a dilemma—the desire to protect what are viewed as sovereign territories and the desire to maintain a highly cooperative “partnership” with the Southeast Asian nations. Understandably, China is eager to protect its soft underbelly in the south and to right past wrongs in what it considers a century of humiliation in the hands of Western powers. It undeniably also wants to maintain sovereignty in the face of rival superpowers, as well as the need to secure oil, gas and fishery resources. In effect, this is perceived by observers as an attempt by one “nationalistic” China seeking to re-establish its Middle Kingdom status in East Asia.
China wants to soften this image by emphasizing that Chinese foreign policy focuses on cooperation, with a disdain for superpower hegemonies and reliance on a “soft” power approach in diplomacy, alongside more forceful forms of dialogue. For China, the stability of the Asia Pacific and peaceful relations with major trading partners is the sine qua non for the modernization of China and preferable to whatever micro-gains that might be extracted from a more assertive South China Sea approach.
Given all the attending circumstances in the China Sea dispute, the complete resolution of all claims can start with confidence-building measures and creative diplomacy that can hopefully reduce tensions and significantly improve the security of the region.
Some have suggested that, at this stage in international affairs, a re-investment in comprehensive security at the regional level could well reduce certain blockages in regional cooperation and initiate a deepened round of negotiations in the Asean + 3—referring to the 10 member countries of Asean, plus their three dialogue partners of Japan, Korea and China—setting. Accordingly, it has been suggested that a comprehensive security dialogue be shifted from track 2 towards “track one-and-a-half” as a prelude to a more explicit role in Asean within a wider dialogue process.
Here, Asean indeed needs to break out of its cocoon and reach out to East Asia and the wider Asia Pacific. Not that this idea is a novel one. The concept of Neo-Asianism, with the emergence of Asian consciousness and identity followed the departure of the colonial masters. Indeed, an “Asian Renaissance” is one which Lee Kwan Yew described as a dream that has never faded away. It will be recalled that as early as the 1970s the South Koreans had presented the concept of an Asian Common Market. This was followed by the Japanese with its modern version of an Asian Co-prosperity Sphere. Not to be forgotten was Dr. Mahathir’s call for an East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC) in the 1990s.
The Asian monetary crisis in the late 1990s which saw the impotence of the Asean, APEC and the IMF for their failure to come to the rescue of beleaguered Asian economies triggered the Ching Mai initiative of late which showed the potential of an Asean + 3 (APT) to make up for the shortcomings relying solely on international groupings and institutions. It also bolstered confidence that regionalism albeit expanded to include APT can do the trick.
Combined with the positive shift towards cooperation in China’s engagement with its periphery, as indicated by its seemingly successful projection of soft power in the region, there is now a real possibility that a wider cooperative agenda can begin within the limits of objectives set out by the APT framework.
A deepened East Asian cooperation with Asean offers the best arena for enhancing comprehensive security at the regional level. Asean itself and an Asean-Plus grouping may be more effective levels for building convergence on patterns of governance and a genuine move towards comprehensive security beyond the foreign policies of individual states. Indeed, a regional security area that could lay the foundation for a widened regional society with Chinese, South Korean and Japanese commitment could be more effective in securing a zone of peace in the region.
Indeed, an APT framework could be deepened to seek regional solutions to outstanding problems. The methods used should be based on “soft” governance principles, rather than on coercive rule enforcement, and in contrast to narrow bargaining over national interests. It could start by tackling those areas that do not invoke mutually incompatible claims and build confidence in this new framework. The problems of regional piracy and environmental pollution in the South China Sea could be low-threat starting points, points noted as far back as the 1992 Asean Declaration on the South China Sea. There could be cooperation over the existential threat of piracy as a starter. This could be followed by cooperation in the management and protection of people around the area who are periodically ravaged by typhoons, floods, pollution, and depletion of fish stocks, piracy and war.
As we write, this country is seeking the help of both China and the United States to combat sea pirates in the light of apparent militant Islamist attacks on international shipping. An existential threat to this country and its neighbors are possible attacks along the Sibutu Passage between Sabah and southern Philippines. This deepwater channel is used by 13,000 vessels annually and offers a short cut between Australia and the East Asian manufacturing giants–China, Japan and South Korea.
Over time deepened commitments to regional comprehensive security will help to reduce threats—social and economic—in the face of a turbulent global system, lessen the arms race and make disputed claims in the South China Sea opportunities for cooperation rather than conflict.
For this, the joint cooperation between Asean and China, Japan and South Korea in areas of comprehensive security would be essential. Japan’s offer to help improve coast guard operations in Southeast Asia, based on its concern over piracy against Japanese ships and major oil or LNG carriers, is a promising sign of a more proactive stance. For this to happen, there will have to be more cooperation between China and Japan on security issues. This could only happen if both countries bury the hatchet, so to speak.
Chinese concerns over sustained economic development, over the future of Taiwan, of expansion in the South China Sea, over defense modernization and increased power projection abilities, and a latent containment policy by a US coalition, has in the past prevented China from providing regional leadership.
Today, however, China may have stopped wailing over its century of humiliation as it braces itself as a great power preparing to be more assertive. The One Road, One Belt (OBOR) initiative and the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) is China’s attempt to convince its neighbors that it has no intention of bullying them, even after it becomes economically stronger.
The involvement of both China and Japan in Asean designs is a healthy development in that the process is likely to produce a check and balance to eliminate some of the risks of either of these great powers gaining too much unilateral influence. Indeed, the quest for a “stable and legitimate” regional order, linking different integrative circles at the levels of Southeast Asia, East Asia and the Asia Pacific can only be the best situation for Asean.
Moving away from the geopolitical issues and going into the geo-economic—in the absence of the doomed Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative of the US—the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership proposal of China, plus her landmark program, the OBOR—which promises to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure projects, e.g. railways, ports and power grids across Asia, Africa and Europe, to be underwritten by the AIIB—should be the centerpiece in any Asean + 3 dialogue, one which would could place in the backburner the raging controversy surrounding claims in the South China Sea which can now be discussed in a more congenial atmosphere après the above confidence-building measures.
Let’s face it, the sustainable development of the Asean does not lie in its pulling itself by its own bootstraps, so to speak, but by engaging geopolitically and geo-economically its larger periphery controlled by economic and political superpowers in East Asia and the Asia Pacific. The fact is the Asean intra-regional trade is much smaller than its interregional trade and its security relies mostly on a modus vivendi with the superpowers.
THE summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) being hosted by the Philippines this year has an opportunity to defuse the escalating tension in the China Sea. With all the claimants sitting around the table some progress can be achieved if the dialogue among the participants effectively moderate behavior and expectations in the South China Sea. With a spirit of give and take, the multilateral dialogues can produce new regional initiatives that can enhance cooperation on less sensitive issues, such as the environment, scientific research and eventually cooperative resource management. This in turn can lead to the final solution of the South China Sea dispute.
The disputed zones of the South China Sea have become more intractable with parties upholding and disavowing the decision of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In view of differing interpretations of UNCLOS and to long-standing conflicting historical claims, any resolution to this problem must involve more than legal resolutions and needs a political settlement.
Claimants to the vast ocean should consider the South China Sea not as a divisive “maritime territory” waiting to be carved up, or a venue for threats and incursions, as a writer has pointed out, and instead look at it as a source of animal protein and energy, a regional maritime bridge, and an international thoroughfare to be shared by the people living around it. It should be considered as a transport route for all the world’s merchant fleets and navies so that it could indeed be a boon to a region now vacated by colonialists. In sum, the vast China Sea should not produce a wall separating neighbors but rather a bridge to connect them.
After years of talks culminating in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002, which expressed the desire of claimants to the disputed territory to exercise restraint in the conduct of activities that may complicate or escalate the disputes, it appears that the DOC has failed to restrain its signatories.
Given the above, it is humbly suggested that Asean now break out of its narrow confines and reach out to East Asia to defuse the situations. It needs to move beyond the idea of “codes of conduct,” institution- building and norm-setting, and look forward to the establishment of a more comprehensive security scenario.
No less than a new governance approach, with emphasis on participation, partnership, negotiation and consensus, represents a system leading towards a soft regional integration in Southeast Asia and to some degree within East Asia as a whole.
This cooperative approach can be termed “soft governance” which can provide a way forward more effectively than “soft regionalism,” which often involves a loose, informal integration centered on consensus, as in the Asean system.
However, it is accepted that soft integration, based on continued dialogue and consensus, can be extremely difficult to effectively apply or engage in the case where key clashes of sovereign interest apply (as in a direct attempt to solve territorial claims in the South China Sea). However, a great deal of collaboration can be made in a range of other problems of transnational environmental pollution, biodiversity protection, illegal labor flows and piracy. Starting with collaboration on data collection and scientific research, the parties could slowly move towards the agreed grounds for cooperative action, e.g. shared “environmental security protocol” etc.
Given the environmental/ecological situation, the inadequacies of charts, the absence of search and rescue or pollution response capacity, and the virtual absence of monitoring and enforcement, the stakeholders of the South China Sea could perhaps agree on soft regional governance which could be most effective in enhancing the regional move towards preventive diplomacy.
Moves by China to develop its economic and military capabilities to enhance its comprehensive national strength has raised fears among her neighbors who view this as a prelude to a long-term strategy designed to secure a stronger control of the South China Sea and its resources. This negative perception has been moderated, however, by a greater appreciation of a new phase of Chinese policy, which has begun to explore a more cooperative approach with its Southeast Asian neighbors, including Vietnam and this country. The exchange of visits by the heads of state of these countries is mute testimony to the warming of relations which has helped to decrease tension among the claimant countries.
Chinese policies towards the South China Sea seemed to be locked in the two horns of a dilemma—the desire to protect what are viewed as sovereign territories and the desire to maintain a highly cooperative “partnership” with the Southeast Asian nations. Understandably, China is eager to protect its soft underbelly in the south and to right past wrongs in what it considers a century of humiliation in the hands of Western powers. It undeniably also wants to maintain sovereignty in the face of rival superpowers, as well as the need to secure oil, gas and fishery resources. In effect, this is perceived by observers as an attempt by one “nationalistic” China seeking to re-establish its Middle Kingdom status in East Asia.
China wants to soften this image by emphasizing that Chinese foreign policy focuses on cooperation, with a disdain for superpower hegemonies and reliance on a “soft” power approach in diplomacy, alongside more forceful forms of dialogue. For China, the stability of the Asia Pacific and peaceful relations with major trading partners is the sine qua non for the modernization of China and preferable to whatever micro-gains that might be extracted from a more assertive South China Sea approach.
Given all the attending circumstances in the China Sea dispute, the complete resolution of all claims can start with confidence-building measures and creative diplomacy that can hopefully reduce tensions and significantly improve the security of the region.
Some have suggested that, at this stage in international affairs, a re-investment in comprehensive security at the regional level could well reduce certain blockages in regional cooperation and initiate a deepened round of negotiations in the Asean + 3—referring to the 10 member countries of Asean, plus their three dialogue partners of Japan, Korea and China—setting. Accordingly, it has been suggested that a comprehensive security dialogue be shifted from track 2 towards “track one-and-a-half” as a prelude to a more explicit role in Asean within a wider dialogue process.
Here, Asean indeed needs to break out of its cocoon and reach out to East Asia and the wider Asia Pacific. Not that this idea is a novel one. The concept of Neo-Asianism, with the emergence of Asian consciousness and identity followed the departure of the colonial masters. Indeed, an “Asian Renaissance” is one which Lee Kwan Yew described as a dream that has never faded away. It will be recalled that as early as the 1970s the South Koreans had presented the concept of an Asian Common Market. This was followed by the Japanese with its modern version of an Asian Co-prosperity Sphere. Not to be forgotten was Dr. Mahathir’s call for an East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC) in the 1990s.
The Asian monetary crisis in the late 1990s which saw the impotence of the Asean, APEC and the IMF for their failure to come to the rescue of beleaguered Asian economies triggered the Ching Mai initiative of late which showed the potential of an Asean + 3 (APT) to make up for the shortcomings relying solely on international groupings and institutions. It also bolstered confidence that regionalism albeit expanded to include APT can do the trick.
Combined with the positive shift towards cooperation in China’s engagement with its periphery, as indicated by its seemingly successful projection of soft power in the region, there is now a real possibility that a wider cooperative agenda can begin within the limits of objectives set out by the APT framework.
A deepened East Asian cooperation with Asean offers the best arena for enhancing comprehensive security at the regional level. Asean itself and an Asean-Plus grouping may be more effective levels for building convergence on patterns of governance and a genuine move towards comprehensive security beyond the foreign policies of individual states. Indeed, a regional security area that could lay the foundation for a widened regional society with Chinese, South Korean and Japanese commitment could be more effective in securing a zone of peace in the region.
Indeed, an APT framework could be deepened to seek regional solutions to outstanding problems. The methods used should be based on “soft” governance principles, rather than on coercive rule enforcement, and in contrast to narrow bargaining over national interests. It could start by tackling those areas that do not invoke mutually incompatible claims and build confidence in this new framework. The problems of regional piracy and environmental pollution in the South China Sea could be low-threat starting points, points noted as far back as the 1992 Asean Declaration on the South China Sea. There could be cooperation over the existential threat of piracy as a starter. This could be followed by cooperation in the management and protection of people around the area who are periodically ravaged by typhoons, floods, pollution, and depletion of fish stocks, piracy and war.
As we write, this country is seeking the help of both China and the United States to combat sea pirates in the light of apparent militant Islamist attacks on international shipping. An existential threat to this country and its neighbors are possible attacks along the Sibutu Passage between Sabah and southern Philippines. This deepwater channel is used by 13,000 vessels annually and offers a short cut between Australia and the East Asian manufacturing giants–China, Japan and South Korea.
Over time deepened commitments to regional comprehensive security will help to reduce threats—social and economic—in the face of a turbulent global system, lessen the arms race and make disputed claims in the South China Sea opportunities for cooperation rather than conflict.
For this, the joint cooperation between Asean and China, Japan and South Korea in areas of comprehensive security would be essential. Japan’s offer to help improve coast guard operations in Southeast Asia, based on its concern over piracy against Japanese ships and major oil or LNG carriers, is a promising sign of a more proactive stance. For this to happen, there will have to be more cooperation between China and Japan on security issues. This could only happen if both countries bury the hatchet, so to speak.
Chinese concerns over sustained economic development, over the future of Taiwan, of expansion in the South China Sea, over defense modernization and increased power projection abilities, and a latent containment policy by a US coalition, has in the past prevented China from providing regional leadership.
Today, however, China may have stopped wailing over its century of humiliation as it braces itself as a great power preparing to be more assertive. The One Road, One Belt (OBOR) initiative and the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) is China’s attempt to convince its neighbors that it has no intention of bullying them, even after it becomes economically stronger.
The involvement of both China and Japan in Asean designs is a healthy development in that the process is likely to produce a check and balance to eliminate some of the risks of either of these great powers gaining too much unilateral influence. Indeed, the quest for a “stable and legitimate” regional order, linking different integrative circles at the levels of Southeast Asia, East Asia and the Asia Pacific can only be the best situation for Asean.
Moving away from the geopolitical issues and going into the geo-economic—in the absence of the doomed Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative of the US—the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership proposal of China, plus her landmark program, the OBOR—which promises to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure projects, e.g. railways, ports and power grids across Asia, Africa and Europe, to be underwritten by the AIIB—should be the centerpiece in any Asean + 3 dialogue, one which would could place in the backburner the raging controversy surrounding claims in the South China Sea which can now be discussed in a more congenial atmosphere après the above confidence-building measures.
Let’s face it, the sustainable development of the Asean does not lie in its pulling itself by its own bootstraps, so to speak, but by engaging geopolitically and geo-economically its larger periphery controlled by economic and political superpowers in East Asia and the Asia Pacific. The fact is the Asean intra-regional trade is much smaller than its interregional trade and its security relies mostly on a modus vivendi with the superpowers.
PHL officially launches ASEAN 2017
January 15, 2017, GMA News
The Philippines on Sunday officially launched its chairmanship of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit 2017.
"I am truly honored and humbled as we launch the Philippine chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN," President Rodrigo R. Duterte said in a speech during the launching in Davao City.
According to Duterte, the event will note the "enduring ties" that bind the ASEAN member states, "affirm shared cooperations," and "secure the future" of the regional organization, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year.
Duterte also reminded member countries of their commitment to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and urged them to observe "non-interference in promoting regional peace and stability, with respect for rule of law."
He also called on the members to "renew a solemn pledge to do all we can for the very core of our national and regional interest," he said.
Duterte in September accepted the chairmanship of the ASEAN Summit, saying the Philippines in the role would highlight the association as a model of regionalism.
"We will pursue initiative and enhance cooperation with global partners to ensure that ASEAN citizens live in peace, stability, security and growth, all the while remaining ASEAN’s centrality, unity, and solidarity, we will maintain for all times," he said in his speech in Laos.
For this year, the Philippines has set the theme "Partnering for Change, Engaging the World."
The government has also set six thematic priorities to be discussed by ASEAN leaders throughout the year:
- Peace and stability in the region
- Maritime security and cooperation
- Inclusive, innovation-led growth
- ASEAN's resiliency
- A people-oriented and people-centered ASEAN
- ASEAN: A model of regionalism, a global player
"Let us work hand in hand to make this vision a reality," Duterte said.
This was echoed by Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto R. Yasay, Jr. who noted that the event was an opportunity to further strengthen ties within the region.
"[The ASEAN is a] momentous convergence which vast delivers a powerful message of the centrality of this great assembly of nations," he said.
Other events for this year will include the 30th ASEAN Summit in April, the 50th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in August, and the 31st ASEAN Summit in November. — Jon Viktor D. Cabuenas/BM, GMA News
Abe is peacemaker between Duterte, US, diplomats say
Christian V. Esguerra,
ABS-CBN News, Jan 11 2017 MANILA - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's planned visit to President Rodrigo Duterte's modest house in Davao City is a sign that he wants to deepen their friendship as he seeks to "repair" strained relations between the Philippines and their common ally, the US, former diplomats said Wednesday.
The visit to Duterte's 200-square-meter property will be "the best compliment" coming from the Japanese leader, who rolled out the red carpet for him in Tokyo last October, said retired ambassador Jose Romero, who heads the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations.
Abe is set to arrive Thursday in Manila where Duterte will host a state dinner for him in Malacañang. He will fly to Davao City the following day.
"In Japan, culturally speaking, an invitation to a home is really a sign of friendship and confidence," Romero told ABS-CBN News.
"He is trying to tell the world that he and Duterte have struck a really close relationship and I think that's the symbolism of this visit to Davao."
The approach is strategic for Abe who can help bridge the gap between Duterte and the United States, said former Ambassador Jose Apolinario Lozada.
Abe, a close ally of Washington, is the "right person" for the job because of his "better appreciation" of the Philippine leader's demeanor and approach to governance, Lozada said.
"Abe knows that Duterte is very informal in dealings with everybody and the more informal he is to a person, the closer he really gets (to him)," Lozada told ABS-CBN News.
Duterte's so-called pivot to China has concerned Washington and Tokyo, whose traditional alliance with Manila is meant to counter Beijing's growing influence in the Pacific.
With Duterte seemingly unwilling to listen to Western leaders, Abe can serve as "the messenger of the group to lay down the foundation for better relations," Lozada said.
"I tend to believe that it is the most important consideration of his visit... to repair the relations between the Philippine leadership and the Western leadership," he said.
ABS-CBN News, Jan 11 2017 MANILA - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's planned visit to President Rodrigo Duterte's modest house in Davao City is a sign that he wants to deepen their friendship as he seeks to "repair" strained relations between the Philippines and their common ally, the US, former diplomats said Wednesday.
The visit to Duterte's 200-square-meter property will be "the best compliment" coming from the Japanese leader, who rolled out the red carpet for him in Tokyo last October, said retired ambassador Jose Romero, who heads the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations.
Abe is set to arrive Thursday in Manila where Duterte will host a state dinner for him in Malacañang. He will fly to Davao City the following day.
"In Japan, culturally speaking, an invitation to a home is really a sign of friendship and confidence," Romero told ABS-CBN News.
"He is trying to tell the world that he and Duterte have struck a really close relationship and I think that's the symbolism of this visit to Davao."
The approach is strategic for Abe who can help bridge the gap between Duterte and the United States, said former Ambassador Jose Apolinario Lozada.
Abe, a close ally of Washington, is the "right person" for the job because of his "better appreciation" of the Philippine leader's demeanor and approach to governance, Lozada said.
"Abe knows that Duterte is very informal in dealings with everybody and the more informal he is to a person, the closer he really gets (to him)," Lozada told ABS-CBN News.
Duterte's so-called pivot to China has concerned Washington and Tokyo, whose traditional alliance with Manila is meant to counter Beijing's growing influence in the Pacific.
With Duterte seemingly unwilling to listen to Western leaders, Abe can serve as "the messenger of the group to lay down the foundation for better relations," Lozada said.
"I tend to believe that it is the most important consideration of his visit... to repair the relations between the Philippine leadership and the Western leadership," he said.
CHINA – CENTERED ASIA PACIFIC GROWTH
Amb. Jose V. Romero Jr., Ph.D
Today, global geopolitics fundamentals are being altered. The prewar era of European colonialism in Asia that had started in the 16th and 17th centuries ended half-a-century ago. This gave rise to a resurgent Asian nationalism as former colonies gained independence.
The political void left by the colonialists was filled by a fast growing economic colossus – China, the sleeping giant who after surviving a “century of humiliation “was now ready to take her place in the world scene.
Emerging as a super economic power China has adopted to increase foreign direct investment by making Chinese companies become more multinational. The objective is to improve resource security by acquiring access to foreign resources, as well as to acquire leading-edge technology to boost the competitiveness of Chinese industry.
The implementation of the trade-strategy above will be facilitated by the very rapid growth in Chinese foreign exchange reserves over the last decade, due to sustained large trade surpluses as well as large capital inflows from foreign direct investment. This has provided a large fund of foreign exchange to support China’s foreign trade policy which this will in turn increase Chinese role in global trade and investment a development that has created rising political fears amongst governments fearing that the increasing dominant control of China over their resources sector; its huge investments in their natural resources and the its situation as a huge export market for their products will create a situation where flag follows trade.
It is assumed that technology, research and development as well as innovation will become increasingly important drivers of comparative advantage of economies in coming decades in a wide range of key manufacturing and service industries in China as well as in the rest of the world. Parenthetically the last five decades, technological leadership has continued to be an important driver of competitive advantage for U.S. and European multinationals.
One key structural change which will be a game changer for countries like China and India is their significantly improved educational infrastructure. With large numbers of their graduates in science and engineering each year developed economies are now shifting the location of their global R&D facilities towards China and India, where a large pool of highly qualified scientists engineers are readily available.
On December 2003 Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in a speech at Harvard stated that “China has laid down her three-step strategy towards modernization. From now to the 2020, China will complete the building of a comfortable society in an all-round way. By 2049, the year the People’s Republic will celebrate its centenary, we will have reach the level of a medium-developed country. We have no illusions but believe that on our way forward, we shall encounter many difficulties foreseeable and unpredictable and face all kinds of tough challenges. We cannot afford to lose such a sense of crisis”.
Today China is being recast from a socialist industrial society in the early 1990s to a semi-capitalistic global economic leader. It is a host to a number of FDIs and a large numbers of foreign workers from the OECD countries who have flocked to China to find their fortune or to at least gain experience in the world’s rising economic power.
China’s role as a trade and investment partner has also risen very considerably during the last couple of decades particularly in the Asia-Pacific region which sees China as the largest export market for a number of its countries.
The Challenges to China
An emerging problem however facing the Chinese economy over the next fifteen years is the impact of rising labor costs in coastal China brought about by in the first place by the
rapid growth in Western Chinese provinces which has resulted in a tightening supply of migrant workers for coastal Chinese factories driving up wages.
Another is flawed demographics, partly a reflection of China’s one child policy which has progressively reduced the number of workers entering the labour force each year.
Finally the marginal productivity of capital is gradually declining as China has invested heavily in modern infrastructure and equipment, making it progressively more difficult to deliver rapid productivity growth on additional capital investment. This means that strong wages growth, which has the effect of pushing up the annual average rate of unit labour cost rises. In economic terms the incremental-capital to output and employment ratios are rapidly declining.
With wages rising pushing up armed average rate of unit labor cost, the net result is the loss of cost competitiveness(its comparative advantage)of coastal Chinese provinces - the factory of the world for low-cost manufacturing such as textiles and clothing as well as consumer electrical and electronic goods over the next fifteen to twenty years.
This is the same ‘hollowing out’ experience of manufacturing industries in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan in the past.
China as a Rising Superpower
Despite this downside in Chinese economic prospects, China is still expected to become the world’s largest economy by 2030, as the total size of its GDP surpasses the U.S. and EU. This will have significant geopolitical and economic implications.
As time marches on China will become the key trade and investment partner for Asia-Pacific nations. As we write ,it is now the largest export market for almost all Asia-Pacific economies, and for some nations even as it becomes increasingly important as a source of both foreign direct investment and portfolio capital flows for most Asia-Pacific countries, as its economy become the world’s largest.
Expectedly the role of Chinese corporations in the global economy will continue to increase, supported by the Chinese government’s own policy of encouraging large Chinese multinationals to internationalise. Chinese multinationals will thereby become more significant global competitors in international markets.
Growth will increase purchasing power by an enlarged middle class and boost consumer demand, which in turn will become the new engine for global consumer spending growth. The multiplier effect of these developments will be wide-ranging. For commodities, the implications are for continues a strong growth in demand for energy sources such as solar and wind energy. Will be accompanied by an equally robust demand for agricultural commodities, including grains and soya bean, as well as meat, dairy products and fisheries products. This could be a very positive long-term trend for agricultural exporting nations, such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and some sub-Saharan agricultural exporters.
Tourism is an important tool of Chinese trade policy which nations should take advantage. The contributions of China tourist spending on the balance of payments of emerging economies cannot be understated.
Underlying these developments will be Chinese need for energy security which will be a central focus of Chinese strategic policy, with heavy implications for its political and defence policy initiatives.
With its outward push strategy Chinese financial institutions will become increasingly international, with banks expanding their international operations both to support their corporate sector but also to play a bigger role in global finance. This will be facilitated by the establishment of the Chinese initiative – the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB).
Will Economic Power Translate Into Hegemony?
Against this background of unparalleled growth China will gradually play a much more central role in global geopolitics. As it becomes the world’s largest economy, it will join the big boys as it participates in heavy-lifting initiatives as behoves its economic weight in international policy-making bodies such as the G20, IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank and the newly-minted Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank. This will undoubtedly allow it to win friends and influence countries while allowing it to project its foreign policy objectives more effectively and successfully, thereby enhancing its geopolitical role.
The question is will China’s superpower status create a friendlier or more unstable geopolitical global order. As China’s economy grows to become the world’s largest, this will inevitably lead to rising defence spending and increasing military capability. As China’s GDP increases and eventually overtake the U.S., the size of Chinese GDP as a share of total Asian GDP, which is already one-third, will increase further.
This implies that among the Asia-Pacific nations, China’s military capability will become significantly larger than that of any other Asian nation, including Japan and India. With China’s technological capability also rising rapidly, the future use of military power as an extension of Chinese foreign policy could become a key risks to regional peace and security. Whether this will actually happen is uncertain. However, given that China remains a one-party state and will have a rising military capability, other Asian countries are increasingly concerned about the potential for the growing asymmetry in Asian military power to become a source of geopolitical instability in the Asia-Pacific. How this will play out in regional geopolitical terms will depend on the foreign policy and defence policy of future Chinese governments which could lead to the Thucydides Trap.
The Asia-Pacific region is increasingly becoming the centre of gravity for the world economy as China, India and ASEAN have emerged as key engines for global economic growth that could lead to an Asia-Pacific century.
Today Asia is beleaguered by sovereignty issues the center of which is that involving the South China Sea. While there is some subliminal sabre-rattling egged on by outside superpowers with interest in Asia, there is considerable scope for optimism that ASEAN can form the hub for regional security dialogue, most notably reflected in the recent achievements of a number of ASEAN countries in combating piracy in the Straits of Malacca through close cooperation and coordination amongst their government and military forces.
ASEAN Defence Minister Plus with Eight Dialogue Partners forum (ADMM+), which was established by ASEAN in October 2010, and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), as key platforms for regional dialogue on defence and security. The ADMM+ process has already made significant progress, with the establishment of Expert Working Groups under the auspices of the ASEAN Defense Senior Officials’ Meeting Plus. The five expert groups are in:
Obviously with China acting as the big-brother it being the largest economy in the Asia-Pacific any regional security dialogue would need to have the full support and cooperation of China. At the Shangri-La Dialogue on 5th June 2011, the Chinese Minister of National Defense made a strong statement in favour of regional multilateral security dialogues and cooperation mechanism.
Four Pillars of Asia Growth
If indeed the 21st century is the ‘Asian Century’, there are four main growth engines within Asia that will continue to support this Asian ascendancy during the 21st century.
It is obvious that China will become the key driver of Asia’s rapid economic growth. Its long-term growth rate over the next two decades is still expected to be the super engine driving the rapid expansion of economic growth, trade and investment within the Asia-Pacific region. It will be the centripetal force that lifts the rest of Asia into its growing orbit.
With India is projected to overtake Japan in around fifteen years’ time in terms of overall size of GDP in nominal terms it will contribute to the growth engine provided by the Chinese colossus with Indonesia with its big population not far behind and membership of the population rich BRIC, economies proving a supporting role.
Last but not the least of the economic quartet will be the agglomeration of Asia’s next new frontier economies combined with the rest of the ASEAN economies. Most of the countries comprising Asia’s fourth growth engine are well positioned to benefit from strong trade and investment flows with China, India and Indonesia, as well as sustained strong growth from domestic demand in the more populous countries such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and the Philippines.
Asia –Pacific to Replace the OECD
High consumer spending in the Asia-Pacific region, with its rising middle class will result in emerging Asia replacing the OECD economies as the key contributor to global consumer demand growth over the next three decades.
The rapid urbanization and the growth of emerging Asian cities is another important structural trend that will create vast opportunities for companies related to urban infrastructure development, as well as residential and commercial construction projects. . Asian countries will also require massive investment in infrastructure, creating major opportunities for investments.
Future Asia
There has been immense economic progress in the Asia-Pacific over the last fifty years, as rapid economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty. A number of Asian nations have succeeded in transforming their economies into advanced economies with high average living standards. These Asian miracle economies with high average living standards, these Asian miracle economies are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.
However, the driving force that is reshaping the balance of global economic power from West to East is the rise of China, as its population of over 1.2 billion people move out of poverty and into the ranks of the middle class. India, which is also a nation of over 1.2 billion people, is further behind on its development path than China, but will also be contributing significantly to the tidal wave of consumer-led growth that will change the shape of the global economy over the next three decades.
In the circumstances it behooves governments of the Asia-Pacific region to embark on a determined programme of building the regional architecture for political, security and economic cooperation, to avert the risk of future conflicts in regional geopolitical flashpoints which remain a threat to Asia’s dream of producing a zone of peace and prosperity through sustained economic progress and human development.
Amb. Jose V. Romero Jr., Ph.D
Today, global geopolitics fundamentals are being altered. The prewar era of European colonialism in Asia that had started in the 16th and 17th centuries ended half-a-century ago. This gave rise to a resurgent Asian nationalism as former colonies gained independence.
The political void left by the colonialists was filled by a fast growing economic colossus – China, the sleeping giant who after surviving a “century of humiliation “was now ready to take her place in the world scene.
Emerging as a super economic power China has adopted to increase foreign direct investment by making Chinese companies become more multinational. The objective is to improve resource security by acquiring access to foreign resources, as well as to acquire leading-edge technology to boost the competitiveness of Chinese industry.
The implementation of the trade-strategy above will be facilitated by the very rapid growth in Chinese foreign exchange reserves over the last decade, due to sustained large trade surpluses as well as large capital inflows from foreign direct investment. This has provided a large fund of foreign exchange to support China’s foreign trade policy which this will in turn increase Chinese role in global trade and investment a development that has created rising political fears amongst governments fearing that the increasing dominant control of China over their resources sector; its huge investments in their natural resources and the its situation as a huge export market for their products will create a situation where flag follows trade.
It is assumed that technology, research and development as well as innovation will become increasingly important drivers of comparative advantage of economies in coming decades in a wide range of key manufacturing and service industries in China as well as in the rest of the world. Parenthetically the last five decades, technological leadership has continued to be an important driver of competitive advantage for U.S. and European multinationals.
One key structural change which will be a game changer for countries like China and India is their significantly improved educational infrastructure. With large numbers of their graduates in science and engineering each year developed economies are now shifting the location of their global R&D facilities towards China and India, where a large pool of highly qualified scientists engineers are readily available.
On December 2003 Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in a speech at Harvard stated that “China has laid down her three-step strategy towards modernization. From now to the 2020, China will complete the building of a comfortable society in an all-round way. By 2049, the year the People’s Republic will celebrate its centenary, we will have reach the level of a medium-developed country. We have no illusions but believe that on our way forward, we shall encounter many difficulties foreseeable and unpredictable and face all kinds of tough challenges. We cannot afford to lose such a sense of crisis”.
Today China is being recast from a socialist industrial society in the early 1990s to a semi-capitalistic global economic leader. It is a host to a number of FDIs and a large numbers of foreign workers from the OECD countries who have flocked to China to find their fortune or to at least gain experience in the world’s rising economic power.
China’s role as a trade and investment partner has also risen very considerably during the last couple of decades particularly in the Asia-Pacific region which sees China as the largest export market for a number of its countries.
The Challenges to China
An emerging problem however facing the Chinese economy over the next fifteen years is the impact of rising labor costs in coastal China brought about by in the first place by the
rapid growth in Western Chinese provinces which has resulted in a tightening supply of migrant workers for coastal Chinese factories driving up wages.
Another is flawed demographics, partly a reflection of China’s one child policy which has progressively reduced the number of workers entering the labour force each year.
Finally the marginal productivity of capital is gradually declining as China has invested heavily in modern infrastructure and equipment, making it progressively more difficult to deliver rapid productivity growth on additional capital investment. This means that strong wages growth, which has the effect of pushing up the annual average rate of unit labour cost rises. In economic terms the incremental-capital to output and employment ratios are rapidly declining.
With wages rising pushing up armed average rate of unit labor cost, the net result is the loss of cost competitiveness(its comparative advantage)of coastal Chinese provinces - the factory of the world for low-cost manufacturing such as textiles and clothing as well as consumer electrical and electronic goods over the next fifteen to twenty years.
This is the same ‘hollowing out’ experience of manufacturing industries in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan in the past.
China as a Rising Superpower
Despite this downside in Chinese economic prospects, China is still expected to become the world’s largest economy by 2030, as the total size of its GDP surpasses the U.S. and EU. This will have significant geopolitical and economic implications.
As time marches on China will become the key trade and investment partner for Asia-Pacific nations. As we write ,it is now the largest export market for almost all Asia-Pacific economies, and for some nations even as it becomes increasingly important as a source of both foreign direct investment and portfolio capital flows for most Asia-Pacific countries, as its economy become the world’s largest.
Expectedly the role of Chinese corporations in the global economy will continue to increase, supported by the Chinese government’s own policy of encouraging large Chinese multinationals to internationalise. Chinese multinationals will thereby become more significant global competitors in international markets.
Growth will increase purchasing power by an enlarged middle class and boost consumer demand, which in turn will become the new engine for global consumer spending growth. The multiplier effect of these developments will be wide-ranging. For commodities, the implications are for continues a strong growth in demand for energy sources such as solar and wind energy. Will be accompanied by an equally robust demand for agricultural commodities, including grains and soya bean, as well as meat, dairy products and fisheries products. This could be a very positive long-term trend for agricultural exporting nations, such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and some sub-Saharan agricultural exporters.
Tourism is an important tool of Chinese trade policy which nations should take advantage. The contributions of China tourist spending on the balance of payments of emerging economies cannot be understated.
Underlying these developments will be Chinese need for energy security which will be a central focus of Chinese strategic policy, with heavy implications for its political and defence policy initiatives.
With its outward push strategy Chinese financial institutions will become increasingly international, with banks expanding their international operations both to support their corporate sector but also to play a bigger role in global finance. This will be facilitated by the establishment of the Chinese initiative – the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB).
Will Economic Power Translate Into Hegemony?
Against this background of unparalleled growth China will gradually play a much more central role in global geopolitics. As it becomes the world’s largest economy, it will join the big boys as it participates in heavy-lifting initiatives as behoves its economic weight in international policy-making bodies such as the G20, IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank and the newly-minted Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank. This will undoubtedly allow it to win friends and influence countries while allowing it to project its foreign policy objectives more effectively and successfully, thereby enhancing its geopolitical role.
The question is will China’s superpower status create a friendlier or more unstable geopolitical global order. As China’s economy grows to become the world’s largest, this will inevitably lead to rising defence spending and increasing military capability. As China’s GDP increases and eventually overtake the U.S., the size of Chinese GDP as a share of total Asian GDP, which is already one-third, will increase further.
This implies that among the Asia-Pacific nations, China’s military capability will become significantly larger than that of any other Asian nation, including Japan and India. With China’s technological capability also rising rapidly, the future use of military power as an extension of Chinese foreign policy could become a key risks to regional peace and security. Whether this will actually happen is uncertain. However, given that China remains a one-party state and will have a rising military capability, other Asian countries are increasingly concerned about the potential for the growing asymmetry in Asian military power to become a source of geopolitical instability in the Asia-Pacific. How this will play out in regional geopolitical terms will depend on the foreign policy and defence policy of future Chinese governments which could lead to the Thucydides Trap.
The Asia-Pacific region is increasingly becoming the centre of gravity for the world economy as China, India and ASEAN have emerged as key engines for global economic growth that could lead to an Asia-Pacific century.
Today Asia is beleaguered by sovereignty issues the center of which is that involving the South China Sea. While there is some subliminal sabre-rattling egged on by outside superpowers with interest in Asia, there is considerable scope for optimism that ASEAN can form the hub for regional security dialogue, most notably reflected in the recent achievements of a number of ASEAN countries in combating piracy in the Straits of Malacca through close cooperation and coordination amongst their government and military forces.
ASEAN Defence Minister Plus with Eight Dialogue Partners forum (ADMM+), which was established by ASEAN in October 2010, and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), as key platforms for regional dialogue on defence and security. The ADMM+ process has already made significant progress, with the establishment of Expert Working Groups under the auspices of the ASEAN Defense Senior Officials’ Meeting Plus. The five expert groups are in:
- Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
- Maritime Security
- Peacekeeping Operations
- Military Medicine
- Counter-terrorism
Obviously with China acting as the big-brother it being the largest economy in the Asia-Pacific any regional security dialogue would need to have the full support and cooperation of China. At the Shangri-La Dialogue on 5th June 2011, the Chinese Minister of National Defense made a strong statement in favour of regional multilateral security dialogues and cooperation mechanism.
Four Pillars of Asia Growth
If indeed the 21st century is the ‘Asian Century’, there are four main growth engines within Asia that will continue to support this Asian ascendancy during the 21st century.
It is obvious that China will become the key driver of Asia’s rapid economic growth. Its long-term growth rate over the next two decades is still expected to be the super engine driving the rapid expansion of economic growth, trade and investment within the Asia-Pacific region. It will be the centripetal force that lifts the rest of Asia into its growing orbit.
With India is projected to overtake Japan in around fifteen years’ time in terms of overall size of GDP in nominal terms it will contribute to the growth engine provided by the Chinese colossus with Indonesia with its big population not far behind and membership of the population rich BRIC, economies proving a supporting role.
Last but not the least of the economic quartet will be the agglomeration of Asia’s next new frontier economies combined with the rest of the ASEAN economies. Most of the countries comprising Asia’s fourth growth engine are well positioned to benefit from strong trade and investment flows with China, India and Indonesia, as well as sustained strong growth from domestic demand in the more populous countries such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and the Philippines.
Asia –Pacific to Replace the OECD
High consumer spending in the Asia-Pacific region, with its rising middle class will result in emerging Asia replacing the OECD economies as the key contributor to global consumer demand growth over the next three decades.
The rapid urbanization and the growth of emerging Asian cities is another important structural trend that will create vast opportunities for companies related to urban infrastructure development, as well as residential and commercial construction projects. . Asian countries will also require massive investment in infrastructure, creating major opportunities for investments.
Future Asia
There has been immense economic progress in the Asia-Pacific over the last fifty years, as rapid economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty. A number of Asian nations have succeeded in transforming their economies into advanced economies with high average living standards. These Asian miracle economies with high average living standards, these Asian miracle economies are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.
However, the driving force that is reshaping the balance of global economic power from West to East is the rise of China, as its population of over 1.2 billion people move out of poverty and into the ranks of the middle class. India, which is also a nation of over 1.2 billion people, is further behind on its development path than China, but will also be contributing significantly to the tidal wave of consumer-led growth that will change the shape of the global economy over the next three decades.
In the circumstances it behooves governments of the Asia-Pacific region to embark on a determined programme of building the regional architecture for political, security and economic cooperation, to avert the risk of future conflicts in regional geopolitical flashpoints which remain a threat to Asia’s dream of producing a zone of peace and prosperity through sustained economic progress and human development.
Duterte asking China to explain construction on Scarborough Shoal
by Genalyn Kabiling
September 5, 2016
President Duterte is seeking an explanation from China on its reported construction activities on Scarborough Shoal despite an Arbitral Court ruling against China’s territorial claims. Scarborough is well within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone.
The President has directed the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to summon the Chinese ambassador to the Philippines to explain the presence of Chinese vessels within the shoal’s waters.
The directive was issued by the President during a closed-door meeting with the Cabinet security cluster in Davao City early Sunday morning, according to Agriculture Secretary Emmanuel Piñol.
“Why is China treating us this way? Is it because we are a small country which does not have the capability of standing up to them militarily?” Piñol quoted the President as saying.
In the security meeting in Davao, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana reportedly presented to the President surveillance photos of Chinese vessels indicating new construction at the Scarborough Shoal, also known as Panatag and Bajo de Masinloc.
Piñol, in a Facebook post, said the photos, taken last September 3, confirmed that “China continued its construction activities building what is apparently a military base.”
He said one of the Chinese vessels looked like a “dredger apparently used in turning the atolls into large military and naval facilities, including an airstrip.” The vessels also included Coast Guard patrol boats.
“Seeing the photos, President Duterte directed (Foreign Affairs) Secretary. (Perfecto) Yasay (Jr.) to summon the Chinese ambassador to the Philippines to confront her of the proofs of China’s continued activities in the area previously declared to be part of the country’s economic zone,” Piñol said.
“President Duterte, who has been very diplomatic in his approach in solving the West Philippine Sea row with China, was apparently displeased by the proofs of Chinese impunity in violating the International Arbitration ruling,” Pinol said.
Last Friday, the President revealed that China has been sending new barges to Scarborough or Panatag Shoal based on intelligence reports. He expressed concern about “another ruckus” if China continues its military buildup in the South China.
For now, the President said he has nothing against China and would not raise the territorial dispute in the upcoming regional summit in Laos. But he said China must clarify its latest activity in the West Philippine Sea before the situation worsens.
The Hague-based Permanent Arbitral Court had earlier ruled in favor of the Philippines in a territorial case filed against China’s sweeping claims in the West Philippine Sea. The court declared that China’s territorial claim within its nine-dash line have no legal basis.
China, however, refused to recognize court proceedings from the beginning and refused to recognize the ruling when it was issued.
Duterte has expressed readiness to hold bilateral talks with China to settle the issue.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-asking-china-to-explain-construction-on-scarborough-shoal/#LIMJrjiRmtk1aCI4.99
by Genalyn Kabiling
September 5, 2016
President Duterte is seeking an explanation from China on its reported construction activities on Scarborough Shoal despite an Arbitral Court ruling against China’s territorial claims. Scarborough is well within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone.
The President has directed the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to summon the Chinese ambassador to the Philippines to explain the presence of Chinese vessels within the shoal’s waters.
The directive was issued by the President during a closed-door meeting with the Cabinet security cluster in Davao City early Sunday morning, according to Agriculture Secretary Emmanuel Piñol.
“Why is China treating us this way? Is it because we are a small country which does not have the capability of standing up to them militarily?” Piñol quoted the President as saying.
In the security meeting in Davao, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana reportedly presented to the President surveillance photos of Chinese vessels indicating new construction at the Scarborough Shoal, also known as Panatag and Bajo de Masinloc.
Piñol, in a Facebook post, said the photos, taken last September 3, confirmed that “China continued its construction activities building what is apparently a military base.”
He said one of the Chinese vessels looked like a “dredger apparently used in turning the atolls into large military and naval facilities, including an airstrip.” The vessels also included Coast Guard patrol boats.
“Seeing the photos, President Duterte directed (Foreign Affairs) Secretary. (Perfecto) Yasay (Jr.) to summon the Chinese ambassador to the Philippines to confront her of the proofs of China’s continued activities in the area previously declared to be part of the country’s economic zone,” Piñol said.
“President Duterte, who has been very diplomatic in his approach in solving the West Philippine Sea row with China, was apparently displeased by the proofs of Chinese impunity in violating the International Arbitration ruling,” Pinol said.
Last Friday, the President revealed that China has been sending new barges to Scarborough or Panatag Shoal based on intelligence reports. He expressed concern about “another ruckus” if China continues its military buildup in the South China.
For now, the President said he has nothing against China and would not raise the territorial dispute in the upcoming regional summit in Laos. But he said China must clarify its latest activity in the West Philippine Sea before the situation worsens.
The Hague-based Permanent Arbitral Court had earlier ruled in favor of the Philippines in a territorial case filed against China’s sweeping claims in the West Philippine Sea. The court declared that China’s territorial claim within its nine-dash line have no legal basis.
China, however, refused to recognize court proceedings from the beginning and refused to recognize the ruling when it was issued.
Duterte has expressed readiness to hold bilateral talks with China to settle the issue.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-asking-china-to-explain-construction-on-scarborough-shoal/#LIMJrjiRmtk1aCI4.99
Duterte-Obama clash looms
Human rights violations in US, PH raised ahead of bilateral talks
September 2, 2016 (updated)
By Genalyn D. Kabiling and Roy C. Mabasa
Two long-time strategic allies appear headed for a collision over human rights concerns.
President Duterte took a swipe at United States (US) President Barack Obama for trying to meddle with the Philippines’ human rights situation before cleaning up his own backyard.
The President showed no fear about a potential confrontation with Obama over the surge of drug-related killings in the country, saying the US leader has already a lot on his plate such as frequent police killings of black men as well as drug problem plaguing Hollywood.
“Tinatakot ako kasi. Gusto raw ako kausapin ni Obama. Tapos? Kausapin ako, anong problema mo? Sa lugar niyo ‘yang mga black people, nakahiga na, pinagbabaril nga ninyo, eh [They’re trying to intimidate me because Obama wants to talk to me. And then what? I’ll talk to him and ask ‘What’s your problem?’ In your country, you are killing black people already lying on the ground],” Duterte said during a religious assembly in Davao City Wednesday night.
Duterte also claimed that Hollywood has become a “crazy community” because many people are hooked on illegal drugs such as cocaine.
In the US, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama will not hesitate to raise “well-documented and relevant concerns” when it comes to human rights issues in the Philippines during his much anticipated first meeting with his Filipino counterpart Rodrigo Duterte on the sidelines of an Southeast Asia summit in Laos on September 6.
Reacting to statements issued by President Duterte in the run-up to their first meeting scheduled next week, Earnest said in a press gaggle aboard Air Force One en route Lake Tahoe, Nevada, Thursday (Manila time), that President Obama, after listening to the Philippine leader, is “certainly not going to pull any punches” in raising some of America’s concerns about the human rights situation under the Duterte administration.
While Duterte is an “unorthodox politician that can be quite unpredictable in some of the things that he says,” Earnest emphasized that Obama has his own “ability and willingness to speak bluntly” even on issues where there might be some disagreements between the US and its allies such as the Philippines.
President Duterte’s remarks came a week before joining Obama and other Pacific Rim leaders for the annual regional summit in Laos.
The Philippine leader had earlier said he was ready to talk to Obama about any issue, including the human rights situation in the Philippines, as long as the US leader would listen and understand his position, especially on the country’s anti-drug campaign.
“They must understand the problem first before we talk about human rights. I would insist, listen to me: This is what the problem is, then we can talk,” Duterte said.
President Duterte said he has declared a war on illegal drugs so the public should expect the campaign to be harsh and bloody.
“Let us be clear on this: I am not ordering a punitive police action. I am declaring war. At sabi ko sa kanila: Destroy the apparatus of the drug industry,” he said.
The talks between Duterte and Obama, however, will not be confined to human rights concerns.
In the Air Force One briefing, a transcript of which was posted in the official website of the White House, Earnest pointed out that also in the menu in Obama’s talks with Duterte is the important security issues, particularly tension in the disputed South China Sea. He said President Obama will speak quite directly about the shared interests of the US with the Philippines, particularly maritime security – an aspect of the relationship wherein Manila has benefited more.
Earnest noted that the Philippines is, in fact, a treaty ally of the United States. This, he boasted, should mean a lot to Manila as there are a “variety of benefits associated with being a treaty ally of America.”
“And certainly as the Philippines deals with some of the maritime security situations in the South China Sea, they benefit from a close relationship with the United States,” Earnest said.
One “tangible benefit of the effective relationship that US has built with the Philippines that has “consequences” for the latter’s national security is the transfer of a “re-commissioned” and “refurbished” US Coast Guard vessel to the Philippine Navy that is now being used to enhance maritime security in the Philippines.
Earnest said the White House is not preparing for the Duterte meeting in any way that is different from other bilateral meetings. He said the President’s team has been interacting with their counterparts in the Philippines to set an agenda for the meeting.
“And I’m confident it will include some of the things that we’ve discussed both as it relates to maritime security, but also as it relates to some concerns that we have about human rights,” said the White House official.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-obama-clash-looms/#vGzzAU6Qp7UcJTWq.99
New Silk Road offers ‘huge opportunities’ for PH
Chinese economist claims
by Emmie Abadilla
August 30, 2016 (updated)
The “New Silk Road” offers “huge opportunities” for expanded relations between China and the Philippines in trade and investments as well as people-to-people exchanges, according to top economist Professor Zhang Yuyan during this week’s forum at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM).
The Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road initiative, proposed by President Xi in 2013, began to take shape in 2014 with focus on infrastructure.
The Silk Road Economic Belt will connect China with Central Asia, Russia and the Baltic countries in Europe; with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea via Central Asia and West Asia and with Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Indian Ocean.
The 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road, on the other hand, is designed to go from China’s coast to Europe through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean in one route, and from China’s coast through the South China Sea to the South Pacific in the other.
Already, China has made substantial headway in strengthening economic ties with the countries covered by the Belt and Road (B&R) project, Zhang said.
To date, over 100 countries have participated in the B&R, 30 have signed agreements to jointly implement the B&R strategy and more than 20 have cooperated in areas such as railway construction and nuclear power.
Last year, bilateral trade between China and other countries along the B&R reached $995.5 billion, accounting for 25.1% of national total. China has already expanded the scope of 50 overseas economic cooperation areas.
At the same time, Chinese companies made $14.82-billion direct investments in 29 countries along the B&R, up 18.2% over 2014 and accounting for 12.6% of the total.
So far, China’s current economic situation remains favorable as shown by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates, Consumer Price Index (CPI), employment, fiscal performance, money supply, interest rates, exchange rates, stock market, and trade and investment.
However, Professor Zhang also warned of uncertainties in the economic landscape, including currency risks, the real estate bubble, non-performing loans, public and corporate debts, along with overcapacity.
The “new normal” in China is an “L-shaped economic growth” characterized by a shift from high growth to medium-high growth, depletion of rural surplus labor and the peaking of employment in manufacturing, resulting in economic growth more dependent on the service sector.
Greater capital stock will lead to more asset depreciation, requiring more economic resources to make up for the depreciated assets, the economist pointed out.
The Chinese economy is also approaching the technology frontier, prompting a shift from technology import to indigenous innovation.
Hence, the government must implement various supply-side reforms, the economist stressed.
These include liberalizing the labor market, improving the educational system, building an innovation-driven economy, cutting excess production capacity as well as reforming state-owned enterprises (SOEs) along with the fiscal and taxation system.
China’s 21st Century Silk Road intends to promote policy coordination and free trade, connect facilities and people via overland roads, railways, sea routes, airways, the Internet and the like.
Significantly, Zhang clarified China has no “hidden agenda” nor a “sense of guilt” in embarking on the New Silk Road initiative.
“The export of production and construction capacity is not only in the interest of China but also in the interest of those countries whose financial resources and infrastructure are far from sufficient.”
In fact, President Xi has urged faster implementation of the Belt and Road projects to ensure that the countries involved have “a sense of gain.”New Silk Road offers ‘huge opportunities’ for PH
Chinese economist claims
by Emmie Abadilla
August 30, 2016 (updated)
The “New Silk Road” offers “huge opportunities” for expanded relations between China and the Philippines in trade and investments as well as people-to-people exchanges, according to top economist Professor Zhang Yuyan during this week’s forum at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM).
The Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road initiative, proposed by President Xi in 2013, began to take shape in 2014 with focus on infrastructure.
The Silk Road Economic Belt will connect China with Central Asia, Russia and the Baltic countries in Europe; with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea via Central Asia and West Asia and with Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Indian Ocean.
The 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road, on the other hand, is designed to go from China’s coast to Europe through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean in one route, and from China’s coast through the South China Sea to the South Pacific in the other.
Already, China has made substantial headway in strengthening economic ties with the countries covered by the Belt and Road (B&R) project, Zhang said.
To date, over 100 countries have participated in the B&R, 30 have signed agreements to jointly implement the B&R strategy and more than 20 have cooperated in areas such as railway construction and nuclear power.
Last year, bilateral trade between China and other countries along the B&R reached $995.5 billion, accounting for 25.1% of national total. China has already expanded the scope of 50 overseas economic cooperation areas.
At the same time, Chinese companies made $14.82-billion direct investments in 29 countries along the B&R, up 18.2% over 2014 and accounting for 12.6% of the total.
So far, China’s current economic situation remains favorable as shown by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates, Consumer Price Index (CPI), employment, fiscal performance, money supply, interest rates, exchange rates, stock market, and trade and investment.
However, Professor Zhang also warned of uncertainties in the economic landscape, including currency risks, the real estate bubble, non-performing loans, public and corporate debts, along with overcapacity.
The “new normal” in China is an “L-shaped economic growth” characterized by a shift from high growth to medium-high growth, depletion of rural surplus labor and the peaking of employment in manufacturing, resulting in economic growth more dependent on the service sector.
Greater capital stock will lead to more asset depreciation, requiring more economic resources to make up for the depreciated assets, the economist pointed out.
The Chinese economy is also approaching the technology frontier, prompting a shift from technology import to indigenous innovation.
Hence, the government must implement various supply-side reforms, the economist stressed.
These include liberalizing the labor market, improving the educational system, building an innovation-driven economy, cutting excess production capacity as well as reforming state-owned enterprises (SOEs) along with the fiscal and taxation system.
China’s 21st Century Silk Road intends to promote policy coordination and free trade, connect facilities and people via overland roads, railways, sea routes, airways, the Internet and the like.
Significantly, Zhang clarified China has no “hidden agenda” nor a “sense of guilt” in embarking on the New Silk Road initiative.
“The export of production and construction capacity is not only in the interest of China but also in the interest of those countries whose financial resources and infrastructure are far from sufficient.”
In fact, President Xi has urged faster implementation of the Belt and Road projects to ensure that the countries involved have “a sense of gain.”New Silk Road offers ‘huge opportunities’ for PH
More Chinese investments seen under Silk Road Initiative
by Bernie Magkilat
August 22, 2016
More Chinese investments are expected to pour into the Philippines as China pursues its Silk Road Initiative, which makes southeast Asia a major component in this ambitious plan.
Xu Ningning, executive president of the China-ASEAN Business Council, said that Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the Silk Road Initiative on September 10, 2013 to pursue this plan which started decades ago.
The Silk Road has two components: land based and maritime-based. Its primary goal is to provide connectivity through a land route from China going through central Asia and to Europe, popularly known as the Marco Polo route. The maritime route is from China to southeast Asia up to the Middle East.
“China wants to develop all of these countries as it opens to other countries for cooperation and development,” Xu said.
There are five principles involved in the Silk Road Initiative built around the idea of connectivity: common policy, infrastructure, trade, financing, and heart to heart.
Xu said that Chinese firms are already gearing up their investments in these routes following China’s creation of Silkroad International Chamber of which the Philippines is one of the 40 vice-chairmen.
On the part of the Philippines, the Philippine Silkroad International Chamber has been organized and led by businessman Francis Chua. The local Silkroad chamber has been registered with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Official launching of the new business chamber is set next month.
“It is necessary to put up this local chamber because Philippine firms participating in this initiative will need the necessary funding and technical support,” Chua said.
“As far as China is concerned, money is not an issue as long as the projects are good. Filipino firms can tap funding from the Silkroad International Chamber.”
Chua said that several projects, not just infrastructure, are going to find their way in countries covered by the Silkroad initiative.
“The top destination of Chinese firms would be southeast Asia,” Xu added.
Last week, Xu led a business mission consisting of top ten construction companies from China, exploring for the first time all kinds of construction projects in the Philippines.
Xu said it is more conducive now for Chinese to do business in the country as relations between the two countries have been warming up under the new government of President Rodrigo Duterte.
The 30-man mission met with three government secretaries including Secretary Arthur Tugade of the Department of Transportation, Secretary Ramon Lopez of the Department of Trade and Industry and Secretary Mark Villar of the Department of Public Works and Highways.
According to Xu, the mission members belong to the top construction companies in China with expertise in infrastructure projects including flood control, industrial parks, construction materials, engineering, railways, among others. Some of the mission members were responsible for the construction of the iconic Birds Nest, the stadium China built for its hosting of Olympic and the CCTV building headquarters. These companies have also projects in southeast Asia and Africa.
Xu said the group believes in the dawning of better relations between the two countries under President Duterte’s government.
“It is time to take off and for Chinese companies to come here,” said Xu.
Chua, who is also founder of the International Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, noted that there were lots of efforts and commitments from both sides before but those just fizzled out.
“We talked about lots of investments in previous years but all fizzled out, but this one they believe the two countries have better relations so they are encouraged to invest in the country,” said Chua.
“They want to look at the possible projects and to contribute in the technology and equipment supplies. They could be contractors, investors and owners. They are also looking at partnerships and joint venture deals with Filipino businessmen.”
As far as China is concerned, Chua said, ‘money is not an issue as long as the projects are good.”
“It is more conducive now to do business in the Philippines especially for the Chinese,” he said.
In the first half of this ear, the top destination of Chinese investors are Southeast Asian countries mostly to Singapore followed by Thailand, Laos and Indonesia.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/more-chinese-investments-seen-under-silk-road-initiative/#Vd3MKElef2Am40j7.99
by Bernie Magkilat
August 22, 2016
More Chinese investments are expected to pour into the Philippines as China pursues its Silk Road Initiative, which makes southeast Asia a major component in this ambitious plan.
Xu Ningning, executive president of the China-ASEAN Business Council, said that Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the Silk Road Initiative on September 10, 2013 to pursue this plan which started decades ago.
The Silk Road has two components: land based and maritime-based. Its primary goal is to provide connectivity through a land route from China going through central Asia and to Europe, popularly known as the Marco Polo route. The maritime route is from China to southeast Asia up to the Middle East.
“China wants to develop all of these countries as it opens to other countries for cooperation and development,” Xu said.
There are five principles involved in the Silk Road Initiative built around the idea of connectivity: common policy, infrastructure, trade, financing, and heart to heart.
Xu said that Chinese firms are already gearing up their investments in these routes following China’s creation of Silkroad International Chamber of which the Philippines is one of the 40 vice-chairmen.
On the part of the Philippines, the Philippine Silkroad International Chamber has been organized and led by businessman Francis Chua. The local Silkroad chamber has been registered with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Official launching of the new business chamber is set next month.
“It is necessary to put up this local chamber because Philippine firms participating in this initiative will need the necessary funding and technical support,” Chua said.
“As far as China is concerned, money is not an issue as long as the projects are good. Filipino firms can tap funding from the Silkroad International Chamber.”
Chua said that several projects, not just infrastructure, are going to find their way in countries covered by the Silkroad initiative.
“The top destination of Chinese firms would be southeast Asia,” Xu added.
Last week, Xu led a business mission consisting of top ten construction companies from China, exploring for the first time all kinds of construction projects in the Philippines.
Xu said it is more conducive now for Chinese to do business in the country as relations between the two countries have been warming up under the new government of President Rodrigo Duterte.
The 30-man mission met with three government secretaries including Secretary Arthur Tugade of the Department of Transportation, Secretary Ramon Lopez of the Department of Trade and Industry and Secretary Mark Villar of the Department of Public Works and Highways.
According to Xu, the mission members belong to the top construction companies in China with expertise in infrastructure projects including flood control, industrial parks, construction materials, engineering, railways, among others. Some of the mission members were responsible for the construction of the iconic Birds Nest, the stadium China built for its hosting of Olympic and the CCTV building headquarters. These companies have also projects in southeast Asia and Africa.
Xu said the group believes in the dawning of better relations between the two countries under President Duterte’s government.
“It is time to take off and for Chinese companies to come here,” said Xu.
Chua, who is also founder of the International Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, noted that there were lots of efforts and commitments from both sides before but those just fizzled out.
“We talked about lots of investments in previous years but all fizzled out, but this one they believe the two countries have better relations so they are encouraged to invest in the country,” said Chua.
“They want to look at the possible projects and to contribute in the technology and equipment supplies. They could be contractors, investors and owners. They are also looking at partnerships and joint venture deals with Filipino businessmen.”
As far as China is concerned, Chua said, ‘money is not an issue as long as the projects are good.”
“It is more conducive now to do business in the Philippines especially for the Chinese,” he said.
In the first half of this ear, the top destination of Chinese investors are Southeast Asian countries mostly to Singapore followed by Thailand, Laos and Indonesia.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/more-chinese-investments-seen-under-silk-road-initiative/#Vd3MKElef2Am40j7.99
Ramos meets with senior Chinese official in Hong Kong
August 13, 2016
By AFP and Yas D. Ocampo
Former President Fidel V. Ramos said yesterday he had met with a senior Chinese official during a trip to Hong Kong aimed at improving ties between Manila and Beijing, with both sides working towards formal discussions.
Relations have cooled since a UN-backed tribunal ruled last month that China’s claims over most of the South China Sea were invalid, a sweeping victory for the Philippines which filed the case.
Ramos – a longtime advocate of closer Philippine-Chinese ties – was sent as a conciliatory envoy by President Rodrigo Duterte.
Ramos said he had discussions with Madam Fu Ying, chair of the foreign affairs committee of the National People’s Congress – China’s legislature. Fu Ying is a former ambassador to Manila.
He also met with Wu Shichun, president of China’s National Institute of South China Seas Studies.
In a statement signed by Ramos, Fu Ying, and Wu, the meeting was described as between “old friends” and had taken place “in a friendly atmosphere.”
It listed seven topics that had been covered, including marine preservation and co-operation on crime-fighting and smuggling.
Ramos said they did not discuss territorial disputes in the South China Sea, but talked about fishing rights there.
“They discussed, in their private capacity, the way forward in the spirit of universal brotherhood and sisterhood for peace and cooperation between the two countries,” the joint statement said.
It added that all parties “looked forward” to the start of formal talks which it said would be continued in Beijing and Manila.
In a Malacañang statement, it said initial talks “focused on the need to engage in discussions to build trust and confidence to reduce tensions to pave the way for overall cooperation for the benefit of both their peoples and the region.”
Other topics included encouraging marine preservation, avoiding tension, and promoting fishing cooperation, anti-drug and anti-smuggling cooperation, anti-crime and anti-corruption cooperation, improving tourism opportunities, encouraging trade and investment facilitation, and encouraging track II (think tank) exchanges on relevant issues of mutual concern and interest.
“They expressed the hope to find common ground for mutual benefit, especially for the poverty-stricken sectors of their societies. They stressed that building trust is very important to the long-term beneficial relationship between the Philippines and China.”
They reiterated that they are here in their personal capacity and were pleased with the discussions and looked forward to the beginning of a process of formal discussions which will be continued in Beijing and Manila and other possible venues.
Ramos said there would be a second round of discussions soon. “As to where this will take place we don’t know yet. We have to go back to Manila to find out the latest developments on the official side,” he said.
Philippine-Chinese ties have frayed in recent years due to tensions over Beijing’s claims to almost all the South China Sea.
The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam have competing partial claims and are perturbed by China’s aggressive moves to assert its sovereignty such as by reclaiming islands and building airstrips.
China has refused to recognize last month’s tribunal decision.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/ramos-meets-with-senior-chinese-official-in-hong-kong/#KgCcdBxsmeYIy4jY.99
August 13, 2016
By AFP and Yas D. Ocampo
Former President Fidel V. Ramos said yesterday he had met with a senior Chinese official during a trip to Hong Kong aimed at improving ties between Manila and Beijing, with both sides working towards formal discussions.
Relations have cooled since a UN-backed tribunal ruled last month that China’s claims over most of the South China Sea were invalid, a sweeping victory for the Philippines which filed the case.
Ramos – a longtime advocate of closer Philippine-Chinese ties – was sent as a conciliatory envoy by President Rodrigo Duterte.
Ramos said he had discussions with Madam Fu Ying, chair of the foreign affairs committee of the National People’s Congress – China’s legislature. Fu Ying is a former ambassador to Manila.
He also met with Wu Shichun, president of China’s National Institute of South China Seas Studies.
In a statement signed by Ramos, Fu Ying, and Wu, the meeting was described as between “old friends” and had taken place “in a friendly atmosphere.”
It listed seven topics that had been covered, including marine preservation and co-operation on crime-fighting and smuggling.
Ramos said they did not discuss territorial disputes in the South China Sea, but talked about fishing rights there.
“They discussed, in their private capacity, the way forward in the spirit of universal brotherhood and sisterhood for peace and cooperation between the two countries,” the joint statement said.
It added that all parties “looked forward” to the start of formal talks which it said would be continued in Beijing and Manila.
In a Malacañang statement, it said initial talks “focused on the need to engage in discussions to build trust and confidence to reduce tensions to pave the way for overall cooperation for the benefit of both their peoples and the region.”
Other topics included encouraging marine preservation, avoiding tension, and promoting fishing cooperation, anti-drug and anti-smuggling cooperation, anti-crime and anti-corruption cooperation, improving tourism opportunities, encouraging trade and investment facilitation, and encouraging track II (think tank) exchanges on relevant issues of mutual concern and interest.
“They expressed the hope to find common ground for mutual benefit, especially for the poverty-stricken sectors of their societies. They stressed that building trust is very important to the long-term beneficial relationship between the Philippines and China.”
They reiterated that they are here in their personal capacity and were pleased with the discussions and looked forward to the beginning of a process of formal discussions which will be continued in Beijing and Manila and other possible venues.
Ramos said there would be a second round of discussions soon. “As to where this will take place we don’t know yet. We have to go back to Manila to find out the latest developments on the official side,” he said.
Philippine-Chinese ties have frayed in recent years due to tensions over Beijing’s claims to almost all the South China Sea.
The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam have competing partial claims and are perturbed by China’s aggressive moves to assert its sovereignty such as by reclaiming islands and building airstrips.
China has refused to recognize last month’s tribunal decision.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/ramos-meets-with-senior-chinese-official-in-hong-kong/#KgCcdBxsmeYIy4jY.99
ASEAN-China fr7ee trade agreement backed to ease regional tensions
by Roy Mabasa
August 12, 2016
Vientiane, Laos – A proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) among the 10-member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and six other nations, including China, is one way the region can get over “the South China Sea question,” a renowned East Asian economist said at the 5th Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) Editors’ Roundtable held here this week.
ERIA senior economist Ponciano Intal Jr. said the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) can be considered as a good way to try to “thump down” the tensions in the disputed region.
“Most of us know that economic, technical, and cooperative aspects for China and ASEAN are so much more important than some of the issues related to the South China Sea territorial disputes,” said Intal, a professor at the De La Salle University’s Department of Economics.
“That’s why RCEP is so critical,” he said. “We can actually manage better the South China Sea.”
Formally launched in November, 2012, at the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia, the RCEP is viewed as an alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which includes the United States but excludes China.
Aside from the ASEAN nations and China, participants to the proposed RCEP include Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand.
RCEP potentially includes more than 3 billion people – 45 percent of the world’s population – and a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about $21.3 trillion, accounting for about 40 percent of world trade.
It would cover trade in goods, trade in services, investment, economic and technical co-operation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement, and other issues.
“Over time you don’t want to have the South China Sea dispute as a significant hindrance to deeper integration and interlinkages between China and ASEAN,” Intal said.
Four ASEAN member states have claims to parts of South China Sea – the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. China, on the other hand, claims nearly the entire sea believed to be rich in resources.
Intal said he remains upbeat over the recent joint communique issued by ASEAN foreign ministers in their recent meeting also held here, despite the negative comments it earned from international foreign policy experts.
He expressed his disagreement with the view that the failure of the bloc to formally issue a unified support of the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the case initiated by the Philippines against China is proof of its lack of consensus.
“You have to accommodate various interests of ASEAN member states,” he said. “What matters is that there’s support for key elements of what is in the Tribunal’s decision without saying so. That’s part of diplomacy.”
“At least there’s great clarity about all those rocks and the like in the South China Sea. Then Philippines can move forward in its bilateral negotiations.” The whole point of this, he said, is the Philippines still wants a strong linkage with China.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/asean-china-free-trade-agreement-backed-to-ease-regional-tensions/#heiqCSUM5JcJKILx.99
by Roy Mabasa
August 12, 2016
Vientiane, Laos – A proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) among the 10-member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and six other nations, including China, is one way the region can get over “the South China Sea question,” a renowned East Asian economist said at the 5th Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) Editors’ Roundtable held here this week.
ERIA senior economist Ponciano Intal Jr. said the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) can be considered as a good way to try to “thump down” the tensions in the disputed region.
“Most of us know that economic, technical, and cooperative aspects for China and ASEAN are so much more important than some of the issues related to the South China Sea territorial disputes,” said Intal, a professor at the De La Salle University’s Department of Economics.
“That’s why RCEP is so critical,” he said. “We can actually manage better the South China Sea.”
Formally launched in November, 2012, at the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia, the RCEP is viewed as an alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which includes the United States but excludes China.
Aside from the ASEAN nations and China, participants to the proposed RCEP include Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand.
RCEP potentially includes more than 3 billion people – 45 percent of the world’s population – and a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about $21.3 trillion, accounting for about 40 percent of world trade.
It would cover trade in goods, trade in services, investment, economic and technical co-operation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement, and other issues.
“Over time you don’t want to have the South China Sea dispute as a significant hindrance to deeper integration and interlinkages between China and ASEAN,” Intal said.
Four ASEAN member states have claims to parts of South China Sea – the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. China, on the other hand, claims nearly the entire sea believed to be rich in resources.
Intal said he remains upbeat over the recent joint communique issued by ASEAN foreign ministers in their recent meeting also held here, despite the negative comments it earned from international foreign policy experts.
He expressed his disagreement with the view that the failure of the bloc to formally issue a unified support of the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the case initiated by the Philippines against China is proof of its lack of consensus.
“You have to accommodate various interests of ASEAN member states,” he said. “What matters is that there’s support for key elements of what is in the Tribunal’s decision without saying so. That’s part of diplomacy.”
“At least there’s great clarity about all those rocks and the like in the South China Sea. Then Philippines can move forward in its bilateral negotiations.” The whole point of this, he said, is the Philippines still wants a strong linkage with China.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/asean-china-free-trade-agreement-backed-to-ease-regional-tensions/#heiqCSUM5JcJKILx.99
Win-win solution to the Spratly issue
August 10, 2016 9:13 pm
http://www.manilatimes.net
by: VICTOR N. CORPUS
What do we do now?
What happens now? China will only talk if the PCA decision is not brought up. The Philippines withdrew from the negotiation. The Philippines won the legal battle; but it can’t fish, or explore, or drill for oil or gas in the disputed area. The US said that China should follow the rule of law; follow the legal decision of the PCA, and it has brought to the SCS two aircraft carrier strike groups and nuclear submarines. China says that those are mere pieces of tissue paper; null and void. China also intimated that it is ready to go to war with anyone who tries to enforce the PCA decision using military force.
Here are two superpowers, with nuclear forces ready, finding themselves face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball. The fate of the entire planet now depends on who will push the nuclear button first. What can we, ordinary mortals, do to diffuse the situation? Suggestion, anyone?
To start off, here are a couple of suggestions:
1. Diffuse the situation through the “backdoor.” Uncle Digong can send FVR and Chito Sta. Romana to conduct “backdoor” talks with the Chinese ambassador. The agenda is to convince the other side that we set aside the issue of sovereignty for the rest of the century. This is the only way we can proceed on a WIN-WIN strategy. This is because the sovereignty issue cannot be resolved in a thousand years. The Philippines stresses the legal aspect; China stresses the historical aspect. Both have a point; but “never the twain shall meet.” So, better that both of us set the sovereignty issue aside for the next 100 years so we can move forward; with both side agreeing that neither side is surrendering its territorial claim so that no one loses face before their respective constituencies, and the RP side will not be bothered with claims of unconstitutionality by local critiques who want to torpedo the negotiations. When both sides agree to shelve the sovereignty issue, then the real win-win negotiations can begin.
2. A win for RP
a. Joint exploration, exploitation, and development of oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the disputed area;
b. Joint exploitation, development and environmental protection of fishery and other marine resources in said area;
c. That China include Manila as the easternmost terminal hub of the Maritime Silk Road of the 21st Century that will start from Manila all the way to Madrid;
d. That China assist in the establishment of the Manila Silk Road hub that will include the modernization of existing ports, airport, railway networks north to south of both Luzon and Mindanao, alternative energy facilities (wind, solar, etc.), and industrial/manufacturing economic zones in select cities along the rail network.
3. A win for China
The core interest of China in the Spratly Islands is not oil, or gas, or fish. To them, the area spells their survival as a nation and civilization – or their extinction.
Some renowned geopolitical scientists (like Kaplan) view the South China Sea as consisting of a couple of “barren rocks,” sparsely populated, with not much geo-strategic value.
China’s view is just the exact opposite: to them, that is the only ideal area that has enough depth (Philippine trench) where US submarines can maneuver and launch a surprise first strike with their Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads on China’s east coast, where its industrial/manufacturing base and most of its more than 1.3 billion population are concentrated.
Such first strike can be finished in a couple of hours. And the Chinese nation and civilization, as we know it, will be extinct. Hence, China is willing to risk war with the US or any of its allies on this issue. That is the reason why China set up those artificial islands/ bases – to monitor and counter or prevent a surprise attack by US submarines coming from the deep of the South China Sea.
So a win for China is for the Philippines to agree on the current status quo: that both China and the Philippines continue occupying and developing the islands each country is occupying at the moment. This will put China’s mind at rest. If this win-win solution is adopted by both parties, there will no longer be a reason for continuing with EDCA. There is no more reason for China to put Philippine bases in the crosshairs of their missiles. There is no more reason for the Philippines to be the epicenter of a battle between two superpowers.
August 10, 2016 9:13 pm
http://www.manilatimes.net
by: VICTOR N. CORPUS
What do we do now?
What happens now? China will only talk if the PCA decision is not brought up. The Philippines withdrew from the negotiation. The Philippines won the legal battle; but it can’t fish, or explore, or drill for oil or gas in the disputed area. The US said that China should follow the rule of law; follow the legal decision of the PCA, and it has brought to the SCS two aircraft carrier strike groups and nuclear submarines. China says that those are mere pieces of tissue paper; null and void. China also intimated that it is ready to go to war with anyone who tries to enforce the PCA decision using military force.
Here are two superpowers, with nuclear forces ready, finding themselves face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball. The fate of the entire planet now depends on who will push the nuclear button first. What can we, ordinary mortals, do to diffuse the situation? Suggestion, anyone?
To start off, here are a couple of suggestions:
1. Diffuse the situation through the “backdoor.” Uncle Digong can send FVR and Chito Sta. Romana to conduct “backdoor” talks with the Chinese ambassador. The agenda is to convince the other side that we set aside the issue of sovereignty for the rest of the century. This is the only way we can proceed on a WIN-WIN strategy. This is because the sovereignty issue cannot be resolved in a thousand years. The Philippines stresses the legal aspect; China stresses the historical aspect. Both have a point; but “never the twain shall meet.” So, better that both of us set the sovereignty issue aside for the next 100 years so we can move forward; with both side agreeing that neither side is surrendering its territorial claim so that no one loses face before their respective constituencies, and the RP side will not be bothered with claims of unconstitutionality by local critiques who want to torpedo the negotiations. When both sides agree to shelve the sovereignty issue, then the real win-win negotiations can begin.
2. A win for RP
a. Joint exploration, exploitation, and development of oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the disputed area;
b. Joint exploitation, development and environmental protection of fishery and other marine resources in said area;
c. That China include Manila as the easternmost terminal hub of the Maritime Silk Road of the 21st Century that will start from Manila all the way to Madrid;
d. That China assist in the establishment of the Manila Silk Road hub that will include the modernization of existing ports, airport, railway networks north to south of both Luzon and Mindanao, alternative energy facilities (wind, solar, etc.), and industrial/manufacturing economic zones in select cities along the rail network.
3. A win for China
The core interest of China in the Spratly Islands is not oil, or gas, or fish. To them, the area spells their survival as a nation and civilization – or their extinction.
Some renowned geopolitical scientists (like Kaplan) view the South China Sea as consisting of a couple of “barren rocks,” sparsely populated, with not much geo-strategic value.
China’s view is just the exact opposite: to them, that is the only ideal area that has enough depth (Philippine trench) where US submarines can maneuver and launch a surprise first strike with their Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads on China’s east coast, where its industrial/manufacturing base and most of its more than 1.3 billion population are concentrated.
Such first strike can be finished in a couple of hours. And the Chinese nation and civilization, as we know it, will be extinct. Hence, China is willing to risk war with the US or any of its allies on this issue. That is the reason why China set up those artificial islands/ bases – to monitor and counter or prevent a surprise attack by US submarines coming from the deep of the South China Sea.
So a win for China is for the Philippines to agree on the current status quo: that both China and the Philippines continue occupying and developing the islands each country is occupying at the moment. This will put China’s mind at rest. If this win-win solution is adopted by both parties, there will no longer be a reason for continuing with EDCA. There is no more reason for China to put Philippine bases in the crosshairs of their missiles. There is no more reason for the Philippines to be the epicenter of a battle between two superpowers.
Ramos in HK to open talks with China
August 9, 2016
by BENJIE L. VERGARA With MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO
Former President Fidel V. Ramos flew to Hong Kong Monday to “warm up” the country’s relations with China before the start of official talks over the disputed West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
“I am just the icebreaker, to rekindle, to warm up again our good friendly neighborly relations with China and that’s all I have to do. And maybe that’s all I can do. But that is a big enough job as I see it and I’ll do my best,” Ramos told reporters before boarding a Philippine Airlines plane former Interior Secretary Rafael Alunan, Chito Sta. Romana and his wife Ming and a grandson.
Ramos, 88, accepted his appointment by President Rodrigo Duterte as special envoy to China.
“We are happy to undertake this job in addition to our other concerns and I may say that it is also true for former Secretary Alunan and also Sta. Romana, both of whom are not spring chicken anymore,” Ramos said.
“We are going to Hong Kong because that is where our contacts are based and that is the most feasible and quickest venue that would be reached by the friends and assets we are hoping to dialogue with. But since this assignment came at a rather short time, it will also take time to contact these people that we want to talk to about peace, harmony and goodwill between China and the Philippines,” the former leader said.
Ramos however declined to identify the people they will be talking to.
He said Hong Kong will be the launching pad of the formal talks.
“I don’t know at this point but from Hong Kong, that is a very convenient launching pad to reach other places in China,” he told reporters.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) expressed hopes that Ramos will give priority to the plight of Filipino fishermen in his upcoming dialogue with China.
The Chinese Coast Guard had prevented Filipinos from fishing in the resource-rich Panatag (Scarborough) shoal despite the ruling of an international arbitration court that the area is a traditional fishing ground.
“We really need to discuss this issue with China,” Charles Jose, spokesperson of the DFA, said. “This is one of the priority issues that he has to take.”
August 9, 2016
by BENJIE L. VERGARA With MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO
Former President Fidel V. Ramos flew to Hong Kong Monday to “warm up” the country’s relations with China before the start of official talks over the disputed West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
“I am just the icebreaker, to rekindle, to warm up again our good friendly neighborly relations with China and that’s all I have to do. And maybe that’s all I can do. But that is a big enough job as I see it and I’ll do my best,” Ramos told reporters before boarding a Philippine Airlines plane former Interior Secretary Rafael Alunan, Chito Sta. Romana and his wife Ming and a grandson.
Ramos, 88, accepted his appointment by President Rodrigo Duterte as special envoy to China.
“We are happy to undertake this job in addition to our other concerns and I may say that it is also true for former Secretary Alunan and also Sta. Romana, both of whom are not spring chicken anymore,” Ramos said.
“We are going to Hong Kong because that is where our contacts are based and that is the most feasible and quickest venue that would be reached by the friends and assets we are hoping to dialogue with. But since this assignment came at a rather short time, it will also take time to contact these people that we want to talk to about peace, harmony and goodwill between China and the Philippines,” the former leader said.
Ramos however declined to identify the people they will be talking to.
He said Hong Kong will be the launching pad of the formal talks.
“I don’t know at this point but from Hong Kong, that is a very convenient launching pad to reach other places in China,” he told reporters.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) expressed hopes that Ramos will give priority to the plight of Filipino fishermen in his upcoming dialogue with China.
The Chinese Coast Guard had prevented Filipinos from fishing in the resource-rich Panatag (Scarborough) shoal despite the ruling of an international arbitration court that the area is a traditional fishing ground.
“We really need to discuss this issue with China,” Charles Jose, spokesperson of the DFA, said. “This is one of the priority issues that he has to take.”
PH agri-food sector to keep China trade ties
August 8, 2016
by RAADEE S. SAUSA
THE Philippine agri-food industry in-tends to continue strengthening trade activities with partners in Greater China as the sector believes there is still strong potential for commerce despite the controversy over the recent South China Sea ruling.
Roberto Amores, president of the Philippine Food Processors and Exporters Organization Inc., food trustee of the Philippine Exporters Confederation Inc. (PhilExport), and chairman of the Agriculture Committee of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), expressed optimism that trade relations between the Philippines and China will soon get past the political bump arising from the territorial dispute given their long-established trade ties.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on July 12 ruled in favor of the Philippines in its maritime dispute with China, saying that China has no legal basis to claim historic rights to bulk of the South China Sea.
PhilExport-Cebu president Nelson Bascones said in July that most exporters have not reported any business disruption following the tribunal’s ruling as both governments were trying to address the matter via diplomatic means.
Cebuano exporters have even noted improving demand from China in recent months, especially for processed food and seafood products, Bascones said, adding that “more and more marine products are shipped to China now, from Cebu.”
According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), China was the Philippines’ second largest trading partner and third largest export market in 2015.
The latest PSA data show that Greater China—comprised of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan—is among the Philippines’ top 10 export markets. In May this year, Hong Kong was the country’s third leading export destination, while the mainland came fourth, and Taiwan eighth, data showed.
Hong Kong took in $513.67 million worth of Philippine exports for a 10.9-percent share of total exports during the month. China had a 10.6-percent share to total exports, with shipments valued at $499.15 million. Taiwan accounted for $163.98 million or a 3.5-percent share.
On the other hand, mainland China remains the country’s biggest source of imports with a 20.4-percent share in May 2016, according to the PSA. Philippine import payments reached $1.37 billion in May this year, an increase of 65.7 percent from $828.66 million in May 2015. This generated a total trade value of $1.87 billion, with a trade deficit for the Philippines of $879.87 million.
Taiwan was the Philippines’ sixth-largest import source in May 2016, supplying $441.21 million worth of imported goods for a 6.5-percent share of the country’s total imports, while Hong Kong was the 10th biggest source with $211.11 million worth of imports for a 3.1-percent share.
August 8, 2016
by RAADEE S. SAUSA
THE Philippine agri-food industry in-tends to continue strengthening trade activities with partners in Greater China as the sector believes there is still strong potential for commerce despite the controversy over the recent South China Sea ruling.
Roberto Amores, president of the Philippine Food Processors and Exporters Organization Inc., food trustee of the Philippine Exporters Confederation Inc. (PhilExport), and chairman of the Agriculture Committee of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), expressed optimism that trade relations between the Philippines and China will soon get past the political bump arising from the territorial dispute given their long-established trade ties.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on July 12 ruled in favor of the Philippines in its maritime dispute with China, saying that China has no legal basis to claim historic rights to bulk of the South China Sea.
PhilExport-Cebu president Nelson Bascones said in July that most exporters have not reported any business disruption following the tribunal’s ruling as both governments were trying to address the matter via diplomatic means.
Cebuano exporters have even noted improving demand from China in recent months, especially for processed food and seafood products, Bascones said, adding that “more and more marine products are shipped to China now, from Cebu.”
According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), China was the Philippines’ second largest trading partner and third largest export market in 2015.
The latest PSA data show that Greater China—comprised of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan—is among the Philippines’ top 10 export markets. In May this year, Hong Kong was the country’s third leading export destination, while the mainland came fourth, and Taiwan eighth, data showed.
Hong Kong took in $513.67 million worth of Philippine exports for a 10.9-percent share of total exports during the month. China had a 10.6-percent share to total exports, with shipments valued at $499.15 million. Taiwan accounted for $163.98 million or a 3.5-percent share.
On the other hand, mainland China remains the country’s biggest source of imports with a 20.4-percent share in May 2016, according to the PSA. Philippine import payments reached $1.37 billion in May this year, an increase of 65.7 percent from $828.66 million in May 2015. This generated a total trade value of $1.87 billion, with a trade deficit for the Philippines of $879.87 million.
Taiwan was the Philippines’ sixth-largest import source in May 2016, supplying $441.21 million worth of imported goods for a 6.5-percent share of the country’s total imports, while Hong Kong was the 10th biggest source with $211.11 million worth of imports for a 3.1-percent share.
Beyond conflict
by Melito Salazar Jr.
August 8, 2016
The early months of the Duterte administration is bringing fresh hopes of better Philippines-Chinese relationships which has given proponents of peace and progress through fair and equitable partnerships an opportunity to put forward suggestions for improving relationships. A structured sharing was crafted under the auspices of the Center for Philippine Studies & Institute of Southeast Asian Studies of Jinan University, Guangzhou China, and the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies, Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence, and Terrorism Research and the Philippine-Chinese Friendship Clubs. I joined other respected and recognized Chinese-Philippine analysts give their prognosis on the “Future of Philippine-Chinese relationships: Beyond Conflict.”
Mr. Chito Sta. Romana, a veteran Filipino journalist who has lived and worked in China for more than three decades, sees the election of President Duterte and his desire to open bilateral talks and improve relations with China as an opportunity for opening a new chapter in bilateral ties. But he considers major factors that have an impact – the legal victory attained by the Philippines in its arbitration case against China and the Chinese leadership’s attitude of negating the arbitral tribunal’s ruling. He believes both sides will need a significant degree of creativity, flexibility, and pragmatism to find way forward. He considers the key challenge for both sides is to acknowledge and manage their differences as they explore areas of functional cooperation so they can co-exist peacefully as neighboring countries,
Professor Dai Fan, founder of the Center of Philippine Studies at Jinan University, postulates that a balancing policy between China and the United States may serve the Philippines national interest best.
Dr. Rommel C. Banloi, chairman of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism and director of the Center of Intelligence and National Security Studies believes that beyond the South China Sea disputes, the Philippines and China can cooperate in many areas of common interests especially in countering the virulent threat of terrorism.
Dr. Ellen Palanca, director of Confucius Institute at the Ateneo de Manila University, analyzed and explained the trends of the various economic aspects of Philippines-China relations – trade, investments, loans and ODAs, and tourism – showing how global trade integration, global financial crisis, slowdown, and structural changes in China’s economy explains the trends. However, Philippine domestic governance and political relations with China are important determinants for loans and ODAs from China.
Dr, Jay L. Batongbacal, the director of the UP Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea and recognized marine policy researcher, explained that the arbitration ruling has cleared the air and provides a good basis for bilateral talks and better relations in the future.
Prof. Lu Jian-Ren, chief research fellow of the China-ASEAN Research Institute of the Guangxi University, suggests the proper resolution of the South China Sea dispute, shelving disputes and move to joint development, start bilateral talks on economic cooperation, promote tourism, and strengthen cultural, people-to-people exchange.
Dr. Gilberto Llanto, president of the Philippines Institute for Development Studies, considers infrastructure as an important area of cooperation between the Philippines and China. China has technical and financial resources that should be tapped to address the infrastructure lack which is a binding constraint to Philippine growth. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, being a good vehicle to improve Philippine infrastructure and connectivity with East Asia and Southeast Asia, should make the Philippines ratify AIIB membership, allocate a budget for capital contribution, prepare the project pipeline, and negotiate co-financing.
Mr. Lucio Blanco Pitlo III, assistant professorial lecturer for International Studies at the De La Salle University, thinks that while disputes persist in the South China Sea, proximity and contiguity (by land and sea) can actually be used to foster mutually beneficial ties which can serve as foundations for improved relations and enduring regional peace and order.
General Victor Corpus, former chief, Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, boldly offers a win-win solution by both sides agreeing to set aside the issue of sovereignty for the rest of the century; making clear that each party is not surrendering its claim so no one loses face. Then the win-win talks begin, leading to joint exploitation of fishery resources, exploration of oil, gas and other minerals, Manila as easternmost HUB of the maritime Silk Road of the 21st century.
Dr. Aaron Jed Rabena who recently obtained his PhD in International Relations from the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University, Jinan, underscores the need to understand the dynamics behind the China-Philippine tension and recommends potential management solutions/policy actions in easing the situation and advancing the bilateral structure of the relations.
Professor Ju Hai-Long, vice dean of the School of International Relations/Academy of Overseas Chinese, Jinan University, believes that the future development of Sino-Philippines relations relies on the choice of the Duterte administration’s SCS’s policy, the pressure that the US puts on the Philippines, and the scale that China and the Philippines cooperate science in the region.
Dr. Aileen Baviera, professor and former dean of the UP Asian Center, argues that from a Philippine perspective, managing the disputes with China will have to be undertaken at various levels and using different frames – the role the disputes play in perceptions of China as a security threat, the need to address the question of access and rights to the ocean’s resources, and the role the disputes play in regional integration.
Dr. You Hong-Bo, assistant professor of the School of International Relations, Sun Yat-sen University, traces the quick development of media diplomacy and argues that Weibo which has become an important tool of public diplomacy be used to better Philippine-China relations.
Ms. Mean Ang See, director of Bahay Tsinoy museum, explores how the Chinese in Philippines see their places in the SCS/WPS discourse and presented the result of an identity study done in 1995 and 2016.
Ms. Ivy Marie Ganadillo, university extension specialist at the University of the Philippines Diliman, poses the question – will the Chinese presence bridge the gap or pose suspicion between the two nations?
Wilson Lee Flores, a multi-awarded writer, college teacher, and real estate entrepreneur, contends that the generations of Chinese in the Philippines have always supported the promotion of Philippine-Chinese relations.
Having engaged China since the 80’s – lectured in 7 Chinese universities, participated in joint media forums of ASEAN and China, negotiated the trade deals with Minister Wui which opened the door to Philippine banana exports, and held discussions with Communist Party officials on the Rule of Law and other Structural Reforms in China – I shared the belief that greater understanding of each other will allow Philippines and China to go beyond conflict. More responsible media will help improve Philippines- China relations.
http://www.mb.com.ph/beyond-conflict/#uQPrJpjgBDQvXTv2.99
by Melito Salazar Jr.
August 8, 2016
The early months of the Duterte administration is bringing fresh hopes of better Philippines-Chinese relationships which has given proponents of peace and progress through fair and equitable partnerships an opportunity to put forward suggestions for improving relationships. A structured sharing was crafted under the auspices of the Center for Philippine Studies & Institute of Southeast Asian Studies of Jinan University, Guangzhou China, and the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies, Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence, and Terrorism Research and the Philippine-Chinese Friendship Clubs. I joined other respected and recognized Chinese-Philippine analysts give their prognosis on the “Future of Philippine-Chinese relationships: Beyond Conflict.”
Mr. Chito Sta. Romana, a veteran Filipino journalist who has lived and worked in China for more than three decades, sees the election of President Duterte and his desire to open bilateral talks and improve relations with China as an opportunity for opening a new chapter in bilateral ties. But he considers major factors that have an impact – the legal victory attained by the Philippines in its arbitration case against China and the Chinese leadership’s attitude of negating the arbitral tribunal’s ruling. He believes both sides will need a significant degree of creativity, flexibility, and pragmatism to find way forward. He considers the key challenge for both sides is to acknowledge and manage their differences as they explore areas of functional cooperation so they can co-exist peacefully as neighboring countries,
Professor Dai Fan, founder of the Center of Philippine Studies at Jinan University, postulates that a balancing policy between China and the United States may serve the Philippines national interest best.
Dr. Rommel C. Banloi, chairman of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism and director of the Center of Intelligence and National Security Studies believes that beyond the South China Sea disputes, the Philippines and China can cooperate in many areas of common interests especially in countering the virulent threat of terrorism.
Dr. Ellen Palanca, director of Confucius Institute at the Ateneo de Manila University, analyzed and explained the trends of the various economic aspects of Philippines-China relations – trade, investments, loans and ODAs, and tourism – showing how global trade integration, global financial crisis, slowdown, and structural changes in China’s economy explains the trends. However, Philippine domestic governance and political relations with China are important determinants for loans and ODAs from China.
Dr, Jay L. Batongbacal, the director of the UP Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea and recognized marine policy researcher, explained that the arbitration ruling has cleared the air and provides a good basis for bilateral talks and better relations in the future.
Prof. Lu Jian-Ren, chief research fellow of the China-ASEAN Research Institute of the Guangxi University, suggests the proper resolution of the South China Sea dispute, shelving disputes and move to joint development, start bilateral talks on economic cooperation, promote tourism, and strengthen cultural, people-to-people exchange.
Dr. Gilberto Llanto, president of the Philippines Institute for Development Studies, considers infrastructure as an important area of cooperation between the Philippines and China. China has technical and financial resources that should be tapped to address the infrastructure lack which is a binding constraint to Philippine growth. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, being a good vehicle to improve Philippine infrastructure and connectivity with East Asia and Southeast Asia, should make the Philippines ratify AIIB membership, allocate a budget for capital contribution, prepare the project pipeline, and negotiate co-financing.
Mr. Lucio Blanco Pitlo III, assistant professorial lecturer for International Studies at the De La Salle University, thinks that while disputes persist in the South China Sea, proximity and contiguity (by land and sea) can actually be used to foster mutually beneficial ties which can serve as foundations for improved relations and enduring regional peace and order.
General Victor Corpus, former chief, Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, boldly offers a win-win solution by both sides agreeing to set aside the issue of sovereignty for the rest of the century; making clear that each party is not surrendering its claim so no one loses face. Then the win-win talks begin, leading to joint exploitation of fishery resources, exploration of oil, gas and other minerals, Manila as easternmost HUB of the maritime Silk Road of the 21st century.
Dr. Aaron Jed Rabena who recently obtained his PhD in International Relations from the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University, Jinan, underscores the need to understand the dynamics behind the China-Philippine tension and recommends potential management solutions/policy actions in easing the situation and advancing the bilateral structure of the relations.
Professor Ju Hai-Long, vice dean of the School of International Relations/Academy of Overseas Chinese, Jinan University, believes that the future development of Sino-Philippines relations relies on the choice of the Duterte administration’s SCS’s policy, the pressure that the US puts on the Philippines, and the scale that China and the Philippines cooperate science in the region.
Dr. Aileen Baviera, professor and former dean of the UP Asian Center, argues that from a Philippine perspective, managing the disputes with China will have to be undertaken at various levels and using different frames – the role the disputes play in perceptions of China as a security threat, the need to address the question of access and rights to the ocean’s resources, and the role the disputes play in regional integration.
Dr. You Hong-Bo, assistant professor of the School of International Relations, Sun Yat-sen University, traces the quick development of media diplomacy and argues that Weibo which has become an important tool of public diplomacy be used to better Philippine-China relations.
Ms. Mean Ang See, director of Bahay Tsinoy museum, explores how the Chinese in Philippines see their places in the SCS/WPS discourse and presented the result of an identity study done in 1995 and 2016.
Ms. Ivy Marie Ganadillo, university extension specialist at the University of the Philippines Diliman, poses the question – will the Chinese presence bridge the gap or pose suspicion between the two nations?
Wilson Lee Flores, a multi-awarded writer, college teacher, and real estate entrepreneur, contends that the generations of Chinese in the Philippines have always supported the promotion of Philippine-Chinese relations.
Having engaged China since the 80’s – lectured in 7 Chinese universities, participated in joint media forums of ASEAN and China, negotiated the trade deals with Minister Wui which opened the door to Philippine banana exports, and held discussions with Communist Party officials on the Rule of Law and other Structural Reforms in China – I shared the belief that greater understanding of each other will allow Philippines and China to go beyond conflict. More responsible media will help improve Philippines- China relations.
http://www.mb.com.ph/beyond-conflict/#uQPrJpjgBDQvXTv2.99
China warns of penalties vs foreigners in West PH Sea
by MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO
August 3, 2016
CHINA has warned of penalties against foreigners caught violating its sovereignty over its territorial seas, including the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
State-run Xinhua news agency reported that the Chinese Supreme Court had issued a regulation stating that foreigners as well as Chinese citizens will be pursued for criminal liability if they engage in “illegal hunting or fishing or killing endangered wildlife in China’s jurisdictional seas.”
It said the regulation, which took effect on Tuesday, provides a clear legal basis for China to safeguard maritime order, marine safety and interests, and to exercise integrated management over the country’s jurisdictional seas.
“People’s courts will actively exercise jurisdiction over China’s territorial waters, support administrative departments to legally perform maritime management duties, equally protect the legal rights of Chinese and foreign parties involved and safeguard Chinese territorial sovereignty and maritime interests,” a statement issued by the court said.
The judicial explanation, according to the statement, was based on Chinese law, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) and judicial practices.
According to the regulation, jurisdictional seas not only include inland waters and territorial seas but also contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves.
It specifies the standard of conviction and punishment for illegal marine fishing: those who illegally enter Chinese territorial waters and refuse to leave after being driven away, or who re-enter after being driven away or being fined in the past year, will be considered to have committed “serious” criminal acts and will be fined and sentenced to less than a year of imprisonment, detention or surveillance.
This penalty also applies to those who illegally enter China’s territorial seas to fish but do not engage in “illegal fishing” under the law, it said.
The move is seen as an attempt to provide legal cover to Chinese coast guard personnel who block and chase away Filipinos who attempt to fish at the Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal despite a ruling from a United Nations arbitral court that the area belongs to the Philippines.
The shoal, also known as Bajo de Masinloc, is located 124 nautical miles northwest of Luzon. It had been a traditional fishing ground not only of Filipinos and Chinese fishermen, but also of other nationalities.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration on July 12 upheld the provisions of the 1982 Unclos that gives the Philippines the rights to areas within 200 nautical miles of its coastline.
Charles Jose, assistant secretary and spokesman of the Department of Foreign Affairs, said Manila will continue to assert its rights to the shoal.
“The tribunal made it clear in its ruling that Bajo de Masinloc is a common fishing ground. It is important that our fishermen are able to return to Bajo de Masinloc because it is about their livelihood,” he said, adding that the issue will have to be resolved in the upcoming bilateral talks with China.
by MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO
August 3, 2016
CHINA has warned of penalties against foreigners caught violating its sovereignty over its territorial seas, including the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
State-run Xinhua news agency reported that the Chinese Supreme Court had issued a regulation stating that foreigners as well as Chinese citizens will be pursued for criminal liability if they engage in “illegal hunting or fishing or killing endangered wildlife in China’s jurisdictional seas.”
It said the regulation, which took effect on Tuesday, provides a clear legal basis for China to safeguard maritime order, marine safety and interests, and to exercise integrated management over the country’s jurisdictional seas.
“People’s courts will actively exercise jurisdiction over China’s territorial waters, support administrative departments to legally perform maritime management duties, equally protect the legal rights of Chinese and foreign parties involved and safeguard Chinese territorial sovereignty and maritime interests,” a statement issued by the court said.
The judicial explanation, according to the statement, was based on Chinese law, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) and judicial practices.
According to the regulation, jurisdictional seas not only include inland waters and territorial seas but also contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves.
It specifies the standard of conviction and punishment for illegal marine fishing: those who illegally enter Chinese territorial waters and refuse to leave after being driven away, or who re-enter after being driven away or being fined in the past year, will be considered to have committed “serious” criminal acts and will be fined and sentenced to less than a year of imprisonment, detention or surveillance.
This penalty also applies to those who illegally enter China’s territorial seas to fish but do not engage in “illegal fishing” under the law, it said.
The move is seen as an attempt to provide legal cover to Chinese coast guard personnel who block and chase away Filipinos who attempt to fish at the Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal despite a ruling from a United Nations arbitral court that the area belongs to the Philippines.
The shoal, also known as Bajo de Masinloc, is located 124 nautical miles northwest of Luzon. It had been a traditional fishing ground not only of Filipinos and Chinese fishermen, but also of other nationalities.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration on July 12 upheld the provisions of the 1982 Unclos that gives the Philippines the rights to areas within 200 nautical miles of its coastline.
Charles Jose, assistant secretary and spokesman of the Department of Foreign Affairs, said Manila will continue to assert its rights to the shoal.
“The tribunal made it clear in its ruling that Bajo de Masinloc is a common fishing ground. It is important that our fishermen are able to return to Bajo de Masinloc because it is about their livelihood,” he said, adding that the issue will have to be resolved in the upcoming bilateral talks with China.
Duterte opts for dialogue with China over illegal drugs
by Genalyn Kabiling
July 30, 2016
President Duterte defended the government’s war against illegal drugs following criticism that the government was only targeting the poor in its anti-illegal drug crackdown.
For the first time, the identified China as the lair of drug lords behind the illegal drug trade in the country as he solicited the help of troops from the Southern Luzon Command in the fight against illegal drugs during a troop visit Thursday.
But the President is not about to wage war with China over illegal drugs and insisted on addressing the problem through dialogue.
“Where is the big fish? Gusto mo? Punta ka ng China. Doon hanapin ninyo (If you want them, go to China. Look for them there),” the President said in response to critics who say the campaign has not netted a “big fish.”
“We cannot go there to just declare war. Hindi naman sinabi takot ha (Not that we are afraid) but it is not the correct move. We do not go into a violent fight as war now because simply it’s not correct. We have to maintain the integrity of this Republic,” he added.
Duterte asserted he intends to confront China over the drug problem once the maritime conflict is settled. He admitted that media preempted his plan to talk with the Chinese ambassador.
Citing figures from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) two years ago, Duterte said there are three million drug dependents in the country.
“I am just telling the police to take punitive police action. We have a crisis and we are facing a war,” the President stressed.
He said those operating in the country are the workers and lieutenants of the “big fish” operating outside the country who are” using modern technology with a digital map to direct the flow of goods, the drop off points and how to locate the drugs.”
The President called on the police and military to “destroy” the criminals behind the menace and assured them a raise in their salary and provide additional equipment so they can do their jobs better. “Your life is not something that I can just throw away. My message is: Just work,” Duterte told the troops.
Last week, the Chinese embassy in Manila assured that Beijing is ready to cooperate with the Philippine government’s campaign against illegal drug trade.
Duterte earlier expressed dismay at the alleged involvement of Chinese nations in drug operations in the country, saying he would soon ask China about the matter. Duterte claimed that many Chinese visitors were into drugs even inside jail.
http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-opts-for-dialogue-with-china-over-illegal-drugs/#uXhqA7w5H7MKdK7x.99
by Genalyn Kabiling
July 30, 2016
President Duterte defended the government’s war against illegal drugs following criticism that the government was only targeting the poor in its anti-illegal drug crackdown.
For the first time, the identified China as the lair of drug lords behind the illegal drug trade in the country as he solicited the help of troops from the Southern Luzon Command in the fight against illegal drugs during a troop visit Thursday.
But the President is not about to wage war with China over illegal drugs and insisted on addressing the problem through dialogue.
“Where is the big fish? Gusto mo? Punta ka ng China. Doon hanapin ninyo (If you want them, go to China. Look for them there),” the President said in response to critics who say the campaign has not netted a “big fish.”
“We cannot go there to just declare war. Hindi naman sinabi takot ha (Not that we are afraid) but it is not the correct move. We do not go into a violent fight as war now because simply it’s not correct. We have to maintain the integrity of this Republic,” he added.
Duterte asserted he intends to confront China over the drug problem once the maritime conflict is settled. He admitted that media preempted his plan to talk with the Chinese ambassador.
Citing figures from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) two years ago, Duterte said there are three million drug dependents in the country.
“I am just telling the police to take punitive police action. We have a crisis and we are facing a war,” the President stressed.
He said those operating in the country are the workers and lieutenants of the “big fish” operating outside the country who are” using modern technology with a digital map to direct the flow of goods, the drop off points and how to locate the drugs.”
The President called on the police and military to “destroy” the criminals behind the menace and assured them a raise in their salary and provide additional equipment so they can do their jobs better. “Your life is not something that I can just throw away. My message is: Just work,” Duterte told the troops.
Last week, the Chinese embassy in Manila assured that Beijing is ready to cooperate with the Philippine government’s campaign against illegal drug trade.
Duterte earlier expressed dismay at the alleged involvement of Chinese nations in drug operations in the country, saying he would soon ask China about the matter. Duterte claimed that many Chinese visitors were into drugs even inside jail.
http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-opts-for-dialogue-with-china-over-illegal-drugs/#uXhqA7w5H7MKdK7x.99
US seeks PH-China talks
Washington wants to avoid‘confrontation’ in disputed sea – Kerry
By Agence France-Presse and Dow Jones
July 28, 2016
The Philippines and China must settle their territorial dispute over the South China Sea through diplomacy, not “coercion or a threat of force,” United States Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday during a visit to Manila.
America’s top diplomat said the US wanted China and the Philippines to engage in talks and “confidence-building measures,” saying Washington wanted to avoid “confrontation” in the South China Sea, after an international tribunal rejected Beijing’s claims to most of the waters.
Kerry also urged the claimant countries to “exercise restraint and to work to reduce tension” in the South China Sea. “We hope to see a real opportunity for claimants to work together constructively, peacefully, and ultimately resolve their difference consistent with international law,” he said. “We hope to see a process that will narrow the geographic scope of the maritime dispute, set standard of behavior.”
Kerry made the remarks after meeting with Philippine Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay in Manila where they discussed the Southeast Asian nation’s sweeping victory in the arbitration case against China.
“The decision itself is a binding decision but we’re not trying to create a confrontation. We are trying to create a solution mindful of the rights of people established under the law,” Kerry said.
A tribunal based in The Hague this month ruled that China’s claim to most of the strategic waterway was inconsistent with international law. The decision angered Beijing, which vowed to ignore the ruling.
But Kerry said the United States saw an “opportunity” for claimants to peacefully resolve the row.
“We hope to see a process that will narrow the geographic scope of the maritime disputes, set standards for behavior in contested areas, lead to mutually acceptable solutions, perhaps even a series of confidence-building steps,” he said.
Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have claims to the South China Sea, a vital waterway through which $5 trillion in annual trade passes. It is also believed to sit atop vast reserves of oil and gas.
Yasay, who spoke at Wednesday’s briefing in Manila alongside Kerry, said the Philippines is ready to negotiate with China, and has named former President Fidel V. Ramos, a respected statesman in Asia, as special envoy to settle the sea dispute.
“We would hope this would be pursued as soon as possible,” said Yasay, whose responses to the tribunal’s verdict have so far been kept low-key to avoid antagonizing China. “We are hoping that China will come up with a position that will allow these bilateral talks to proceed.”
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who met Kerry on the sidelines of the ASEAN gathering in Laos, said on Tuesday he would welcome Ramos’ visit.
The Chinese foreign minister also told his US counterpart that China and ASEAN had agreed the dispute should get back on to the “correct” track of being resolved by direct talks with the parties concerned, according to a foreign ministry statement released on Tuesday.
Yasay said negotiations with China must be undertaken “within the ambit of international law and the 1982 UNCLOS,” referring to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that underpins the tribunal’s ruling.
Kerry said that while the US is urging negotiations, it understands that “our friend and ally, the Philippines, can only do so on terms that are acceptable to the government of the Philippines.”
Duterte also met with Kerry later Wednesday, but presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said the pair didn’t strike any deals on how to handle the South China Sea issue.
“There were no agreements regarding that, except that the President did mention that whatever talks we will engage in will begin with the ruling. That will be the foundation,” Abella said. He said that despite the polar views of the Philippines and China on the ruling, it couldn’t be considered a “stalemate” and that “the conversation will continue.”
In the wake of the tribunal ruling, fears of militarization in the area grew as China announced long-range bomber flights to distant islands and new naval drills, while the US said it would continue sailing and flying through the region. However, recent developments suggest China and the US are looking to reduce tensions in the region. (With Reuters)
http://www.mb.com.ph/us-seeks-ph-china-talks/#Cq1tOV6qytimwH1X.99
Beijing’s ‘new language’ hints at flexibility, cooperation
by AP
July 22, 2016
BEIJING – Amid China’s outrage over an international tribunal that rejected its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the country is using new language that some experts say shows Beijing wants to be more flexible. But it is too late?
China has been on a public relations offensive to discredit The Hague-based tribunal that last week handed the Philippines a massive victory in its challenge to Beijing’s claims to much of the sea. Buried in the outpouring of statements and diplomats’ diatribes, however, is a new stance on cooperating with the Philippines and other claimants in jointly developing the waters’ rich fishing stocks and potential wealth of other natural resources.
“China is ready to discuss with countries concerned about provisional arrangements pending final settlement of the dispute,” the country’s top diplomat, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, said last week. Yang did not describe specifics of the arrangements but said they would include joint development for “mutual benefits.”
Other official statements have also said China is willing to enter into “provisional arrangements of a practical nature,” phrasing that echoes language used in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS, such “provisional arrangements” set aside issues of sovereignty and promote joint development of resources, with the understanding that cooperation would neither bolster nor undermine a state’s claims. Several Chinese analysts said it marked a new approach for China.
“It is the first time that the idea of provisional arrangements has been proposed as a policy,” said Zhu Feng, executive director of the China Center for Collaborative Studies of South China Sea of Nanjing University.
Zhu said such arrangements under UNCLOS could expand the scope of possible activities in which China and other claimants could work together to include not just oil exploitation but the development of fisheries, tourism and other resources.
For years, China has publicly touted the idea of jointly developing the South China Sea with other claimants, but its insistence that the other party first recognize Chinese sovereignty over the features in question posed a major stumbling block, analysts say.
Chinese analysts say Beijing is offering such arrangements to demonstrate flexibility and play down the thorny issue of sovereignty. Other analysts say China is likely under pressure to head off attempts by other countries that claim parts of the South China Sea to replicate the Philippines’ legal success.
China’s main challenge is that last week’s ruling gives other parties little incentive to talk.
“The problem is that according to the ruling, China only enjoys a very small part of the territorial sea, therefore laying a foundation for other claimants not to seek joint development,” said Chen Xiangmiao, a researcher at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies.
Analysts in the U.S. said the apparent shift in China’s negotiating strategy was noteworthy, but that Beijing needs to build trust with the other claimants.
Southeast Asian nations involved in disputes with China have said they think Beijing’s calls for negotiations are mere stalling tactics as China continues to build airstrips and other infrastructure in the South China Sea, effectively expanding its control over the vast waters.
Questions remain about the conditions Beijing would impose on any talks.
The Philippines’ foreign secretary, Perfecto Yasay, this week said Manila rejected Beijing’s offer of talks on that condition, saying it was inconsistent with the Philippines’ constitution and its national interest.
On Thursday, the official China Daily carried a Chinese foreign ministry response to Yasay’s rejection, urging the Philippines to chart a new course. The ministry was quoted as saying: “There is still time if timely remedy is made.”
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/beijings-new-language-hints-at-flexibility-cooperation/#cO3DTIw1446vpPXf.99
by AP
July 22, 2016
BEIJING – Amid China’s outrage over an international tribunal that rejected its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the country is using new language that some experts say shows Beijing wants to be more flexible. But it is too late?
China has been on a public relations offensive to discredit The Hague-based tribunal that last week handed the Philippines a massive victory in its challenge to Beijing’s claims to much of the sea. Buried in the outpouring of statements and diplomats’ diatribes, however, is a new stance on cooperating with the Philippines and other claimants in jointly developing the waters’ rich fishing stocks and potential wealth of other natural resources.
“China is ready to discuss with countries concerned about provisional arrangements pending final settlement of the dispute,” the country’s top diplomat, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, said last week. Yang did not describe specifics of the arrangements but said they would include joint development for “mutual benefits.”
Other official statements have also said China is willing to enter into “provisional arrangements of a practical nature,” phrasing that echoes language used in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS, such “provisional arrangements” set aside issues of sovereignty and promote joint development of resources, with the understanding that cooperation would neither bolster nor undermine a state’s claims. Several Chinese analysts said it marked a new approach for China.
“It is the first time that the idea of provisional arrangements has been proposed as a policy,” said Zhu Feng, executive director of the China Center for Collaborative Studies of South China Sea of Nanjing University.
Zhu said such arrangements under UNCLOS could expand the scope of possible activities in which China and other claimants could work together to include not just oil exploitation but the development of fisheries, tourism and other resources.
For years, China has publicly touted the idea of jointly developing the South China Sea with other claimants, but its insistence that the other party first recognize Chinese sovereignty over the features in question posed a major stumbling block, analysts say.
Chinese analysts say Beijing is offering such arrangements to demonstrate flexibility and play down the thorny issue of sovereignty. Other analysts say China is likely under pressure to head off attempts by other countries that claim parts of the South China Sea to replicate the Philippines’ legal success.
China’s main challenge is that last week’s ruling gives other parties little incentive to talk.
“The problem is that according to the ruling, China only enjoys a very small part of the territorial sea, therefore laying a foundation for other claimants not to seek joint development,” said Chen Xiangmiao, a researcher at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies.
Analysts in the U.S. said the apparent shift in China’s negotiating strategy was noteworthy, but that Beijing needs to build trust with the other claimants.
Southeast Asian nations involved in disputes with China have said they think Beijing’s calls for negotiations are mere stalling tactics as China continues to build airstrips and other infrastructure in the South China Sea, effectively expanding its control over the vast waters.
Questions remain about the conditions Beijing would impose on any talks.
The Philippines’ foreign secretary, Perfecto Yasay, this week said Manila rejected Beijing’s offer of talks on that condition, saying it was inconsistent with the Philippines’ constitution and its national interest.
On Thursday, the official China Daily carried a Chinese foreign ministry response to Yasay’s rejection, urging the Philippines to chart a new course. The ministry was quoted as saying: “There is still time if timely remedy is made.”
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/beijings-new-language-hints-at-flexibility-cooperation/#cO3DTIw1446vpPXf.99
Can we talk to China on West Philippine Sea?
Fourth and last of a series
AFTER returning to Manila the next day, I drafted a memo in the name of Domingo Lee in his capacity as Special Presidential Envoy to China. The memo was addressed to President Aquino, reporting on the background of our trip to Beijing and narrating the substance of our conversation with China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Fu Ying. The second part of the memo enumerated the various recommendations discussed during our meeting.
I received a call from Mr. Lee on June 1, telling me that he decided not to give the memo to the President since he was told by the President’s brother-in-law that President Aquino got irritated every time he heard the word “Panatag.” I reminded Mr. Lee that he had made a commitment to Madam Fu and it would be embarrassing if he did not do something. If he gave the memo to the President and nothing happened, he could at least tell Madam Fu that he had done his best. I also explained to Mr. Lee that every single paragraph of the memo started with the words “Madam Fu Ying.” If President Aquino got irritated by the memo, he would be mad at Madam Fu. On the other hand, if the President would be happy with the contents of the memo, then the credit for bringing the message would go to the Special Envoy. I urged Mr. Lee to give the memo to the President, assuring him that he had nothing to lose.
In the late evening of June 2, I received another call from Mr. Lee, informing me that he had just given the memo to the President. He said he took the opportunity of attending the opening of a restaurant owned by the President’s relatives that evening. Knowing that President Aquino would also be there, he brought with him the memo and gave it to the President without discussing the issues, only asking him to take a look when he was free.
It appeared that President Aquino did read the memo and also took actions. In the morning of June 4, newspapers carried the headline news that the President ordered the Philippine official vessel to leave Panatag Shoal, giving the reason that a typhoon was approaching. Furthermore, Malacañang Palace told the Chinese community to reschedule the Philippine-China Friendship Day celebration since the President would be returning from his UK visit only on June 11. The local Filipino-Chinese community moved the commemoration to June 13 and President Aquino personally attended the event as the guest of honor and speaker. Beijing had also responded accordingly. Chinese President Hu Jintao sent his congratulatory message to President Aquino on June 11, extending the warm greetings of the Chinese people on the occasion of the Philippine Independence Day.
Things seemed to work well and relationship between the two countries appeared to have warmed up. I was hoping that the two governments would follow up with dialogues to finalize some concrete agreements.
Unfortunately, just after a few days, our Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario openly lambasted China for “breaching agreement.” He said that the Philippine government ordered the withdrawal of the naval ship but China did not withdraw the marine surveillance vessels. I immediately called up Mr. Lee and asked him to seek an audience with the President or call up the Foreign Secretary, to clarify that the Chinese official vessels were outside the Panatag lagoon. Only Chinese fishing boats were there in the lagoon and we never demanded their withdrawal. In fact, we should encourage our own fishermen to go into Panatag lagoon and do their fishing there. However, for fear of irking the President and antagonizing the Foreign Affairs Secretary, Mr. Lee refrained from taking any further action.
Some political analysts were of the opinion that there was an attempt to use the Philippines to undermine the friendly relationship between China and the ASEAN community. I refused to accept such a theory but chose to believe that Secretary del Rosario was misinformed about the Panatag situation. It was most unfortunate that his accusation of China breaching the agreement had caused damages to the mutual trust between Manila and Beijing. When reporters of foreign media asked the spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry to comment on Secretary del Rosario’s statement, the Chinese official simply replied that there was no agreement between the two governments. We could not blame this Chinese official for saying so since there was no written agreement but only verbal understanding at that time.
Soon enough, Secretary del Rosario announced that the Philippines would file a case with the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the United Nations to contest the Chinese sovereignty claim over the West Philippine Sea. Instead of seeking dialogues with Beijing, Secretary del Rosario started to travel around the various ASEAN member countries and other allies such as the US, Japan, Australia and European nations, soliciting their support in our confrontation with China. President Aquino stirred a diplomatic controversy by comparing China to Nazi Germany while he was visiting Japan. The bilateral relationship between the Philippines and China had abruptly deteriorated and, as a consequence, China started to chase away Filipino fishing boats from the Panatag area. Our poor fishermen from Zambales and Pangasinan could not go to their traditional fishing ground and, indeed, faced serious difficulties in earning their living.
In the later part of 2012, it was reported that Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV received a memo from President Aquino, and the senator made several trips to China, to talk to his contacts there, but failed to broker any peace deal in connection with the Panatag dispute. It was not revealed what memo the President had given the senator, but there was a possibility that it could be the memo I drafted in the name of Special Envoy Domingo Lee.
Before Secretary del Rosario resigned earlier this year, he concluded that it was impossible to talk to the Chinese since China was asserting indisputable sovereignty claim over the whole South China Sea and left no room for negotiation. This view is refutable. It is because both the Philippines and China are claiming indisputable sovereignty over the same territories that we need to sit down and talk.
Throughout the past four years, the Aquino administration maintained the position that the Philippine government should not talk to China on a bilateral basis. We chose to go to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, at The Hague, to contest the Chinese sovereignty claim over the West Philippine Sea. However, from the very beginning, China had refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings and clearly stated that she would not honor any decision rendered by the Court.
Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza has been calling the Philippine government to withdraw the arbitration case before any decision is rendered. He points out that the Philippines is endeavoring a futile case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. China has already stated that she is not going to abide by any ruling made by the Court. What can we expect to achieve from the Court decisions, except maybe humiliating China in the international community? What actual benefits do we get? China will become more antagonistic and the doors of dialogue and negotiation will be closed more tightly, and we may lose our territories forever.
Ambassador Rosario Manalo, a very distinguished diplomat of ours, recently told the media that the Philippines should conduct dialogues with China based on the Declaration on the Conducts of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). She emphasized that the Philippines and China should focus on the issue of sharing resources rather than disputing over territorial sovereignty. Mrs. Manalo assailed China for harassing Filipino fishermen on Panatag Shoal, but added that she believed such act might be a retaliation by the Chinese government over our military alliance and joint military exercises with the US in the Western Philippine Sea. If one reads the minds of the Chinese leaders, he will know that it is advisable to have friendly dialogues with Beijing rather than bringing in other powers to help us challenge China.
I have decided to disclose our 2012 dialogue with the Deputy Foreign Minister of China since I believed this experience would serve the purpose of making two points clear. Firstly, it is not impossible to conduct dialogues with Chinese government officials and, secondly, it is definitely possible that we talk to the big powers on equal ground. If an amateur diplomat in the person of the Special Presidential Envoy and a layman like this author can “negotiate” and broker a deal with the Chinese high officials, how much more with our career diplomats?
Over their telephone conversation, President-elect Rodrigo Duterte informed US President Barack Obama that he does not rule out the possibility of having direct dialogues with China on territorial disputes. Let us hope that our new leader and his administration will achieve something to really benefit our nation and our people.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a former lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
http://www.manilatimes.net/can-we-talk-to-china-on-west-philippine-sea-4/265960/
Fourth and last of a series
AFTER returning to Manila the next day, I drafted a memo in the name of Domingo Lee in his capacity as Special Presidential Envoy to China. The memo was addressed to President Aquino, reporting on the background of our trip to Beijing and narrating the substance of our conversation with China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Fu Ying. The second part of the memo enumerated the various recommendations discussed during our meeting.
I received a call from Mr. Lee on June 1, telling me that he decided not to give the memo to the President since he was told by the President’s brother-in-law that President Aquino got irritated every time he heard the word “Panatag.” I reminded Mr. Lee that he had made a commitment to Madam Fu and it would be embarrassing if he did not do something. If he gave the memo to the President and nothing happened, he could at least tell Madam Fu that he had done his best. I also explained to Mr. Lee that every single paragraph of the memo started with the words “Madam Fu Ying.” If President Aquino got irritated by the memo, he would be mad at Madam Fu. On the other hand, if the President would be happy with the contents of the memo, then the credit for bringing the message would go to the Special Envoy. I urged Mr. Lee to give the memo to the President, assuring him that he had nothing to lose.
In the late evening of June 2, I received another call from Mr. Lee, informing me that he had just given the memo to the President. He said he took the opportunity of attending the opening of a restaurant owned by the President’s relatives that evening. Knowing that President Aquino would also be there, he brought with him the memo and gave it to the President without discussing the issues, only asking him to take a look when he was free.
It appeared that President Aquino did read the memo and also took actions. In the morning of June 4, newspapers carried the headline news that the President ordered the Philippine official vessel to leave Panatag Shoal, giving the reason that a typhoon was approaching. Furthermore, Malacañang Palace told the Chinese community to reschedule the Philippine-China Friendship Day celebration since the President would be returning from his UK visit only on June 11. The local Filipino-Chinese community moved the commemoration to June 13 and President Aquino personally attended the event as the guest of honor and speaker. Beijing had also responded accordingly. Chinese President Hu Jintao sent his congratulatory message to President Aquino on June 11, extending the warm greetings of the Chinese people on the occasion of the Philippine Independence Day.
Things seemed to work well and relationship between the two countries appeared to have warmed up. I was hoping that the two governments would follow up with dialogues to finalize some concrete agreements.
Unfortunately, just after a few days, our Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario openly lambasted China for “breaching agreement.” He said that the Philippine government ordered the withdrawal of the naval ship but China did not withdraw the marine surveillance vessels. I immediately called up Mr. Lee and asked him to seek an audience with the President or call up the Foreign Secretary, to clarify that the Chinese official vessels were outside the Panatag lagoon. Only Chinese fishing boats were there in the lagoon and we never demanded their withdrawal. In fact, we should encourage our own fishermen to go into Panatag lagoon and do their fishing there. However, for fear of irking the President and antagonizing the Foreign Affairs Secretary, Mr. Lee refrained from taking any further action.
Some political analysts were of the opinion that there was an attempt to use the Philippines to undermine the friendly relationship between China and the ASEAN community. I refused to accept such a theory but chose to believe that Secretary del Rosario was misinformed about the Panatag situation. It was most unfortunate that his accusation of China breaching the agreement had caused damages to the mutual trust between Manila and Beijing. When reporters of foreign media asked the spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry to comment on Secretary del Rosario’s statement, the Chinese official simply replied that there was no agreement between the two governments. We could not blame this Chinese official for saying so since there was no written agreement but only verbal understanding at that time.
Soon enough, Secretary del Rosario announced that the Philippines would file a case with the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the United Nations to contest the Chinese sovereignty claim over the West Philippine Sea. Instead of seeking dialogues with Beijing, Secretary del Rosario started to travel around the various ASEAN member countries and other allies such as the US, Japan, Australia and European nations, soliciting their support in our confrontation with China. President Aquino stirred a diplomatic controversy by comparing China to Nazi Germany while he was visiting Japan. The bilateral relationship between the Philippines and China had abruptly deteriorated and, as a consequence, China started to chase away Filipino fishing boats from the Panatag area. Our poor fishermen from Zambales and Pangasinan could not go to their traditional fishing ground and, indeed, faced serious difficulties in earning their living.
In the later part of 2012, it was reported that Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV received a memo from President Aquino, and the senator made several trips to China, to talk to his contacts there, but failed to broker any peace deal in connection with the Panatag dispute. It was not revealed what memo the President had given the senator, but there was a possibility that it could be the memo I drafted in the name of Special Envoy Domingo Lee.
Before Secretary del Rosario resigned earlier this year, he concluded that it was impossible to talk to the Chinese since China was asserting indisputable sovereignty claim over the whole South China Sea and left no room for negotiation. This view is refutable. It is because both the Philippines and China are claiming indisputable sovereignty over the same territories that we need to sit down and talk.
Throughout the past four years, the Aquino administration maintained the position that the Philippine government should not talk to China on a bilateral basis. We chose to go to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, at The Hague, to contest the Chinese sovereignty claim over the West Philippine Sea. However, from the very beginning, China had refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings and clearly stated that she would not honor any decision rendered by the Court.
Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza has been calling the Philippine government to withdraw the arbitration case before any decision is rendered. He points out that the Philippines is endeavoring a futile case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. China has already stated that she is not going to abide by any ruling made by the Court. What can we expect to achieve from the Court decisions, except maybe humiliating China in the international community? What actual benefits do we get? China will become more antagonistic and the doors of dialogue and negotiation will be closed more tightly, and we may lose our territories forever.
Ambassador Rosario Manalo, a very distinguished diplomat of ours, recently told the media that the Philippines should conduct dialogues with China based on the Declaration on the Conducts of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). She emphasized that the Philippines and China should focus on the issue of sharing resources rather than disputing over territorial sovereignty. Mrs. Manalo assailed China for harassing Filipino fishermen on Panatag Shoal, but added that she believed such act might be a retaliation by the Chinese government over our military alliance and joint military exercises with the US in the Western Philippine Sea. If one reads the minds of the Chinese leaders, he will know that it is advisable to have friendly dialogues with Beijing rather than bringing in other powers to help us challenge China.
I have decided to disclose our 2012 dialogue with the Deputy Foreign Minister of China since I believed this experience would serve the purpose of making two points clear. Firstly, it is not impossible to conduct dialogues with Chinese government officials and, secondly, it is definitely possible that we talk to the big powers on equal ground. If an amateur diplomat in the person of the Special Presidential Envoy and a layman like this author can “negotiate” and broker a deal with the Chinese high officials, how much more with our career diplomats?
Over their telephone conversation, President-elect Rodrigo Duterte informed US President Barack Obama that he does not rule out the possibility of having direct dialogues with China on territorial disputes. Let us hope that our new leader and his administration will achieve something to really benefit our nation and our people.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a former lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
http://www.manilatimes.net/can-we-talk-to-china-on-west-philippine-sea-4/265960/
Can we talk to China on West Philippine Sea?
by Esteban G. Pena Sy
Manila Times
Third of a series
BASED on the reciprocity principle, I believed that if the Philippine government made any compromise, the Chinese side should also take certain actions or make certain commitments to show her sincerity. So I asked Madam Fu Ying, then-Deputy Foreign Minister of China: “In case the Philippine naval vessel withdraws from the Panatag lagoon, can the Chinese government guarantee that Filipino fishermen fishing in Panatag Shoal and nearby areas will not be harassed?”
That was a difficult question for her to answer. If she said “yes,” it would be tantamount to an official commitment from the Chinese government. But she could not say “no” either since an unfriendly answer of “no” would mean the end of our conversation. Being a brilliant and experienced diplomat, Madam Fu was able to give us a “yes” answer without saying the word “yes.” She told us that the Chinese authorities had never arrested any single Filipino fisherman.
In an effort to push Madam Fu to make a commitment instead of just stating a fact, I asked further: “It may be true that China had never arrested any Filipino fisherman in the past, but are you assuring us that you will not do so in the future?” Once again, Madam Fu managed to give another “yes” answer without saying “yes.” She told us: “What’s important is that we should educate our fishermen and make sure that no fisherman from either China or the Philippines will allow his fishing boat to be used by journalists, politicians or ultra-nationalists in going to the islands to perform acts such as hoisting flags or declaring sovereignty. Otherwise I don’t see any problem.”
Madam Fu then suggested that some concrete actions be taken to show the international community that the friendly relationship between the two countries had been restored. She mentioned that June 11 is Philippine-China Friendship Day, and the Filipino-Chinese community in Manila holds a dinner every year to commemorate this occasion. She told us that it had become a tradition that the incumbent Philippine Presidents always personally attended the celebration every year. Madam Fu expressed her hope that President Aquino would follow the tradition and grace the 2012 celebration despite the Panatag standoff. She said the presence of President Aquino would deliver a strong message to the whole world that the relationship between the Philippines and China was still cordial despite the territorial disputes. Once more, Mr. Lee promised that he would convey the message to President Aquino.
I told Madam Fu that if President Aquino attended the Friendship Day celebration and showed his sincerity to restore the friendly relationship between our two countries, China should reciprocate. I commented that the mere presence of the Chinese Ambassador in the Manila celebration would not be enough to impress the public that China was sincerely and actively patching up the bilateral relationship. After pausing for a while, Madam Fu promised that she would try to request then-Chinese President Hu Jintao to send a congratulatory message to the Philippines on her June 12 Independence Day. Such a message would give a strong signal to show China’s goodwill and sincerity.
I did not forget to mention to Madam Fu that it was not a good idea for China to ban tourist groups from visiting the Philippines. I pointed out that aside from the Chinese state-owned airlines, the Philippine Airlines, Cebu Pacific, Zest Air and the hotel industry in the Philippines were the main casualties of the tourist ban. I reminded Madam Fu that all these airlines and many of the hotels were owned by Filipino-Chinese. The travel ban might hurt the Philippine economy, but the ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs in the Philippines were suffering most. Madam Fu told us that the Chinese government did not impose any tourist ban, but most travel agencies were aware of the anti-Chinese demonstrations in Manila, thus refrained from organizing tour groups to visit the Philippines. Madam Fu instructed her assistant to make an appointment for Domingo Lee, who was newly appointed by President Aquino as a Special Envoy to the People’s Republic of China, and myself to meet Man Hongwei, director-general of China National Tourism Administration. We met Mr. Man after lunch and were able to get his commitment that once the relationship between our two countries improved, his Tourism Administration would immediately encourage the Chinese tour operators to organize tourist groups to visit the Philippines.
I also brought up the incident that shipments of Philippine bananas were reportedly rejected by the Chinese authority. Madam Fu assured us that the Chinese government did not impose any ban on the importation of Philippine fruits. She explained that since the media kept printing negative news on the disputes between the two countries, even the Chinese school children got angry and refused to eat Philippine bananas brought home by their parents. Madame Fu said that once the friendly relationship between China and the Philippines was normalized, the Philippine fruits would be accepted and welcome again by the Chinese population.
At this juncture, Mr. Lee remembered that his main mission was to bring the Chinese language teachers to Manila. Madam Fu expressed her regrets that she could not do anything to help in this regard, saying that in view of the anti-Chinese demonstrations in Manila, most parents of the teachers were reluctant to let their children go to the Philippines for safety concern. Frustrated by her statement, I made an unintentional comment, which seemed to have touched the nerves of the Deputy Minister. I said if the Chinese language teachers refused to go to the Philippines, the Filipino-Chinese schools would have to turn to Taiwan for help, but then the time was so short and the replacement Taiwanese teachers might not be able to arrive in Manila in time for the school opening. I did not have any intention to use Taiwan as a bargaining power, but upon hearing my comment, Madam Fu turned to her assistant and gave a stern instruction: “Tell the teachers to go. Our Foreign Affairs Ministry will guarantee their safety in the Philippines.” Then she turned to Mr. Lee and said: “Our Foreign Ministry assures these teachers of their safety. You have to give us your back-to-back guaranty.” Mr. Lee gladly agreed.
After our long conversation, Madam Fu treated us to lunch in the Foreign Ministry and gave us copies of her newly published book, When I Was There, which was a collection of her selected speeches, with her autograph. We were given full courtesy by the Deputy Minister, although we were not official representatives of the Philippine government.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a former lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
by Esteban G. Pena Sy
Manila Times
Third of a series
BASED on the reciprocity principle, I believed that if the Philippine government made any compromise, the Chinese side should also take certain actions or make certain commitments to show her sincerity. So I asked Madam Fu Ying, then-Deputy Foreign Minister of China: “In case the Philippine naval vessel withdraws from the Panatag lagoon, can the Chinese government guarantee that Filipino fishermen fishing in Panatag Shoal and nearby areas will not be harassed?”
That was a difficult question for her to answer. If she said “yes,” it would be tantamount to an official commitment from the Chinese government. But she could not say “no” either since an unfriendly answer of “no” would mean the end of our conversation. Being a brilliant and experienced diplomat, Madam Fu was able to give us a “yes” answer without saying the word “yes.” She told us that the Chinese authorities had never arrested any single Filipino fisherman.
In an effort to push Madam Fu to make a commitment instead of just stating a fact, I asked further: “It may be true that China had never arrested any Filipino fisherman in the past, but are you assuring us that you will not do so in the future?” Once again, Madam Fu managed to give another “yes” answer without saying “yes.” She told us: “What’s important is that we should educate our fishermen and make sure that no fisherman from either China or the Philippines will allow his fishing boat to be used by journalists, politicians or ultra-nationalists in going to the islands to perform acts such as hoisting flags or declaring sovereignty. Otherwise I don’t see any problem.”
Madam Fu then suggested that some concrete actions be taken to show the international community that the friendly relationship between the two countries had been restored. She mentioned that June 11 is Philippine-China Friendship Day, and the Filipino-Chinese community in Manila holds a dinner every year to commemorate this occasion. She told us that it had become a tradition that the incumbent Philippine Presidents always personally attended the celebration every year. Madam Fu expressed her hope that President Aquino would follow the tradition and grace the 2012 celebration despite the Panatag standoff. She said the presence of President Aquino would deliver a strong message to the whole world that the relationship between the Philippines and China was still cordial despite the territorial disputes. Once more, Mr. Lee promised that he would convey the message to President Aquino.
I told Madam Fu that if President Aquino attended the Friendship Day celebration and showed his sincerity to restore the friendly relationship between our two countries, China should reciprocate. I commented that the mere presence of the Chinese Ambassador in the Manila celebration would not be enough to impress the public that China was sincerely and actively patching up the bilateral relationship. After pausing for a while, Madam Fu promised that she would try to request then-Chinese President Hu Jintao to send a congratulatory message to the Philippines on her June 12 Independence Day. Such a message would give a strong signal to show China’s goodwill and sincerity.
I did not forget to mention to Madam Fu that it was not a good idea for China to ban tourist groups from visiting the Philippines. I pointed out that aside from the Chinese state-owned airlines, the Philippine Airlines, Cebu Pacific, Zest Air and the hotel industry in the Philippines were the main casualties of the tourist ban. I reminded Madam Fu that all these airlines and many of the hotels were owned by Filipino-Chinese. The travel ban might hurt the Philippine economy, but the ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs in the Philippines were suffering most. Madam Fu told us that the Chinese government did not impose any tourist ban, but most travel agencies were aware of the anti-Chinese demonstrations in Manila, thus refrained from organizing tour groups to visit the Philippines. Madam Fu instructed her assistant to make an appointment for Domingo Lee, who was newly appointed by President Aquino as a Special Envoy to the People’s Republic of China, and myself to meet Man Hongwei, director-general of China National Tourism Administration. We met Mr. Man after lunch and were able to get his commitment that once the relationship between our two countries improved, his Tourism Administration would immediately encourage the Chinese tour operators to organize tourist groups to visit the Philippines.
I also brought up the incident that shipments of Philippine bananas were reportedly rejected by the Chinese authority. Madam Fu assured us that the Chinese government did not impose any ban on the importation of Philippine fruits. She explained that since the media kept printing negative news on the disputes between the two countries, even the Chinese school children got angry and refused to eat Philippine bananas brought home by their parents. Madame Fu said that once the friendly relationship between China and the Philippines was normalized, the Philippine fruits would be accepted and welcome again by the Chinese population.
At this juncture, Mr. Lee remembered that his main mission was to bring the Chinese language teachers to Manila. Madam Fu expressed her regrets that she could not do anything to help in this regard, saying that in view of the anti-Chinese demonstrations in Manila, most parents of the teachers were reluctant to let their children go to the Philippines for safety concern. Frustrated by her statement, I made an unintentional comment, which seemed to have touched the nerves of the Deputy Minister. I said if the Chinese language teachers refused to go to the Philippines, the Filipino-Chinese schools would have to turn to Taiwan for help, but then the time was so short and the replacement Taiwanese teachers might not be able to arrive in Manila in time for the school opening. I did not have any intention to use Taiwan as a bargaining power, but upon hearing my comment, Madam Fu turned to her assistant and gave a stern instruction: “Tell the teachers to go. Our Foreign Affairs Ministry will guarantee their safety in the Philippines.” Then she turned to Mr. Lee and said: “Our Foreign Ministry assures these teachers of their safety. You have to give us your back-to-back guaranty.” Mr. Lee gladly agreed.
After our long conversation, Madam Fu treated us to lunch in the Foreign Ministry and gave us copies of her newly published book, When I Was There, which was a collection of her selected speeches, with her autograph. We were given full courtesy by the Deputy Minister, although we were not official representatives of the Philippine government.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a former lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
Can we talk to China on West Philippine Sea?
by Esteban G. Pena Sy
Manila Times
Second of a series
WE made our trip to Beijing and met with Madam Fu Ying, then-Deputy Foreign Minister of China, in the morning of May 29 at the office of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Domingo Lee and Madam Fu were old acquaintances since the Deputy Foreign Minister had served as Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines. Madam Fu was accompanied by three assistants in that meeting, including Hong Liang, deputy director-general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Asian Department.
As soon as we were seated and even before we stated the purpose of our visit, Madam Fu started to talk about the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China. She said that historical records dated back to the 13th century Yuan Dynasty clearly indicated that China had ownership over the islands and shoals in South China Sea. She also mentioned that the 19th century treaties between Spain and the US specified the territorial boundaries of the Philippines, and “Huang Yan Island” (Panatag) is out of the boundaries. She showed us maps to strengthen her point.
Although I was not authorized to talk on behalf of the Philippines, I felt that I should not keep my silence after listening to Madam Fu. I begged to disagree with her and said that no matter how many historical records China could produce to prove that certain Chinese seafarers and adventurists had landed on Panatag Island hundreds of years ago, a simple fact is that geographically, the island is located only 120 nautical miles from the Philippine shores. I commented that history is written by men but geography is created by God. Filipinos are God-fearing people and they believe that Panatag Shoal is a territory God has created for them.
Madam Fu reasoned out that Filipinos should not expect the Chinese government to disclaim the Huang Yan Island. She commented that if the Chinese leaders give up the island, they would be condemned for being “irresponsible to the Chinese history and betraying their ancestors.” I told Madam Fu that in the same manner, the Chinese people should not expect the Filipino leaders to disclaim sovereignty over the Panatag Shoal, otherwise these Filipino officials would be accused of being “irresponsible to the Filipino people and even betraying God.”
Admitting that the territorial sovereignty over Huang Yan Island (Panatag Shoal) and the other disputed South China Sea islands is an issue that both the Filipinos and Chinese would not compromise, Madam Fu then stated the policy of the Chinese government which suggested that both parties should set aside the territorial disputes and resolve to develop the disputed islands jointly and share the resources. She offered that both the Philippines and China should abide by this principle and work out an arrangement for mutual benefits. Mr. Lee promised to convey this proposal to President Aquino.
Madam Fu drew a sketch on a piece of paper, showing the “half-moon” shape of Panatag Shoal encompassing a lagoon that is like a natural typhoon shelter. She told us that over 50 Chinese fishing boats were fishing inside the lagoon when the Philippine naval vessel tried to arrest them. Some fishing boats fled and around 20 boats remained in the lagoon. Madam Fu said the Philippine naval boat was still inside the lagoon while the two Chinese Marine Surveillance vessels were docked outside the lagoon but near the entrance, closely watching the movements of the Philippine naval vessel. She told us that the Chinese fishermen agitated for the Chinese Marine vessels to go inside the lagoon in order to protect them from being arrested by the Philippine navy, but the Chinese government did not heed the demand of the Chinese fishermen, knowing that once the Chinese official boats sailed inside the lagoon, the conflict between the two countries would escalate immediately. Madam Fu asked Mr. Lee if he could request President Aquino to order the withdrawal of the Philippine naval boat from the Panatag lagoon and, on the other hand, the Chinese government would promise not to send any official vessel inside the lagoon. Again, Mr. Lee told the Chinese Deputy Minister that he would convey the message to President Aquino.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a former lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
http://www.manilatimes.net/can-we-talk-to-china-on-west-philippine-sea-2/265643/
Manila Times
Second of a series
WE made our trip to Beijing and met with Madam Fu Ying, then-Deputy Foreign Minister of China, in the morning of May 29 at the office of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Domingo Lee and Madam Fu were old acquaintances since the Deputy Foreign Minister had served as Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines. Madam Fu was accompanied by three assistants in that meeting, including Hong Liang, deputy director-general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Asian Department.
As soon as we were seated and even before we stated the purpose of our visit, Madam Fu started to talk about the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China. She said that historical records dated back to the 13th century Yuan Dynasty clearly indicated that China had ownership over the islands and shoals in South China Sea. She also mentioned that the 19th century treaties between Spain and the US specified the territorial boundaries of the Philippines, and “Huang Yan Island” (Panatag) is out of the boundaries. She showed us maps to strengthen her point.
Although I was not authorized to talk on behalf of the Philippines, I felt that I should not keep my silence after listening to Madam Fu. I begged to disagree with her and said that no matter how many historical records China could produce to prove that certain Chinese seafarers and adventurists had landed on Panatag Island hundreds of years ago, a simple fact is that geographically, the island is located only 120 nautical miles from the Philippine shores. I commented that history is written by men but geography is created by God. Filipinos are God-fearing people and they believe that Panatag Shoal is a territory God has created for them.
Madam Fu reasoned out that Filipinos should not expect the Chinese government to disclaim the Huang Yan Island. She commented that if the Chinese leaders give up the island, they would be condemned for being “irresponsible to the Chinese history and betraying their ancestors.” I told Madam Fu that in the same manner, the Chinese people should not expect the Filipino leaders to disclaim sovereignty over the Panatag Shoal, otherwise these Filipino officials would be accused of being “irresponsible to the Filipino people and even betraying God.”
Admitting that the territorial sovereignty over Huang Yan Island (Panatag Shoal) and the other disputed South China Sea islands is an issue that both the Filipinos and Chinese would not compromise, Madam Fu then stated the policy of the Chinese government which suggested that both parties should set aside the territorial disputes and resolve to develop the disputed islands jointly and share the resources. She offered that both the Philippines and China should abide by this principle and work out an arrangement for mutual benefits. Mr. Lee promised to convey this proposal to President Aquino.
Madam Fu drew a sketch on a piece of paper, showing the “half-moon” shape of Panatag Shoal encompassing a lagoon that is like a natural typhoon shelter. She told us that over 50 Chinese fishing boats were fishing inside the lagoon when the Philippine naval vessel tried to arrest them. Some fishing boats fled and around 20 boats remained in the lagoon. Madam Fu said the Philippine naval boat was still inside the lagoon while the two Chinese Marine Surveillance vessels were docked outside the lagoon but near the entrance, closely watching the movements of the Philippine naval vessel. She told us that the Chinese fishermen agitated for the Chinese Marine vessels to go inside the lagoon in order to protect them from being arrested by the Philippine navy, but the Chinese government did not heed the demand of the Chinese fishermen, knowing that once the Chinese official boats sailed inside the lagoon, the conflict between the two countries would escalate immediately. Madam Fu asked Mr. Lee if he could request President Aquino to order the withdrawal of the Philippine naval boat from the Panatag lagoon and, on the other hand, the Chinese government would promise not to send any official vessel inside the lagoon. Again, Mr. Lee told the Chinese Deputy Minister that he would convey the message to President Aquino.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a former lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
http://www.manilatimes.net/can-we-talk-to-china-on-west-philippine-sea-2/265643/
Can we talk to China on West Philippine Sea?
by Esteban G. Pena Sy
Manila Times
First of a series
MAYOR Rodrigo Duterte has been elected as our new President for the next six years. The whole nation puts high hopes on him for bringing changes to the political, economic and social life of our people, maybe even the directions of our diplomatic relations. The President-elect has already indicated that he will initiate peace talks with both the leftist organizations and the Muslim separatist groups. He also mentioned that his government will seek dialogues with China for a peaceful settlement of the territorial dispute over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). If the President-elect can successfully achieve all these objectives, he will be the most qualified person to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Mayor Duterte told the media that with the vision of achieving lasting peace and stability in our country, he is working for the return of Mr. Jose Ma. Sison, founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The President-elect also announced that he is inviting the CPP to join his government, setting aside certain cabinet positions for the leftist leaders. If his plan goes smoothly, Mr. Duterte will bring an end to the decades-long armed struggle between the leftist groups and the government and achieve national unity and solidarity.
Duterte also indicated his desire to have serious peace talks with the Muslim separatist groups. Since he has established time-tested friendship with the leaders of the various Muslim groups over the past years, the incoming President may be able to achieve something that his predecessors failed to do. For the peace, stability and prosperity of our country, the whole nation prays for the success of the new leader in his endeavors.
Whether the incoming President will bring any change to our foreign policy, especially our attitude toward China vis-à-vis the territorial dispute over the West Philippine Sea, is yet another issue that will not only be a deep concern of our people but will command the attention of the international community as well. Mr. Duterte had advocated that the Philippine government should seek dialogues with China in order to find an amicable solution to the territorial disputes between our two countries. Not surprisingly, he invited severe criticisms from certain sectors. Opponents believe that it is impossible to have any meaningful dialogue with Beijing. Some critics insist that being a smaller and weaker nation, the Philippines can never talk to China on one-on-one basis with an equal footing.
Personally, I believe that those statements of Mayor Duterte’s critics are fallacies.
Regardless of the size of economy, military strength or international status, being a sovereign state, the Philippines can negotiate with the Chinese authorities on an equal level. We can face any Chinese government official for dialogues and negotiations with dignity. In fact, this author had participated in an unsolicited and unauthorized dialogue with Madam Fu Ying, deputy minister of Foreign Affairs of China, on the disputes between our two countries, and, in a way, we did achieve good results from our “unofficial negotiation.”
The dialogue took place in Beijing on May 29, 2012. The background was that on April 10 of that year, BRP Gregorio del Pilar of the Philippine navy tried to arrest some Chinese fishermen in the Panatag Shoal lagoon (Scarborough Shoal or Huang Yan Island as the Chinese call it). Two Chinese Marine Surveillance vessels came to intervene and a standoff occurred. The situation prolonged for more than a month and no solution was in sight.
Expectedly, the bilateral relationship between China and the Philippines went sour. Angry Filipinos held demonstrations in front of the Chinese consulate office in Manila on May 11 to protest the “Chinese aggression.” Some Chinese activists also protested near the Philippine Consulate General, in Hong Kong, on the same day against “Philippine aggression.” Chinese tour groups to the Philippines were cancelled. Our banana shipments to China were rejected, allegedly failing to pass the Chinese quarantine requirements.
The tension was felt in the Philippines and China alike. As a consequence, more than 300 Chinese language teachers, who were supposed to teach in the local Philippine Chinese schools, refused to come. The absence of these teachers would cause a dilemma, since schools would be opening in early June. The local Filipino-Chinese community turned to Domingo Lee for help. Mr. Lee, who was newly appointed by President Aquino as a Special Envoy to the People’s Republic of China, was requested to make a trip to Beijing to convince the Chinese government to send those teachers. Mr. Lee asked this author to join him, hoping that I might be of help in his meetings with the Chinese officials.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
http://www.manilatimes.net/can-we-talk-to-china-on-west-philippine-sea/265454/
Manila Times
First of a series
MAYOR Rodrigo Duterte has been elected as our new President for the next six years. The whole nation puts high hopes on him for bringing changes to the political, economic and social life of our people, maybe even the directions of our diplomatic relations. The President-elect has already indicated that he will initiate peace talks with both the leftist organizations and the Muslim separatist groups. He also mentioned that his government will seek dialogues with China for a peaceful settlement of the territorial dispute over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). If the President-elect can successfully achieve all these objectives, he will be the most qualified person to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Mayor Duterte told the media that with the vision of achieving lasting peace and stability in our country, he is working for the return of Mr. Jose Ma. Sison, founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The President-elect also announced that he is inviting the CPP to join his government, setting aside certain cabinet positions for the leftist leaders. If his plan goes smoothly, Mr. Duterte will bring an end to the decades-long armed struggle between the leftist groups and the government and achieve national unity and solidarity.
Duterte also indicated his desire to have serious peace talks with the Muslim separatist groups. Since he has established time-tested friendship with the leaders of the various Muslim groups over the past years, the incoming President may be able to achieve something that his predecessors failed to do. For the peace, stability and prosperity of our country, the whole nation prays for the success of the new leader in his endeavors.
Whether the incoming President will bring any change to our foreign policy, especially our attitude toward China vis-à-vis the territorial dispute over the West Philippine Sea, is yet another issue that will not only be a deep concern of our people but will command the attention of the international community as well. Mr. Duterte had advocated that the Philippine government should seek dialogues with China in order to find an amicable solution to the territorial disputes between our two countries. Not surprisingly, he invited severe criticisms from certain sectors. Opponents believe that it is impossible to have any meaningful dialogue with Beijing. Some critics insist that being a smaller and weaker nation, the Philippines can never talk to China on one-on-one basis with an equal footing.
Personally, I believe that those statements of Mayor Duterte’s critics are fallacies.
Regardless of the size of economy, military strength or international status, being a sovereign state, the Philippines can negotiate with the Chinese authorities on an equal level. We can face any Chinese government official for dialogues and negotiations with dignity. In fact, this author had participated in an unsolicited and unauthorized dialogue with Madam Fu Ying, deputy minister of Foreign Affairs of China, on the disputes between our two countries, and, in a way, we did achieve good results from our “unofficial negotiation.”
The dialogue took place in Beijing on May 29, 2012. The background was that on April 10 of that year, BRP Gregorio del Pilar of the Philippine navy tried to arrest some Chinese fishermen in the Panatag Shoal lagoon (Scarborough Shoal or Huang Yan Island as the Chinese call it). Two Chinese Marine Surveillance vessels came to intervene and a standoff occurred. The situation prolonged for more than a month and no solution was in sight.
Expectedly, the bilateral relationship between China and the Philippines went sour. Angry Filipinos held demonstrations in front of the Chinese consulate office in Manila on May 11 to protest the “Chinese aggression.” Some Chinese activists also protested near the Philippine Consulate General, in Hong Kong, on the same day against “Philippine aggression.” Chinese tour groups to the Philippines were cancelled. Our banana shipments to China were rejected, allegedly failing to pass the Chinese quarantine requirements.
The tension was felt in the Philippines and China alike. As a consequence, more than 300 Chinese language teachers, who were supposed to teach in the local Philippine Chinese schools, refused to come. The absence of these teachers would cause a dilemma, since schools would be opening in early June. The local Filipino-Chinese community turned to Domingo Lee for help. Mr. Lee, who was newly appointed by President Aquino as a Special Envoy to the People’s Republic of China, was requested to make a trip to Beijing to convince the Chinese government to send those teachers. Mr. Lee asked this author to join him, hoping that I might be of help in his meetings with the Chinese officials.
Esteban G. Pena Sy is a student of Asian Studies. He is also formerly president of the UP Asian Center Students’ Association and a lecturer at the University of the Philippines.
http://www.manilatimes.net/can-we-talk-to-china-on-west-philippine-sea/265454/
China slams PH’s definition of South China Sea ‘reef’
Reuters
BEIJING - As Asia's biggest security summit is set to convene, China on Friday accused the Philippines of seeking to negate its sovereignty in the South China Sea by describing Taiping Island as a reef and not an island in Manila's territorial court case.
Tensions in the South China Sea are set to dominate the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) starting Friday, exposing a deepening rivalry between the United States and China ahead of a landmark legal ruling over the disputed area in the Hague.
Beijing refuses to recognize the case lodged by the Philippines with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague over territorial claims in the South China Sea and says such disputes should be resolved through bilateral talks.
Manila is challenging the legality of China's claim there, in part by arguing that no land mass in the Spratly archipelago, including Itu Aba, known as Taiping Island in Chinese, can legally be considered a life-sustaining island.
That would mean it cannot hold rights to a 200 nautical mile (370 km) exclusive economic zone.
"The Philippines' attempt to define Taiping Island as a 'reef' exposes that the goal of its arbitration case is to try to negate China's sovereignty and related rights over the Spratly Islands," China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
"This is a violation of international law and completely unacceptable," Hua said in a statement posted to the ministry's website.
Chinese fishermen had historically lived on Itu Aba year-round, and fished, dug wells, cultivated plants and constructed buildings, all evidence that it was an island capable of sustaining human life and economic activity, Hua said.
China claims almost the entire South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion worth of ship-borne goods passes every year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to the waters.
Self-ruled Taiwan controls Itu Aba, which some analysts believe has the strongest claim to island status and an economic zone. Late last year it finished a $100 million port upgrade on Itu Aba, which has an airstrip, a hospital, and fresh water.
China, which claims sovereignty over Taiwan, has appeared unruffled by Taiwan's upgrading work on Itu Aba. Military strategists say that is because it could fall into China's hands should it ever take over Taiwan.
Taiwan in May called on the international court not to make a ruling on the legal status of Itu Aba in the South China Sea case if the judges don't visit first to see for themselves it can sustain life.
BEIJING - As Asia's biggest security summit is set to convene, China on Friday accused the Philippines of seeking to negate its sovereignty in the South China Sea by describing Taiping Island as a reef and not an island in Manila's territorial court case.
Tensions in the South China Sea are set to dominate the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) starting Friday, exposing a deepening rivalry between the United States and China ahead of a landmark legal ruling over the disputed area in the Hague.
Beijing refuses to recognize the case lodged by the Philippines with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague over territorial claims in the South China Sea and says such disputes should be resolved through bilateral talks.
Manila is challenging the legality of China's claim there, in part by arguing that no land mass in the Spratly archipelago, including Itu Aba, known as Taiping Island in Chinese, can legally be considered a life-sustaining island.
That would mean it cannot hold rights to a 200 nautical mile (370 km) exclusive economic zone.
"The Philippines' attempt to define Taiping Island as a 'reef' exposes that the goal of its arbitration case is to try to negate China's sovereignty and related rights over the Spratly Islands," China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
"This is a violation of international law and completely unacceptable," Hua said in a statement posted to the ministry's website.
Chinese fishermen had historically lived on Itu Aba year-round, and fished, dug wells, cultivated plants and constructed buildings, all evidence that it was an island capable of sustaining human life and economic activity, Hua said.
China claims almost the entire South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion worth of ship-borne goods passes every year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to the waters.
Self-ruled Taiwan controls Itu Aba, which some analysts believe has the strongest claim to island status and an economic zone. Late last year it finished a $100 million port upgrade on Itu Aba, which has an airstrip, a hospital, and fresh water.
China, which claims sovereignty over Taiwan, has appeared unruffled by Taiwan's upgrading work on Itu Aba. Military strategists say that is because it could fall into China's hands should it ever take over Taiwan.
Taiwan in May called on the international court not to make a ruling on the legal status of Itu Aba in the South China Sea case if the judges don't visit first to see for themselves it can sustain life.
Japan seeks multilateral talks to settle sea row
June 3, 2016
by MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO
Manila Times
A JAPANESE official on Friday urged the incoming Duterte administration to hold multilateral negotiations with countries claiming parts of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) amid a seeming warming of ties between Manila and Beijing.
“I personally think that a multilateral dialogue will be very important and very beneficial for all the countries which are engaged [in] that issue,” Katsuyuki Kawai, special advisor to the Japanese Prime Minister, noted in a news briefing.
Kawai said he had a meeting with President-elect Rodrigo Duterte in Davao City on Thursday where he informed Duterte that Japan is backing the Philippines in pursuing an arbitration case against China.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, The Netherlands, is expected to come out with its ruling on a memorial filed by the Philippines against Beijing soon.
“Japan has been constantly supporting the Philippines’ use of arbitral tribunal which respects the rule of law and pursues the peaceful resolution through the arbitration,” Kawai said.
The official added that he informed Duterte about the recent G7 Summit in Ise-Shima, Japan, where advanced economies released a declaration reaffirming the importance of resolving the sea dispute by peaceful means, including arbitration.
Kawai said he and Duterte agreed that the ruling of the arbitral tribunal is important, that freedom of navigation must be maintained and the Philippines and Japan should promote security cooperation.
Incoming Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. earlier said holding bilateral talks with Beijing is the only way to resolve the maritime dispute.
The last time the Philippines and China held talks was in 2014 at the sidelines of an Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) forum.
Yasay, however, said the Philippines will only have multilateral talks with other claimants–Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam –that may be affected by the tribunal’s decision.
He added that the new administration will not change the Philippines’ existing foreign policy in a sense that the Constitution states that the country “should maintain an independent foreign policy and that it must be in pursuit [of] the paramount national interest.”
Yasay said the Philippines will only decide if it will take bilateral or multilateral approach after the tribunal has handed down its ruling.
“It is not nice to change policy. Do not expect to change any policy in so far as our action in the West Philippine Sea is concerned. Maybe we can have a different strategy, we can have a different emphasis on what to do. But the point is to have this matter resolved peacefully for the mutual benefit of all the parties concerned,” he added.
Message from EU
The European Union congratulated President-elect Rodrigo Duterte and vowed to continue supporting the Mindanao peace process.
“The Philippines and the EU share a close partnership grounded in a long history and in strong mutual interests. We are encouraged by the dynamic development of our relations and look forward to working with you on further strengthening our political, economic, trade and development cooperation,” the EU said in a statement.
“To this end, our Partnership and Cooperation agreement is expected to enter into force later this year,” it added.
The Philippines and EU had started the first round of negotiation on a Free Trade Agreement.
‘The EU is committed to continue its support to the Mindanao Peace Process. Looking ahead at the Philippines’ ASEAN chairmanship we count on your country’s continued support for the EU’s aspiration to join the East Asia Summit,” it added.
by MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO
Manila Times
A JAPANESE official on Friday urged the incoming Duterte administration to hold multilateral negotiations with countries claiming parts of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) amid a seeming warming of ties between Manila and Beijing.
“I personally think that a multilateral dialogue will be very important and very beneficial for all the countries which are engaged [in] that issue,” Katsuyuki Kawai, special advisor to the Japanese Prime Minister, noted in a news briefing.
Kawai said he had a meeting with President-elect Rodrigo Duterte in Davao City on Thursday where he informed Duterte that Japan is backing the Philippines in pursuing an arbitration case against China.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, The Netherlands, is expected to come out with its ruling on a memorial filed by the Philippines against Beijing soon.
“Japan has been constantly supporting the Philippines’ use of arbitral tribunal which respects the rule of law and pursues the peaceful resolution through the arbitration,” Kawai said.
The official added that he informed Duterte about the recent G7 Summit in Ise-Shima, Japan, where advanced economies released a declaration reaffirming the importance of resolving the sea dispute by peaceful means, including arbitration.
Kawai said he and Duterte agreed that the ruling of the arbitral tribunal is important, that freedom of navigation must be maintained and the Philippines and Japan should promote security cooperation.
Incoming Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. earlier said holding bilateral talks with Beijing is the only way to resolve the maritime dispute.
The last time the Philippines and China held talks was in 2014 at the sidelines of an Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) forum.
Yasay, however, said the Philippines will only have multilateral talks with other claimants–Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam –that may be affected by the tribunal’s decision.
He added that the new administration will not change the Philippines’ existing foreign policy in a sense that the Constitution states that the country “should maintain an independent foreign policy and that it must be in pursuit [of] the paramount national interest.”
Yasay said the Philippines will only decide if it will take bilateral or multilateral approach after the tribunal has handed down its ruling.
“It is not nice to change policy. Do not expect to change any policy in so far as our action in the West Philippine Sea is concerned. Maybe we can have a different strategy, we can have a different emphasis on what to do. But the point is to have this matter resolved peacefully for the mutual benefit of all the parties concerned,” he added.
Message from EU
The European Union congratulated President-elect Rodrigo Duterte and vowed to continue supporting the Mindanao peace process.
“The Philippines and the EU share a close partnership grounded in a long history and in strong mutual interests. We are encouraged by the dynamic development of our relations and look forward to working with you on further strengthening our political, economic, trade and development cooperation,” the EU said in a statement.
“To this end, our Partnership and Cooperation agreement is expected to enter into force later this year,” it added.
The Philippines and EU had started the first round of negotiation on a Free Trade Agreement.
‘The EU is committed to continue its support to the Mindanao Peace Process. Looking ahead at the Philippines’ ASEAN chairmanship we count on your country’s continued support for the EU’s aspiration to join the East Asia Summit,” it added.
Philippines won't be 'lackey' to anyone: incoming DFA chief Yasay
By: Manuel Mogato and Karen Lema, Reuters
June 1, 2016
MANILA, Philippines - The Philippines will not distance itself from its long-time security ally, the United States, but neither will it be a lackey to any foreign power, incoming Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay told Reuters on Wednesday.
In his first interview with the foreign media since being appointed by President-elect Rodrigo Duterte, the lawyer by training sought to underline the Philippines' independence in dealing with disputes with China over the South China Sea.
"We should not be a lackey of any nation," Yasay said in Manila, the day after Duterte named his cabinet.
Under outgoing President Benigno Aquino III, the Philippines moved closer to Washington, in turn straining ties with China.
Duterte, the tough-talking mayor who takes office on June 30, said on Tuesday that the Philippines would not rely on Washington, signaling a potential shift in approach to the South China Sea and broader security issues.
"He was simply articulating the position that, according to the constitution, we are supposed to carry an independent foreign policy," Yasay said of Duterte's remarks.
But Yasay added that the president-elect would honor existing treaties with the United States, including the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement that allows US troops increased access to local bases.
The Supreme Court this year upheld the constitutionality of the agreement that lets the United States build warehouses and logistics hubs anywhere in the Philippines.
Washington is also helping its former colony to bolster its defenses, providing three Hamilton-class cutters, radar equipment and a research ship that will arrive in July.
The build-up is part of an effort by the Philippines to strengthen its claims in the disputed South China Sea, where China has been constructing artificial islands.
Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines also have overlapping claims in the sea, believed to be rich in oil and gas and a key trade route through which an estimated $5 trillion worth of goods pass each year.
Yasay, who has participated in global trade deals in the past, said Manila would respect whatever decision is handed down by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, where the Philippines is challenging China's position on the disputed waters. It is not clear when a ruling will come.
Duterte has said he was open to joint ventures with China to explore and exploit resources in the South China Sea.
The Philippines was willing to pursue bilateral talks with China to resolve a dispute over the Scarborough Shoal, but would stick to multilateral discussions for the Spratly islands, because there were other claimant states, Yasay said.
June 1, 2016
MANILA, Philippines - The Philippines will not distance itself from its long-time security ally, the United States, but neither will it be a lackey to any foreign power, incoming Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay told Reuters on Wednesday.
In his first interview with the foreign media since being appointed by President-elect Rodrigo Duterte, the lawyer by training sought to underline the Philippines' independence in dealing with disputes with China over the South China Sea.
"We should not be a lackey of any nation," Yasay said in Manila, the day after Duterte named his cabinet.
Under outgoing President Benigno Aquino III, the Philippines moved closer to Washington, in turn straining ties with China.
Duterte, the tough-talking mayor who takes office on June 30, said on Tuesday that the Philippines would not rely on Washington, signaling a potential shift in approach to the South China Sea and broader security issues.
"He was simply articulating the position that, according to the constitution, we are supposed to carry an independent foreign policy," Yasay said of Duterte's remarks.
But Yasay added that the president-elect would honor existing treaties with the United States, including the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement that allows US troops increased access to local bases.
The Supreme Court this year upheld the constitutionality of the agreement that lets the United States build warehouses and logistics hubs anywhere in the Philippines.
Washington is also helping its former colony to bolster its defenses, providing three Hamilton-class cutters, radar equipment and a research ship that will arrive in July.
The build-up is part of an effort by the Philippines to strengthen its claims in the disputed South China Sea, where China has been constructing artificial islands.
Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines also have overlapping claims in the sea, believed to be rich in oil and gas and a key trade route through which an estimated $5 trillion worth of goods pass each year.
Yasay, who has participated in global trade deals in the past, said Manila would respect whatever decision is handed down by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, where the Philippines is challenging China's position on the disputed waters. It is not clear when a ruling will come.
Duterte has said he was open to joint ventures with China to explore and exploit resources in the South China Sea.
The Philippines was willing to pursue bilateral talks with China to resolve a dispute over the Scarborough Shoal, but would stick to multilateral discussions for the Spratly islands, because there were other claimant states, Yasay said.
China tells US: Don't let allies set South China Sea policy
By: Ben Blanchard, Reuters
June 2, 2016
BEIJING - The United States should not decide its policy on the South China Sea based on what its allies think, and should stick to its promises not to take sides in the dispute, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Thursday ahead of Sino-US security talks.
China has been angered by what it views as provocative US military patrols close to islands China controls in the South China Sea. The United States says the patrols are to protect freedom of navigation.
China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims, as well as close military ties with Washington.
Speaking at a forum ahead of next week's high-level meetings with US officials in Beijing, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang said his country had every right to protect its sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea.
"In fact the United States is not a claimant in the South China Sea dispute, and it said it takes no position on territorial disputes," Zheng said.
"So we hope the US can stick to its promises and not choose sides, but can set its position based on the rights and wrongs of the case rather than whether somebody is an ally," he added.
"I think if they can do this, and if they can stop provocative acts targeted at China's sovereignty and security interests, then the US can play a constructive role in maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea and promote a lowering of the temperature on this issue."
China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, will take this up with US Secretary of State John Kerry at their talks, Zheng added.
The South China Sea is also expected to loom large at Asia's biggest security summit starting in Singapore on Friday, attended by a senior Chinese admiral.
Last month, Beijing demanded an end to US surveillance near China after two Chinese fighter jets carried out what the Pentagon said was an "unsafe" intercept of a US military reconnaissance aircraft over the South China Sea.
Denouncing people in the United States who viewed China as a threat, which he believed was not a mainstream US view, Zheng said the two countries had proved they can cooperate well on joint issues of global concern, like North Korea and Syria.
"China's development won't threaten any country," Zheng said. "I hope certain people in the United States set themselves straight and spurn Cold War thinking."
June 2, 2016
BEIJING - The United States should not decide its policy on the South China Sea based on what its allies think, and should stick to its promises not to take sides in the dispute, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Thursday ahead of Sino-US security talks.
China has been angered by what it views as provocative US military patrols close to islands China controls in the South China Sea. The United States says the patrols are to protect freedom of navigation.
China claims most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims, as well as close military ties with Washington.
Speaking at a forum ahead of next week's high-level meetings with US officials in Beijing, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang said his country had every right to protect its sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea.
"In fact the United States is not a claimant in the South China Sea dispute, and it said it takes no position on territorial disputes," Zheng said.
"So we hope the US can stick to its promises and not choose sides, but can set its position based on the rights and wrongs of the case rather than whether somebody is an ally," he added.
"I think if they can do this, and if they can stop provocative acts targeted at China's sovereignty and security interests, then the US can play a constructive role in maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea and promote a lowering of the temperature on this issue."
China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, will take this up with US Secretary of State John Kerry at their talks, Zheng added.
The South China Sea is also expected to loom large at Asia's biggest security summit starting in Singapore on Friday, attended by a senior Chinese admiral.
Last month, Beijing demanded an end to US surveillance near China after two Chinese fighter jets carried out what the Pentagon said was an "unsafe" intercept of a US military reconnaissance aircraft over the South China Sea.
Denouncing people in the United States who viewed China as a threat, which he believed was not a mainstream US view, Zheng said the two countries had proved they can cooperate well on joint issues of global concern, like North Korea and Syria.
"China's development won't threaten any country," Zheng said. "I hope certain people in the United States set themselves straight and spurn Cold War thinking."
A foreign policy brief for the Duterte govt
by FRANCISCO S. TATAD
Manila Times June 2, 2016
An unused resource
FOREIGN policy is a major instrument of a nation’s progress, but one of the least appreciated by post-war Filipino presidents. In the last 50 years, President Ferdinand Marcos appears to be the only one who tried to utilize fully the country’s foreign relations to serve clearly defined national interests.
This is something the Duterte government can try to replicate.
Under Marcos, we normalized relations with our former wartime aggressor, Japan.
We opened diplomatic relations with China, the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist world.
We assumed a vital role in Southeast Asia, the Asia Pacific and the entire tierre monde.
We cemented the legal basis of our territorial claim to “Kalayaan” (the Spratlys) and to (North Borneo) Sabah.
We provided an expiration date for the presence of United States military bases in the Philippines.
We convinced interested foreign governments to abandon their active logistical support for the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Moro insurgency in southern Philippines, and—amidst threats of a global oil embargo—to help ensure the stability of supply of oil and oil products to the Philippines.
We also gained official assurances from foreign governments that they would protect the rights and well-being of Filipino workers, who had just begun to enter the global jobs market.
The enumeration is merely illustrative. But these are the points that stand out.
Abandoning the gains
Succeeding presidents, from Corazon Aquino to her celebrated dum-dum of a son, B.S. Aquino 3rd, systematically threw away those gains instead of building upon them.
Thus we lost our standing as a leader of nations even within the limited expanse of Southeast Asia.
Where Marcos once commanded the respect of leaders like Suharto, Razak, Lee Kuan Yew, Bhumibol Adulyadeh, Norodom Sihanouk, Pham Van Dong, Park Chung Hee, Chou Enlai, Japanese prime ministers Sato to Nakasone, B.S. Aquino the Last has become the butt of jokes among his Association of Southeast Asian Nations colleagues.
We failed to ride the wave of economic progress that has lifted hundreds of millions of boats in China, India, Korea and the rest of Southeast Asia.
We lost the right to pursue with honor and dignity our territorial claim to Sabah. When a handful of supporters of the Sultan of Sulu, the original proprietor of Sabah, appeared in Lahad Datu to remind the Malaysian authorities of the Sultan’s and the Philippine government’s claim, they were hunted down by Malaysian troops, with Aquino cheering from the sidelines.
We lost the Scarborough Shoal, and the right of our fishermen to fish in peaceful waters, to China.
And we lost our right as an independent and sovereign nation to decide what is in our best national interest, independent of what is good or bad for China, Japan, Europe or America.
It has been a humiliating experience for Filipinos. The Duterte government has every right and reason to break away from it. It must do so at all cost. It must not waste the opportunity granted it by the electorate. All it needs is a clear head and a strong resolve to do what is right, necessary, and within its legitimate ability and power to do.
Downgrading DFA
First of all, it must give foreign policy the respect and value it deserves.
In a presidential government, the Department or Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the premier Cabinet post. This is because no nation-state can claim legitimacy unless it has gained the recognition of other governments. And it is the Foreign Secretary that often acts in the name of the President in dealing with those governments. This gives him primacy over the other Cabinet Secretaries. In Marcos’s time, Carlos P. Romulo’s position was unquestioned.
But from Corazon Aquino onward, the position has been downgraded, in favor of the “Executive Secretary,” who has Cabinet rank but does not hold a Cabinet portfolio. The Executive Secretary is a staff officer in the Office of the President, and not one of the Department Heads mentioned in the Constitution. He provides very important staff support to the President, but does not perform a line function. He cannot therefore outrank anyone with a Cabinet portfolio, least of all the Foreign Secretary who, among the Cabinet members, is the “primus inter pares.”
We shall return to this.
What kind of policy?
Under Section 7 Article II of the 1987 Constitution, “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.”
The spirit and letter of the law is clear: the State shall pursue a foreign policy that is free from outside control, not subject to anybody’s authority other than that of the State itself. The average reader is familiar with the terms “national sovereignty,” “territorial integrity,” and “national interest” as used in this sentence, except perhaps “self-determination.” This simply means “a nation’s right to freely choose its sovereignty and international political status without any interference from any source.”
In principle, a democratic and republican state has no sovereign but its own people, and all government authority emanates from them. Its foreign policy, which is an expression of its sovereignty, and also an extension of its domestic policy, can only be “independent.” In reality the big and rich countries can have an “independent” foreign policy; small, poor countries normally can’t and don’t.
Cold War proxies
This was most evident during the Cold War, when the smaller countries behaved like a tail in the kite of Moscow and Washington.
In 1960, at the 902nd plenary session of the UN General Assembly, Philippine Sen. Lorenzo Sumulong carried his zeal for the US position a little too far by attacking the Soviet Union without provocation, prompting Premier Nikita Khrushchev to bang his shoe on his desk. On another occasion, Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was reported to have put down Gen. Carlos P. Romulo for his excessive pro-Americanism. So did the nationalist Sen. Claro M. Recto.
In the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, in Cairo, as in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Philippine delegates were so determined to echo the US position, even when it went against their own culture.
The playbook has not completely changed.
Frontline state
At the beginning of the Aquino administration, Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin were reported to have assured the Pentagon that the Philippines would act as the “frontline state” in containing China’s rise as a world power.
Given the fact that the South China Sea conflict between China and the Philippines and other Southeast Asian neighbors now seems to define the principal foreign policy issue for the region, what can the Duterte government do to come up with an “independent” policy response?
Given the historical interests of the US, Japan, and the European powers in the region, is an “independent” policy response from the Philippine government at all possible?
This would, at the very least, require a versatile balancing act on the part of Mr. Duterte and his new Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Diplomacy has to work at all cost.
Duterte pliant
It is to Mr. Duterte’s credit that despite his “take-no-prisoners” approach to every other issue that involves rights and duties, he appears willing to dialog with Beijing even as he awaits the result of the arbitration process at the United Nations tribunal at The Hague.
Confrontation cannot be a solution. The region must move on, and one way for it to do so would be for the parties to agree that instead of trying to prove one’s claim against the other, both could agree that the disputed area is part of the common heritage of mankind. They could then move for its demilitarization as a zone of peace, commerce and freedom of navigation. And the whole community of nations could join them.
This would not only decouple the settlement of the Philippines-China maritime conflict from the resolution of the sphere of influence conflict between China and the US. It would also render moot and academic the latter conflict, which is the real conflict that threatens a regional or even global war. A recent study released by the Washington-based bipartisan Center for a New American Security (CNAS) claims that new weapons, technology and tactics developed by Russia, China and Iran could end US global sea dominance soon, even though the US has 10 aircraft carriers, equivalent to what all the other countries can field combined.
They are reported to have developed advanced air-defense systems, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, submarines and aircraft carriers, which could prevent US carriers and their planes from getting close to their targets without incurring serious damage or being destroyed. Russian-Chinese cooperation has put in China’s hands one of the largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems in the world, the study said, quoting the Pentagon.
If the entire waterway were demilitarized, the present global arms race would stop, and it would not matter much who was ahead of whom at the last count. War avoidance measures would certainly become more popular and profitable than war. Mr. Duterte’s Leftist partners would not need to demand the revocation of EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the US); it would naturally lose its reason for being.
Neutrality as option
In the exercise of the right of “self-determination,” Mr. Duterte could then proclaim armed neutrality as the sovereign policy of his government, like Switzerland. This would release the Philippines from any existing military entanglements and alliances, and hasten demilitarization of our disputed waterways.
The country could adopt a truly independent foreign policy in the end.
Retooling policy
But in order to become a truly effective instrument of progress, Philippine foreign policy must redefine its purposes and objectives and character. As a neutral country, we will have no reason to get involved in many political issues; our diplomats, therefore, could devote their time, energy and resources to the creation of greater wealth for the nation through trade, technology transfer, information sharing and investments, and the protection, care and mobilization of Filipinos abroad.
Philippine diplomacy should enable the government and, ultimately, the disparate public to have a more informed common understanding of how the global economy is working, particularly in places where there are so many Filipinos. This could be far more important than some sensational political breaking news.
This will require a restructuring of the Department of Foreign Affairs to include “international trade” as one of its primary and organic functions, leaving the Department of Trade and Industry to concentrate on domestic trade, and a further strengthening of its career force by weeding out the deadwood and the riffraff, and paying its diplomats as well as their foreign counterparts. Under the Foreign Service Act of the Philippines, career diplomats are compulsorily and automatically retired upon reaching the age of 65, while no non-career diplomat may be appointed to any position who is 70 years old or above.
This law has been wantonly by Malacañang. Since there are career ambassadors who remain intellectually agile after 65, and non-career senior individuals whose experience and wisdom may be hard to replace, the law should be amended to allow the President to call on their services, as an exception to the rule. We should also learn how other governments avoid posting a resident ambassador where they cannot afford one.
[email protected]
Manila Times
Manila Times June 2, 2016
An unused resource
FOREIGN policy is a major instrument of a nation’s progress, but one of the least appreciated by post-war Filipino presidents. In the last 50 years, President Ferdinand Marcos appears to be the only one who tried to utilize fully the country’s foreign relations to serve clearly defined national interests.
This is something the Duterte government can try to replicate.
Under Marcos, we normalized relations with our former wartime aggressor, Japan.
We opened diplomatic relations with China, the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist world.
We assumed a vital role in Southeast Asia, the Asia Pacific and the entire tierre monde.
We cemented the legal basis of our territorial claim to “Kalayaan” (the Spratlys) and to (North Borneo) Sabah.
We provided an expiration date for the presence of United States military bases in the Philippines.
We convinced interested foreign governments to abandon their active logistical support for the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Moro insurgency in southern Philippines, and—amidst threats of a global oil embargo—to help ensure the stability of supply of oil and oil products to the Philippines.
We also gained official assurances from foreign governments that they would protect the rights and well-being of Filipino workers, who had just begun to enter the global jobs market.
The enumeration is merely illustrative. But these are the points that stand out.
Abandoning the gains
Succeeding presidents, from Corazon Aquino to her celebrated dum-dum of a son, B.S. Aquino 3rd, systematically threw away those gains instead of building upon them.
Thus we lost our standing as a leader of nations even within the limited expanse of Southeast Asia.
Where Marcos once commanded the respect of leaders like Suharto, Razak, Lee Kuan Yew, Bhumibol Adulyadeh, Norodom Sihanouk, Pham Van Dong, Park Chung Hee, Chou Enlai, Japanese prime ministers Sato to Nakasone, B.S. Aquino the Last has become the butt of jokes among his Association of Southeast Asian Nations colleagues.
We failed to ride the wave of economic progress that has lifted hundreds of millions of boats in China, India, Korea and the rest of Southeast Asia.
We lost the right to pursue with honor and dignity our territorial claim to Sabah. When a handful of supporters of the Sultan of Sulu, the original proprietor of Sabah, appeared in Lahad Datu to remind the Malaysian authorities of the Sultan’s and the Philippine government’s claim, they were hunted down by Malaysian troops, with Aquino cheering from the sidelines.
We lost the Scarborough Shoal, and the right of our fishermen to fish in peaceful waters, to China.
And we lost our right as an independent and sovereign nation to decide what is in our best national interest, independent of what is good or bad for China, Japan, Europe or America.
It has been a humiliating experience for Filipinos. The Duterte government has every right and reason to break away from it. It must do so at all cost. It must not waste the opportunity granted it by the electorate. All it needs is a clear head and a strong resolve to do what is right, necessary, and within its legitimate ability and power to do.
Downgrading DFA
First of all, it must give foreign policy the respect and value it deserves.
In a presidential government, the Department or Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the premier Cabinet post. This is because no nation-state can claim legitimacy unless it has gained the recognition of other governments. And it is the Foreign Secretary that often acts in the name of the President in dealing with those governments. This gives him primacy over the other Cabinet Secretaries. In Marcos’s time, Carlos P. Romulo’s position was unquestioned.
But from Corazon Aquino onward, the position has been downgraded, in favor of the “Executive Secretary,” who has Cabinet rank but does not hold a Cabinet portfolio. The Executive Secretary is a staff officer in the Office of the President, and not one of the Department Heads mentioned in the Constitution. He provides very important staff support to the President, but does not perform a line function. He cannot therefore outrank anyone with a Cabinet portfolio, least of all the Foreign Secretary who, among the Cabinet members, is the “primus inter pares.”
We shall return to this.
What kind of policy?
Under Section 7 Article II of the 1987 Constitution, “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.”
The spirit and letter of the law is clear: the State shall pursue a foreign policy that is free from outside control, not subject to anybody’s authority other than that of the State itself. The average reader is familiar with the terms “national sovereignty,” “territorial integrity,” and “national interest” as used in this sentence, except perhaps “self-determination.” This simply means “a nation’s right to freely choose its sovereignty and international political status without any interference from any source.”
In principle, a democratic and republican state has no sovereign but its own people, and all government authority emanates from them. Its foreign policy, which is an expression of its sovereignty, and also an extension of its domestic policy, can only be “independent.” In reality the big and rich countries can have an “independent” foreign policy; small, poor countries normally can’t and don’t.
Cold War proxies
This was most evident during the Cold War, when the smaller countries behaved like a tail in the kite of Moscow and Washington.
In 1960, at the 902nd plenary session of the UN General Assembly, Philippine Sen. Lorenzo Sumulong carried his zeal for the US position a little too far by attacking the Soviet Union without provocation, prompting Premier Nikita Khrushchev to bang his shoe on his desk. On another occasion, Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was reported to have put down Gen. Carlos P. Romulo for his excessive pro-Americanism. So did the nationalist Sen. Claro M. Recto.
In the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, in Cairo, as in the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Philippine delegates were so determined to echo the US position, even when it went against their own culture.
The playbook has not completely changed.
Frontline state
At the beginning of the Aquino administration, Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin were reported to have assured the Pentagon that the Philippines would act as the “frontline state” in containing China’s rise as a world power.
Given the fact that the South China Sea conflict between China and the Philippines and other Southeast Asian neighbors now seems to define the principal foreign policy issue for the region, what can the Duterte government do to come up with an “independent” policy response?
Given the historical interests of the US, Japan, and the European powers in the region, is an “independent” policy response from the Philippine government at all possible?
This would, at the very least, require a versatile balancing act on the part of Mr. Duterte and his new Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Diplomacy has to work at all cost.
Duterte pliant
It is to Mr. Duterte’s credit that despite his “take-no-prisoners” approach to every other issue that involves rights and duties, he appears willing to dialog with Beijing even as he awaits the result of the arbitration process at the United Nations tribunal at The Hague.
Confrontation cannot be a solution. The region must move on, and one way for it to do so would be for the parties to agree that instead of trying to prove one’s claim against the other, both could agree that the disputed area is part of the common heritage of mankind. They could then move for its demilitarization as a zone of peace, commerce and freedom of navigation. And the whole community of nations could join them.
This would not only decouple the settlement of the Philippines-China maritime conflict from the resolution of the sphere of influence conflict between China and the US. It would also render moot and academic the latter conflict, which is the real conflict that threatens a regional or even global war. A recent study released by the Washington-based bipartisan Center for a New American Security (CNAS) claims that new weapons, technology and tactics developed by Russia, China and Iran could end US global sea dominance soon, even though the US has 10 aircraft carriers, equivalent to what all the other countries can field combined.
They are reported to have developed advanced air-defense systems, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, submarines and aircraft carriers, which could prevent US carriers and their planes from getting close to their targets without incurring serious damage or being destroyed. Russian-Chinese cooperation has put in China’s hands one of the largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems in the world, the study said, quoting the Pentagon.
If the entire waterway were demilitarized, the present global arms race would stop, and it would not matter much who was ahead of whom at the last count. War avoidance measures would certainly become more popular and profitable than war. Mr. Duterte’s Leftist partners would not need to demand the revocation of EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the US); it would naturally lose its reason for being.
Neutrality as option
In the exercise of the right of “self-determination,” Mr. Duterte could then proclaim armed neutrality as the sovereign policy of his government, like Switzerland. This would release the Philippines from any existing military entanglements and alliances, and hasten demilitarization of our disputed waterways.
The country could adopt a truly independent foreign policy in the end.
Retooling policy
But in order to become a truly effective instrument of progress, Philippine foreign policy must redefine its purposes and objectives and character. As a neutral country, we will have no reason to get involved in many political issues; our diplomats, therefore, could devote their time, energy and resources to the creation of greater wealth for the nation through trade, technology transfer, information sharing and investments, and the protection, care and mobilization of Filipinos abroad.
Philippine diplomacy should enable the government and, ultimately, the disparate public to have a more informed common understanding of how the global economy is working, particularly in places where there are so many Filipinos. This could be far more important than some sensational political breaking news.
This will require a restructuring of the Department of Foreign Affairs to include “international trade” as one of its primary and organic functions, leaving the Department of Trade and Industry to concentrate on domestic trade, and a further strengthening of its career force by weeding out the deadwood and the riffraff, and paying its diplomats as well as their foreign counterparts. Under the Foreign Service Act of the Philippines, career diplomats are compulsorily and automatically retired upon reaching the age of 65, while no non-career diplomat may be appointed to any position who is 70 years old or above.
This law has been wantonly by Malacañang. Since there are career ambassadors who remain intellectually agile after 65, and non-career senior individuals whose experience and wisdom may be hard to replace, the law should be amended to allow the President to call on their services, as an exception to the rule. We should also learn how other governments avoid posting a resident ambassador where they cannot afford one.
[email protected]
Manila Times
Foreign policy tack prepared for Duterte
May 11, 2016 10:50 pm
by MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO, REPORTER
Manila Times
THE Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has already prepared a foreign policy strategy for presumptive President Rodrigo Duterte in light of an expected ruling by a United Nations tribunal on an arbitration case involving the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
Foreign Undersecretary for Policy Enrique Manalo on Wednesday said Philippine embassies and public stakeholders contributed their inputs to the policy strategy that primarily aims to promote the country’s interests in the coming years.
The strategy is anchored on developing the three pillars of Philippine foreign policy: economic diplomacy, assistance to citizens and national security.
Manalo said they have retained some foreign policies adopted by the Aquino administration and beefed them up with long-term plans on sea disputes and post-arbitration scenarios, among other issues.
“In preparing our strategy, we are basing it on what has already been there and then we will probably have to build up on that depending on the issue,” he explained.
Lauro Baja, former DFA undersecretary and Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said the next administration should be prepared to face the most sensitive foreign policy challenges in managing issues in the West Philippine Sea.
He, however, noted that Duterte, as well as the other presidential candidates in the recently concluded elections, did not present concrete plans on specific issues that could be realized under the new administration.
“What I like to hear are some specific plans or proposals which could be realized within six years. As I said, issues on territorial sovereignty and maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, these are generational issues. But, in the meantime, we need to have specific projects within the time frame of the next President,” Baja said.
Ambassador Jose Romero, president of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and Philippine Ambassadors Foundation Inc., said Duterte would have to rely on his foreign policy advisers in making crucial decisions on major foreign policy crises.
“I think, although he is the President of the Philippines, he is not the only architect of foreign policies,” Romero added.
He dismissed insinuations that Duterte would jeopardize the Philippines’ ties with its allies with his bad mouth.
“I think the minute he sits in Malacañang, he will shed off his T-shirt and put on his barong or suit and behave like a tenant of the Palace,” Romero said. “I think he realizes his job.”
The barong or barong Tagalog, whether short-sleeved or long-sleeved, is formal wear for Filipino men.
Romero said he believes that Duterte’s curses and jokes during the campaign were only made to endear him to the masses in order to get their votes.
Still, he appealed to Duterte to “refrain from his trash-talking if he gets there.”
Professor Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform, also on Wednesday said Duterte’s advisers will be probably busy during his administration.
“But the problem is, he is not listening to his advisers like what we saw during the campaign period when they were telling him to shut his mouth,” Casiple noted.
by MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO, REPORTER
Manila Times
THE Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has already prepared a foreign policy strategy for presumptive President Rodrigo Duterte in light of an expected ruling by a United Nations tribunal on an arbitration case involving the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
Foreign Undersecretary for Policy Enrique Manalo on Wednesday said Philippine embassies and public stakeholders contributed their inputs to the policy strategy that primarily aims to promote the country’s interests in the coming years.
The strategy is anchored on developing the three pillars of Philippine foreign policy: economic diplomacy, assistance to citizens and national security.
Manalo said they have retained some foreign policies adopted by the Aquino administration and beefed them up with long-term plans on sea disputes and post-arbitration scenarios, among other issues.
“In preparing our strategy, we are basing it on what has already been there and then we will probably have to build up on that depending on the issue,” he explained.
Lauro Baja, former DFA undersecretary and Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said the next administration should be prepared to face the most sensitive foreign policy challenges in managing issues in the West Philippine Sea.
He, however, noted that Duterte, as well as the other presidential candidates in the recently concluded elections, did not present concrete plans on specific issues that could be realized under the new administration.
“What I like to hear are some specific plans or proposals which could be realized within six years. As I said, issues on territorial sovereignty and maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, these are generational issues. But, in the meantime, we need to have specific projects within the time frame of the next President,” Baja said.
Ambassador Jose Romero, president of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and Philippine Ambassadors Foundation Inc., said Duterte would have to rely on his foreign policy advisers in making crucial decisions on major foreign policy crises.
“I think, although he is the President of the Philippines, he is not the only architect of foreign policies,” Romero added.
He dismissed insinuations that Duterte would jeopardize the Philippines’ ties with its allies with his bad mouth.
“I think the minute he sits in Malacañang, he will shed off his T-shirt and put on his barong or suit and behave like a tenant of the Palace,” Romero said. “I think he realizes his job.”
The barong or barong Tagalog, whether short-sleeved or long-sleeved, is formal wear for Filipino men.
Romero said he believes that Duterte’s curses and jokes during the campaign were only made to endear him to the masses in order to get their votes.
Still, he appealed to Duterte to “refrain from his trash-talking if he gets there.”
Professor Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform, also on Wednesday said Duterte’s advisers will be probably busy during his administration.
“But the problem is, he is not listening to his advisers like what we saw during the campaign period when they were telling him to shut his mouth,” Casiple noted.
No presidentiable has substantial plan on West PH Sea, says experts
Manila Bulletin
by Roy Mabasa
May 4, 2016
All those gunning for the highest office in the land this upcoming May 2016 Philippine National Elections have yet to project any substantial foreign policy platform especially when it comes to dealing with the South China Sea issue.
This was pointed out by top international relations and diplomacy experts during a foreign policy conference organized to aid the next Philippine president held on May 3 at the PLDT Hall of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) in Pasig City.
According to Philippine Ambassadors Foundation, Inc. President Lauro Baja, it is difficult to answer the question on who among the presidential candidates has the “best foreign policy platform” primarily because he has “not heard anything” from the contenders about their multi-track approach on the West Philippine Sea as well as other pressing issues relating to international relations and diplomacy.
Baja is a seasoned Filipino diplomat who helped negotiate the 2002 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
“What I like to hear is some specific plans or proposal which could be realized within six years,” the former Philippine ambassador to the United Nations said during the symposium on “A Strategic Foreign Policy Recommendation to the Next President” organized by the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations, Inc. (PCFR) in collaboration with the UA&P School of Law and Governance and PAFI.
Dr. Alan Ortiz, president of San Miguel Global Power, on the other hand, focused on leading presidential contender Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncements on the heated Philippine-China territorial dispute. Ortiz said these declarations should not be brushed aside or taken lightly.
“One of the candidates would ride a jet ski to Scarborough Shoal and challenge China with a Philippine flag, let’s take that seriously,” he said.
During a rally at the Liwasang Bonifacio in Manila this past weekend, Duterte said he would ride a jet ski to a disputed island occupied by China and personally stake the Philippines’ claims.
Other speakers at the symposium on Philippine foreign policy were DFA Undersecretary for Policy Enrique Manalo, Association of Generals and Flag Officers president Ret. Gen. Edilberto Adan, and PCFR President Ambassador Jose Romero, Jr.
Read more at
http://www.mb.com.ph/no-presidentiable-has-substantial-plan-on-west-ph-sea-says-experts/#1bScuSvUyz1MBqxw.99
by Roy Mabasa
May 4, 2016
All those gunning for the highest office in the land this upcoming May 2016 Philippine National Elections have yet to project any substantial foreign policy platform especially when it comes to dealing with the South China Sea issue.
This was pointed out by top international relations and diplomacy experts during a foreign policy conference organized to aid the next Philippine president held on May 3 at the PLDT Hall of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) in Pasig City.
According to Philippine Ambassadors Foundation, Inc. President Lauro Baja, it is difficult to answer the question on who among the presidential candidates has the “best foreign policy platform” primarily because he has “not heard anything” from the contenders about their multi-track approach on the West Philippine Sea as well as other pressing issues relating to international relations and diplomacy.
Baja is a seasoned Filipino diplomat who helped negotiate the 2002 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
“What I like to hear is some specific plans or proposal which could be realized within six years,” the former Philippine ambassador to the United Nations said during the symposium on “A Strategic Foreign Policy Recommendation to the Next President” organized by the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations, Inc. (PCFR) in collaboration with the UA&P School of Law and Governance and PAFI.
Dr. Alan Ortiz, president of San Miguel Global Power, on the other hand, focused on leading presidential contender Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncements on the heated Philippine-China territorial dispute. Ortiz said these declarations should not be brushed aside or taken lightly.
“One of the candidates would ride a jet ski to Scarborough Shoal and challenge China with a Philippine flag, let’s take that seriously,” he said.
During a rally at the Liwasang Bonifacio in Manila this past weekend, Duterte said he would ride a jet ski to a disputed island occupied by China and personally stake the Philippines’ claims.
Other speakers at the symposium on Philippine foreign policy were DFA Undersecretary for Policy Enrique Manalo, Association of Generals and Flag Officers president Ret. Gen. Edilberto Adan, and PCFR President Ambassador Jose Romero, Jr.
Read more at
http://www.mb.com.ph/no-presidentiable-has-substantial-plan-on-west-ph-sea-says-experts/#1bScuSvUyz1MBqxw.99
Bets vague on foreign policy; next leader faces post-SCS ruling challenge
By: Interaksyon
May 5, 2016
MANILA - Hearing all the presidential candidates’ platforms and promises of what they'll do if they get a seat in Malacanang, it's apparent that none of them has a clear roadmap on the Philippines' foreign policy, a former ranking diplomat said.
Former undersecretary and Permanent Representative to the UN Lauro Baja made the observation at a forum Tuesday at the University of Asia and the Pacific in Mandaluyong City.
The forum brought together retired diplomats and Department of Foreign Affairs officials to present their strategic foreign policy recommendations for the next president of the Philippines.
Foreign Undersecretary for Policy Enrique Manalo said that it is essential for the next administration to continue what the current government has done in terms of strengthening all three pillars of the Philippines’ foreign policy: economic diplomacy, assistance to nationals and national security.
With a slew of international challenges the Philippines is facing including the dispute with China on the South China Sea, the DFA is finalizing the recommendations for whoever wins the May 9 elections: a date proximate to the expected release by a UN arbitral tribunal of its ruling on Manila's case against Beijing on the South China Sea.
Manalo said in his presentation there's a “long-term strategic plan that the department hopes to complete as soon as possible and submit to the next administration for [its] consideration.”
The DFA's consultations with different stakeholders, including embassies abroad, is still ongoing. The view is to get inputs on some policies that require amendments. Part of the study is laying down scenarios and options in a post-arbitral ruling.
The DFA listed some of the key global challenges that the Philippines under a new government will be facing: the rising threat of Islamic State or IS or ISIS; Climate Change; Cybercrime; Human Trafficking and Human Rights Violations.
No clear foreign policy plan
Under the Aquino administration, the Philippines elevated the regional tension to the international platform by filing a complaint with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague against China’s nine-dash-line claim: a move that was followed by Beijing's massive reclamation, and building up of military capacity on their artificial islands, including air strips.
Such developments have in recent months raised concerns on freedom of navigation. The SCS accounts for half of the world's commercial routes.
Baja, a former DFA undersecretary and Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said the next chief executive will be facing the most sensitive foreign policy challenges by managing the predicaments concerning the West Philippine Sea. But, judging the candidates now in terms of their plans, he observed: “I’m sorry to say but we cannot judge the candidates based on the West Philippine issue”, adding that “none from the presidentiables has come out with specific plans/projects on the issue of the South China Sea." They all limit their pronouncements to re-stating "adherence to the freedom of navigation which is already carried by the international and customary law.”
Baja put little weight on the aspirants' rhetoric on peaceful settlement and their simply mouthing a rules-based position, noting. “but whose rules are we talking about? Rules by the West or rules by China or rules by whatever international community?” Baja said.
Post-ruling: talk to China
Whether or not the Netherlands-based PCA will rule in favor of Manila, the former diplomats at the forum believe that at the end of the day, the government of the Philippines needs to get back on the negotiating table with China for a peaceful settlement.
Ambassador Jose Romero, President of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and Philippine Ambassadors Foundation Inc., cited the possible post-ruling scenarios:
1. China will not abide by the court ruling; the Philippines' will notch a moral, but pyrrhic, victory.
2. The US will not intervene because economic ties outweigh its partnership with the Philippines.
3. The UN will not intervene as it faces more pressing problems in other parts of the globe (Boko Haram; Syria)
4. ASEAN may not support the Philippines because the Mekong Group (Cambodia, Laos) has close ties with China.
5. Europe is too busy fighting ISIS and has no strategic interest in the Asia Pacific.
6. US allies Japan, Australia and South Korea will be more sympathetic and will continue to offer help in building a credible defense force for the Philippines; this will bolster their China containment policy.
7. The Philippines will try to engage China bilaterally.
“Not to fear to negotiate,” Romero said, will be the homework of the next president, “because that seems to be our only weapon of choice at the time being.”
Duterte in global spotlight
Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte is the only presidential candidate who managed to make the international headlines because of his blunt statements to the diplomatic corps in the Philippines, the forum participants noted.
Among such headlines-grabbing cases are: his “rape joke” on an Australian missionary killed in Davao in 1989; his calling on the US ambassador to shut up and not get involved in the Philippines' election; his remarks tagging Indians in the country as "5-6," or lenders imposing usurious rates, in front of the Indian Ambassador in a forum with the business community; and his boast about jet-skiing his way to the Spratlys to challenge China.
However, Ambassador Romero believes that the outspoken mayor has already learned his lesson, and that “if he will sit in Malacañang, he will shed off his t-shirt and put on his barong or suit and behave like a tenant in the Palace.” Still, the former ambassador's suggestion is for Duterte to, “refrain from his trash talking if he gets there.”
Meanwhile, Undersecretary Manalo reminded everyone that choosing the next leader of the country is a sensitive duty, as he or she will be spearheading the Philippines’ foreign policy, imbibing the values of a great statesman. Manalo concluded,“our aspiration is to build a world that upholds the rule of law, respects human rights and human dignity.”
May 5, 2016
MANILA - Hearing all the presidential candidates’ platforms and promises of what they'll do if they get a seat in Malacanang, it's apparent that none of them has a clear roadmap on the Philippines' foreign policy, a former ranking diplomat said.
Former undersecretary and Permanent Representative to the UN Lauro Baja made the observation at a forum Tuesday at the University of Asia and the Pacific in Mandaluyong City.
The forum brought together retired diplomats and Department of Foreign Affairs officials to present their strategic foreign policy recommendations for the next president of the Philippines.
Foreign Undersecretary for Policy Enrique Manalo said that it is essential for the next administration to continue what the current government has done in terms of strengthening all three pillars of the Philippines’ foreign policy: economic diplomacy, assistance to nationals and national security.
With a slew of international challenges the Philippines is facing including the dispute with China on the South China Sea, the DFA is finalizing the recommendations for whoever wins the May 9 elections: a date proximate to the expected release by a UN arbitral tribunal of its ruling on Manila's case against Beijing on the South China Sea.
Manalo said in his presentation there's a “long-term strategic plan that the department hopes to complete as soon as possible and submit to the next administration for [its] consideration.”
The DFA's consultations with different stakeholders, including embassies abroad, is still ongoing. The view is to get inputs on some policies that require amendments. Part of the study is laying down scenarios and options in a post-arbitral ruling.
The DFA listed some of the key global challenges that the Philippines under a new government will be facing: the rising threat of Islamic State or IS or ISIS; Climate Change; Cybercrime; Human Trafficking and Human Rights Violations.
No clear foreign policy plan
Under the Aquino administration, the Philippines elevated the regional tension to the international platform by filing a complaint with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague against China’s nine-dash-line claim: a move that was followed by Beijing's massive reclamation, and building up of military capacity on their artificial islands, including air strips.
Such developments have in recent months raised concerns on freedom of navigation. The SCS accounts for half of the world's commercial routes.
Baja, a former DFA undersecretary and Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, said the next chief executive will be facing the most sensitive foreign policy challenges by managing the predicaments concerning the West Philippine Sea. But, judging the candidates now in terms of their plans, he observed: “I’m sorry to say but we cannot judge the candidates based on the West Philippine issue”, adding that “none from the presidentiables has come out with specific plans/projects on the issue of the South China Sea." They all limit their pronouncements to re-stating "adherence to the freedom of navigation which is already carried by the international and customary law.”
Baja put little weight on the aspirants' rhetoric on peaceful settlement and their simply mouthing a rules-based position, noting. “but whose rules are we talking about? Rules by the West or rules by China or rules by whatever international community?” Baja said.
Post-ruling: talk to China
Whether or not the Netherlands-based PCA will rule in favor of Manila, the former diplomats at the forum believe that at the end of the day, the government of the Philippines needs to get back on the negotiating table with China for a peaceful settlement.
Ambassador Jose Romero, President of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and Philippine Ambassadors Foundation Inc., cited the possible post-ruling scenarios:
1. China will not abide by the court ruling; the Philippines' will notch a moral, but pyrrhic, victory.
2. The US will not intervene because economic ties outweigh its partnership with the Philippines.
3. The UN will not intervene as it faces more pressing problems in other parts of the globe (Boko Haram; Syria)
4. ASEAN may not support the Philippines because the Mekong Group (Cambodia, Laos) has close ties with China.
5. Europe is too busy fighting ISIS and has no strategic interest in the Asia Pacific.
6. US allies Japan, Australia and South Korea will be more sympathetic and will continue to offer help in building a credible defense force for the Philippines; this will bolster their China containment policy.
7. The Philippines will try to engage China bilaterally.
“Not to fear to negotiate,” Romero said, will be the homework of the next president, “because that seems to be our only weapon of choice at the time being.”
Duterte in global spotlight
Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte is the only presidential candidate who managed to make the international headlines because of his blunt statements to the diplomatic corps in the Philippines, the forum participants noted.
Among such headlines-grabbing cases are: his “rape joke” on an Australian missionary killed in Davao in 1989; his calling on the US ambassador to shut up and not get involved in the Philippines' election; his remarks tagging Indians in the country as "5-6," or lenders imposing usurious rates, in front of the Indian Ambassador in a forum with the business community; and his boast about jet-skiing his way to the Spratlys to challenge China.
However, Ambassador Romero believes that the outspoken mayor has already learned his lesson, and that “if he will sit in Malacañang, he will shed off his t-shirt and put on his barong or suit and behave like a tenant in the Palace.” Still, the former ambassador's suggestion is for Duterte to, “refrain from his trash talking if he gets there.”
Meanwhile, Undersecretary Manalo reminded everyone that choosing the next leader of the country is a sensitive duty, as he or she will be spearheading the Philippines’ foreign policy, imbibing the values of a great statesman. Manalo concluded,“our aspiration is to build a world that upholds the rule of law, respects human rights and human dignity.”
No clear-cut foreign policy for May 9 bets
Presidentiables have not come out with specific plans on territorial dispute – diplomacy experts
by Roy Mabasa
May 5, 2016
All those gunning for the highest office in the land in the May 9, 2016, national and local elections have yet to come out with any substantial foreign policy platform, especially when it comes to dealing with the territorial dispute in the South China Sea.
This was pointed out by top international relations and diplomacy experts during a foreign policy conference organized to aid the next Philippine president held last Tuesday at the PLDT Hall of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) in Pasig City.
Philippine Ambassadors Foundation, Inc. president Lauro Baja said it is difficult to answer the question on who among the presidential candidates has the “best foreign policy platform” primarily because he has “not heard anything” from the contenders about their multi-track approach on the West Philippine Sea as well as other pressing issues relating to international relations and diplomacy.
Baja is a seasoned Filipino diplomat who helped negotiate the 2002 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).
“What I like to hear is some specific plans or proposal which could be realized within six years,” the former Philippine ambassador to the United Nations said during the symposium on “A Strategic Foreign Policy Recommendation to the Next President” organized by the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations, Inc. (PCFR) in collaboration with the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) School of Law and Governance (SLG) and PAFI.
In fact, Baja said all the presidentiables have not come out with “specific plans on specific issues” regarding the South China Sea territorial dispute between Manila and Beijing.
“It’s always an adherence to freedom of navigation, which is already guaranteed by international and customary law,” he said. “It’s all about peaceful settlement… and it’s about rules-based. But whose rules are we are talking about? Rules by the United States? Rules by China? Or rules by whatever member of the international community?”
Insofar as Vice President Jejomar Binay is concerned, Baja said the former Makati City mayor has yet to come out with more specific plan of action on this particular issue and how he proposes to operationalize his plans.
“As I said, issues on territorial sovereignty and maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, these are generational issues, but in the meantime, we need to have specific projects within the time frame of next the president,” he explained.
Dr. Alan Ortiz, president of San Miguel Global Power, on the other hand, focused on leading presidential contender Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncements on the heated Philippine-China territorial dispute. Ortiz said these declarations should not be brushed aside or taken lightly.
“One of the candidates would ride a jet ski to Scarborough Shoal and challenge China with a Philippine flag, let’s take that seriously,” he said.
ADDRESS RED FLAGS
As this developed, the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) of Vice President Jejomar Binay urged the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to address vote canvassing-related technical and legal issues raised by poll watchdogs.
According to UNA Spokesman Mon Ilagan, the Comelec should seriously look into concerns over looming legal and technical questions that could affect conduct of the May 9 polls and the canvassing process.
“With only a few days left to mend whatever needs to be fixed, there is a reason for everyone to be worried. The Comelec is either oblivious to the gravity of the risks facing the 2016 elections or refuses to admit their shortcomings,” Ilagan pointed out. Ilagan said UNA is urging the Comelec to amend Comelec Resolution No. 10083 – otherwise known as the General Instructions for the Board of Canvassers on the Consolidation/Canvass and Transmission of Votes – to require the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) and the BOCs to check the hash codes for inconsistencies.
He explained that Resolution 10083 only allows two instances of any pre-proclamation controversy: Illegal composition and illegal proceedings.
Ilagan added that the resolution practically sets aside other scenarios like issues on SD cards, faulty electronic transmissions, questionable election returns, and other technical and legal issues that are legitimately raised during the conduct of elections. (With a report from Ellson A. Quismorio)
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/no-clear-cut-foreign-policy-for-may-9-bets/#KaTwMY0EKeeFQxeo.99
by Roy Mabasa
May 5, 2016
All those gunning for the highest office in the land in the May 9, 2016, national and local elections have yet to come out with any substantial foreign policy platform, especially when it comes to dealing with the territorial dispute in the South China Sea.
This was pointed out by top international relations and diplomacy experts during a foreign policy conference organized to aid the next Philippine president held last Tuesday at the PLDT Hall of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) in Pasig City.
Philippine Ambassadors Foundation, Inc. president Lauro Baja said it is difficult to answer the question on who among the presidential candidates has the “best foreign policy platform” primarily because he has “not heard anything” from the contenders about their multi-track approach on the West Philippine Sea as well as other pressing issues relating to international relations and diplomacy.
Baja is a seasoned Filipino diplomat who helped negotiate the 2002 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).
“What I like to hear is some specific plans or proposal which could be realized within six years,” the former Philippine ambassador to the United Nations said during the symposium on “A Strategic Foreign Policy Recommendation to the Next President” organized by the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations, Inc. (PCFR) in collaboration with the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) School of Law and Governance (SLG) and PAFI.
In fact, Baja said all the presidentiables have not come out with “specific plans on specific issues” regarding the South China Sea territorial dispute between Manila and Beijing.
“It’s always an adherence to freedom of navigation, which is already guaranteed by international and customary law,” he said. “It’s all about peaceful settlement… and it’s about rules-based. But whose rules are we are talking about? Rules by the United States? Rules by China? Or rules by whatever member of the international community?”
Insofar as Vice President Jejomar Binay is concerned, Baja said the former Makati City mayor has yet to come out with more specific plan of action on this particular issue and how he proposes to operationalize his plans.
“As I said, issues on territorial sovereignty and maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, these are generational issues, but in the meantime, we need to have specific projects within the time frame of next the president,” he explained.
Dr. Alan Ortiz, president of San Miguel Global Power, on the other hand, focused on leading presidential contender Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncements on the heated Philippine-China territorial dispute. Ortiz said these declarations should not be brushed aside or taken lightly.
“One of the candidates would ride a jet ski to Scarborough Shoal and challenge China with a Philippine flag, let’s take that seriously,” he said.
ADDRESS RED FLAGS
As this developed, the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) of Vice President Jejomar Binay urged the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to address vote canvassing-related technical and legal issues raised by poll watchdogs.
According to UNA Spokesman Mon Ilagan, the Comelec should seriously look into concerns over looming legal and technical questions that could affect conduct of the May 9 polls and the canvassing process.
“With only a few days left to mend whatever needs to be fixed, there is a reason for everyone to be worried. The Comelec is either oblivious to the gravity of the risks facing the 2016 elections or refuses to admit their shortcomings,” Ilagan pointed out. Ilagan said UNA is urging the Comelec to amend Comelec Resolution No. 10083 – otherwise known as the General Instructions for the Board of Canvassers on the Consolidation/Canvass and Transmission of Votes – to require the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) and the BOCs to check the hash codes for inconsistencies.
He explained that Resolution 10083 only allows two instances of any pre-proclamation controversy: Illegal composition and illegal proceedings.
Ilagan added that the resolution practically sets aside other scenarios like issues on SD cards, faulty electronic transmissions, questionable election returns, and other technical and legal issues that are legitimately raised during the conduct of elections. (With a report from Ellson A. Quismorio)
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/no-clear-cut-foreign-policy-for-may-9-bets/#KaTwMY0EKeeFQxeo.99
America’s imperial overstretch
April 18, 2016
by PATRICK J. BUCHANAN,
Former United States Presidential Candidate
Manila Times
This week, SU-24 fighter-bombers buzzed a US destroyer in the Baltic Sea. The Russian planes carried no missiles or bombs.
Message: What are you Americans doing here?
In the South China Sea, US planes overfly, and US warships sail inside, the territorial limits of islets claimed by Beijing.
In South Korea, US forces conduct annual military exercises as warnings to a North Korea that is testing nuclear warheads and long-range missiles that can reach the United States.
US warships based in Bahrain confront Iranian subs and missile boats in the Gulf. In January, a US Navy skiff ran aground on an Iranian island. Iran let the 10 US sailors go within 24 hours.
But bellicose demands for US retaliation had already begun.
Yet, in each of these regions, it is not US vital interests that are threatened, but the interests of allies who will not man up to their own defense duties, preferring to lay them off on Uncle Sam.
And America is beginning to buckle under the weight of its global obligations.
And as we have no claim to rocks or reefs in the South China Sea – Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines do – why is this our quarrel?
If these rocks and reefs are so vital they are worth risking a military clash with China, why not, instead, impose tariffs on Chinese goods? Let US companies and consumers pay the price of battling Beijing, rather than US soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Let South Korea and Japan build up their forces to deal with the North, and put Beijing on notice: If China will not halt Kim Jong-un’s nuclear weapons program, South Korea and Japan will build their own nuclear deterrents. Half a century ago, Britain and France did.
Why must we forever deter and, if need be, fight North Korea?
And why is the defense of the Baltic republics and East Europe our responsibility, 5,000 miles away, not Germany’s, whose economy is far larger than that of Russia?
Even during the darkest days of the Cold War, US Presidents refused to take military action in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Poland.
When Moscow intervened there, the US did nothing. When did the independence of Eastern Europe become so vital an interest that we would now risk war with a nuclear-armed Russia to ensure it?
Under Article 5 of NATO, an attack upon any of 28 allied nations is to be regarded as an attack upon all.
But is this the kind of blank check we should give Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who, a few months back, ordered a Russian fighter plane that crossed into Turkish territory for 15 seconds be shot down?
Do we really want to leave to this erratic autocrat the ability to drag us into a war with Russia?
When Neville Chamberlain in 1939 handed a war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, who also had an exaggerated opinion of their own military power and prowess, how did that work out for the Brits?
America should not write off the Baltic Republics or Eastern Europe. But we should rule out any US-Russian war in Eastern Europe and restrict a US response to Russian actions there to the economic and diplomatic. For the one certain loser of a US-Russian conflict in Eastern Europe – would be Eastern Europe.
As for Iran, the US intelligence community, in 2007 and 2011, declared with high confidence that it had no nuclear weapons program.
Since the Iran nuclear treaty was signed, 98 percent of Iran’s enriched uranium has been shipped out of the country; no more 20 percent enriched uranium is being produced; the Arak reactor that could have produced plutonium has been scuttled and reconfigured; and nuclear inspectors are crawling all over every facility.
Talk of Iran having a secret nuclear-bomb program and testing intercontinental missiles comes, unsurprisingly, from the same folks who assured us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The goal is the same: Stampede America into fighting another war, far away, against a nation they want to see smashed.
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this country has been steadily bled and slowly bankrupted. We are now as overextended as was the British Empire in the 1940s.
And like that empire, we, too, are being challenged by nations that seek to enlarge their place in the sun – a resurrected Russia, China, Iran. And we are being bedeviled by fanatics who want us out of their part of the world, which they wish to remake according to the visions of their own faiths and ideologies.
Time for a reappraisal of all of the war guarantees this nation has issued since the beginning of the Cold War, to determine which, if any, still serve US national interests in 2016. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.
This is not isolationism. It is putting our country first, and staying out of other people’s wars. It used to be called patriotism.
by PATRICK J. BUCHANAN,
Former United States Presidential Candidate
Manila Times
This week, SU-24 fighter-bombers buzzed a US destroyer in the Baltic Sea. The Russian planes carried no missiles or bombs.
Message: What are you Americans doing here?
In the South China Sea, US planes overfly, and US warships sail inside, the territorial limits of islets claimed by Beijing.
In South Korea, US forces conduct annual military exercises as warnings to a North Korea that is testing nuclear warheads and long-range missiles that can reach the United States.
US warships based in Bahrain confront Iranian subs and missile boats in the Gulf. In January, a US Navy skiff ran aground on an Iranian island. Iran let the 10 US sailors go within 24 hours.
But bellicose demands for US retaliation had already begun.
Yet, in each of these regions, it is not US vital interests that are threatened, but the interests of allies who will not man up to their own defense duties, preferring to lay them off on Uncle Sam.
And America is beginning to buckle under the weight of its global obligations.
And as we have no claim to rocks or reefs in the South China Sea – Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines do – why is this our quarrel?
If these rocks and reefs are so vital they are worth risking a military clash with China, why not, instead, impose tariffs on Chinese goods? Let US companies and consumers pay the price of battling Beijing, rather than US soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Let South Korea and Japan build up their forces to deal with the North, and put Beijing on notice: If China will not halt Kim Jong-un’s nuclear weapons program, South Korea and Japan will build their own nuclear deterrents. Half a century ago, Britain and France did.
Why must we forever deter and, if need be, fight North Korea?
And why is the defense of the Baltic republics and East Europe our responsibility, 5,000 miles away, not Germany’s, whose economy is far larger than that of Russia?
Even during the darkest days of the Cold War, US Presidents refused to take military action in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Poland.
When Moscow intervened there, the US did nothing. When did the independence of Eastern Europe become so vital an interest that we would now risk war with a nuclear-armed Russia to ensure it?
Under Article 5 of NATO, an attack upon any of 28 allied nations is to be regarded as an attack upon all.
But is this the kind of blank check we should give Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who, a few months back, ordered a Russian fighter plane that crossed into Turkish territory for 15 seconds be shot down?
Do we really want to leave to this erratic autocrat the ability to drag us into a war with Russia?
When Neville Chamberlain in 1939 handed a war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, who also had an exaggerated opinion of their own military power and prowess, how did that work out for the Brits?
America should not write off the Baltic Republics or Eastern Europe. But we should rule out any US-Russian war in Eastern Europe and restrict a US response to Russian actions there to the economic and diplomatic. For the one certain loser of a US-Russian conflict in Eastern Europe – would be Eastern Europe.
As for Iran, the US intelligence community, in 2007 and 2011, declared with high confidence that it had no nuclear weapons program.
Since the Iran nuclear treaty was signed, 98 percent of Iran’s enriched uranium has been shipped out of the country; no more 20 percent enriched uranium is being produced; the Arak reactor that could have produced plutonium has been scuttled and reconfigured; and nuclear inspectors are crawling all over every facility.
Talk of Iran having a secret nuclear-bomb program and testing intercontinental missiles comes, unsurprisingly, from the same folks who assured us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The goal is the same: Stampede America into fighting another war, far away, against a nation they want to see smashed.
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this country has been steadily bled and slowly bankrupted. We are now as overextended as was the British Empire in the 1940s.
And like that empire, we, too, are being challenged by nations that seek to enlarge their place in the sun – a resurrected Russia, China, Iran. And we are being bedeviled by fanatics who want us out of their part of the world, which they wish to remake according to the visions of their own faiths and ideologies.
Time for a reappraisal of all of the war guarantees this nation has issued since the beginning of the Cold War, to determine which, if any, still serve US national interests in 2016. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.
This is not isolationism. It is putting our country first, and staying out of other people’s wars. It used to be called patriotism.
Seeing evil always
http://www.luwaran.com/home/index.php/editorial/25-january-16-23/637-seeing-evil-always
Luwaran.com Editorial
16-23 March, 2016
Four columnists of The Manila Times, including at times it editorial writer have always seen evils in Moros, Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), the peace process in general, and Benigno Aquino III. We are already beginning to doubt whether they are still professing Christians, otherwise, they will be guided by what the Bible had said: “”Blessed are the peacemakers, for they are the children of God.”
The latest of such unrestrained tongue-lashings was hurled against Prof. Miriam Ferrer-Coronel and Chairman Mohagher Iqbal when they attended a forum on the Bangsamoro and Cordillera Peace Processes on March 9 at the Philippine Military Academy (PMA). (Baguio City Mayor Mauricio Domogan also attended). It was described by editorial of the Manila Times on March 13 as “a treason for politicising the military’.
Are the two peace-makers so powerful speakers that they can convince the people running the PMA and its cadets --- and defile the institution --- in just one visit?
If the GPH-MILF peace process had reached this point of almost complete success, members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) have supported it and played their shares exceptionally well. In fact, four of the 11 government chief peace negotiators were military men.
It is not our policy to hit back every time people wrong us. We are not vindictive and spiteful. We value much the merits of patience, resiliency, and perseverance, but surely we never had embraced negative passivity. We also know how to use stone if hit by stone (but Islam asks us to better pardon).
We think it is time for the management of The Manila Times to restrain the excesses of the four columnists and editorial writer. We are not afraid to be criticised, because, first, we are not perfect, and, second, no one including the Prophets can please everybody, and third, there are people who are genetically already anti-peace or war-thirsty. Even in the past, as it is now, people continue to rebel against God. So, who are we to be spared of such criticisms?
But the four columnists seemed to have developed a negative and twisted logic if the issues involved are the Moros, BBL, peace process, and the Aquino family. They have never treated in their writings these issues with objectivity, as good journalists are morally bound. They seem to have been controlled by their hatred if not outright bigotry (or they are being for it). Even without mentioning their names, only by their initials: FP, FT, RT, and HA, people will know them. FT read the declaration of Martial Law in September 1972 and active member of the Opus Dei, an ultra-conservative Christian group; RT was formerly a communist, who learned that the enemy of your enemy is your friend but seemed to have forgotten all those MTT teachings and learned to worship only one woman whom he served during her presidency; FP, not much is known of him, except that the picture he used in his column does not reflect his real age; and HA was once arrested for trying to blackmail a Japanese businessman for four million dollars.
Criticism can only be much appreciated or valid if the one criticising is free from the faults they are seeing in others. Remember also that pointing two accusing fingers at a person, three fingers are pointing back at the accuser.
luwaran.com
Luwaran.com Editorial
16-23 March, 2016
Four columnists of The Manila Times, including at times it editorial writer have always seen evils in Moros, Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), the peace process in general, and Benigno Aquino III. We are already beginning to doubt whether they are still professing Christians, otherwise, they will be guided by what the Bible had said: “”Blessed are the peacemakers, for they are the children of God.”
The latest of such unrestrained tongue-lashings was hurled against Prof. Miriam Ferrer-Coronel and Chairman Mohagher Iqbal when they attended a forum on the Bangsamoro and Cordillera Peace Processes on March 9 at the Philippine Military Academy (PMA). (Baguio City Mayor Mauricio Domogan also attended). It was described by editorial of the Manila Times on March 13 as “a treason for politicising the military’.
Are the two peace-makers so powerful speakers that they can convince the people running the PMA and its cadets --- and defile the institution --- in just one visit?
If the GPH-MILF peace process had reached this point of almost complete success, members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) have supported it and played their shares exceptionally well. In fact, four of the 11 government chief peace negotiators were military men.
It is not our policy to hit back every time people wrong us. We are not vindictive and spiteful. We value much the merits of patience, resiliency, and perseverance, but surely we never had embraced negative passivity. We also know how to use stone if hit by stone (but Islam asks us to better pardon).
We think it is time for the management of The Manila Times to restrain the excesses of the four columnists and editorial writer. We are not afraid to be criticised, because, first, we are not perfect, and, second, no one including the Prophets can please everybody, and third, there are people who are genetically already anti-peace or war-thirsty. Even in the past, as it is now, people continue to rebel against God. So, who are we to be spared of such criticisms?
But the four columnists seemed to have developed a negative and twisted logic if the issues involved are the Moros, BBL, peace process, and the Aquino family. They have never treated in their writings these issues with objectivity, as good journalists are morally bound. They seem to have been controlled by their hatred if not outright bigotry (or they are being for it). Even without mentioning their names, only by their initials: FP, FT, RT, and HA, people will know them. FT read the declaration of Martial Law in September 1972 and active member of the Opus Dei, an ultra-conservative Christian group; RT was formerly a communist, who learned that the enemy of your enemy is your friend but seemed to have forgotten all those MTT teachings and learned to worship only one woman whom he served during her presidency; FP, not much is known of him, except that the picture he used in his column does not reflect his real age; and HA was once arrested for trying to blackmail a Japanese businessman for four million dollars.
Criticism can only be much appreciated or valid if the one criticising is free from the faults they are seeing in others. Remember also that pointing two accusing fingers at a person, three fingers are pointing back at the accuser.
luwaran.com
China expresses anger at G7 statement on East, South China Seas
by Reuters
April 12, 2016
Beijing – China expressed anger on Tuesday after foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies said they strongly opposed provocation in the East and South China Seas, where China is locked in territorial disputes.
“We urge the G7 member states to honor their commitment of not taking sides on issues involving territorial disputes,” China’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
The G7 should focus on global economic governance and cooperation against the backdrop of weak economic growth rather than hyping up disputes and provoking problems, it added.
On Monday, G7 foreign ministers said after meeting in the Japanese city of Hiroshima that they opposed “any intimidating coercive or provocative unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase tensions” in the East and South China Seas.
China claims almost the entire South China Sea, believed to have huge deposits of oil and gas, and is building islands on reefs to bolster its claims. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to parts of the waters, through which about $5 trillion in trade is shipped every year.
China also has a separate dispute with Japan over a group of uninhabited islets in the East China Sea.
China has every right to build on the Spratly Islands and there are no problems with freedom of navigation and overflight for the East and South China Seas, the foreign ministry said.
China is committed to resolving disputes through talks with countries directly involved via international law and on the basis of respecting historical facts, to maintain peace and stability while safeguarding its sovereignty, it said.
It repeated that China will neither accept nor participate in any arbitration “illegally forced upon it,” a reference to a case lodged by the Philippines against China.
“We urge the G7 member states to fully respect the efforts made by countries in the region, stop making irresponsible remarks and all irresponsible actions, and truly play a constructive role for regional peace and stability,” the ministry added.
April 12, 2016
Beijing – China expressed anger on Tuesday after foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies said they strongly opposed provocation in the East and South China Seas, where China is locked in territorial disputes.
“We urge the G7 member states to honor their commitment of not taking sides on issues involving territorial disputes,” China’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
The G7 should focus on global economic governance and cooperation against the backdrop of weak economic growth rather than hyping up disputes and provoking problems, it added.
On Monday, G7 foreign ministers said after meeting in the Japanese city of Hiroshima that they opposed “any intimidating coercive or provocative unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase tensions” in the East and South China Seas.
China claims almost the entire South China Sea, believed to have huge deposits of oil and gas, and is building islands on reefs to bolster its claims. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to parts of the waters, through which about $5 trillion in trade is shipped every year.
China also has a separate dispute with Japan over a group of uninhabited islets in the East China Sea.
China has every right to build on the Spratly Islands and there are no problems with freedom of navigation and overflight for the East and South China Seas, the foreign ministry said.
China is committed to resolving disputes through talks with countries directly involved via international law and on the basis of respecting historical facts, to maintain peace and stability while safeguarding its sovereignty, it said.
It repeated that China will neither accept nor participate in any arbitration “illegally forced upon it,” a reference to a case lodged by the Philippines against China.
“We urge the G7 member states to fully respect the efforts made by countries in the region, stop making irresponsible remarks and all irresponsible actions, and truly play a constructive role for regional peace and stability,” the ministry added.
G7 calls for restraint in Asian maritime disputes
April 11, 2016
HIROSHIMA, Japan: Group of Seven foreign ministers on Monday expressed concern about maritime disputes in Asia, as worries grow in the region over China’s territorial and military ambitions.
Beijing lays claim to almost all of the South China Sea despite conflicting partial claims from Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines.
It has constructed artificial islands in the area in recent months as it asserts its sovereignty.
Japan, meanwhile, has its own dispute with China in the East China Sea over uninhabited islands that it administers but that are also claimed by Beijing.
“We are concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas, and emphasize the fundamental importance of peaceful management and settlement of disputes,” the G7 ministers said in a statement after their two-day meeting in the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
The Southeast Asian countries and Washington fear China could impose military controls over the entire South China Sea. Beijing has in recent months built massive structures including radar systems and an airstrip over reclaimed reefs and outcrops.
“We express our strong opposition to any intimidating, coercive or provocative unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase tensions”, the ministers said. They did not mention China or any other country by name.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan issued the Statement on Maritime Security at the meeting.
The G7 also urged “all states to refrain from such actions as land reclamations” and “building of outposts… for military purposes”.
Disputes should be solved “in good faith and in accordance with international law”, including dispute settlement mechanisms and arbitration, the group added.
Meeting host Japan and the US have repeatedly expressed alarm over Chinese moves, while Beijing has voiced suspicion that they are using the G7 to criticize it.
An international tribunal in The Hague is preparing to decide a case brought by the Philippines in connection with the South China Sea.
Beijing has refused to take part and says it does not recognize the tribunal’s authority.
Speaking in Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said he had not seen the G7 statement and refrained from commenting directly on it, but warned the G7 to avoid being biased towards China.
“If the G7 wants to continue to play an important role in the international community, it should maintain an objective attitude”, he told a regular press briefing. AFP
AFP/CC
HIROSHIMA, Japan: Group of Seven foreign ministers on Monday expressed concern about maritime disputes in Asia, as worries grow in the region over China’s territorial and military ambitions.
Beijing lays claim to almost all of the South China Sea despite conflicting partial claims from Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines.
It has constructed artificial islands in the area in recent months as it asserts its sovereignty.
Japan, meanwhile, has its own dispute with China in the East China Sea over uninhabited islands that it administers but that are also claimed by Beijing.
“We are concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas, and emphasize the fundamental importance of peaceful management and settlement of disputes,” the G7 ministers said in a statement after their two-day meeting in the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
The Southeast Asian countries and Washington fear China could impose military controls over the entire South China Sea. Beijing has in recent months built massive structures including radar systems and an airstrip over reclaimed reefs and outcrops.
“We express our strong opposition to any intimidating, coercive or provocative unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase tensions”, the ministers said. They did not mention China or any other country by name.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan issued the Statement on Maritime Security at the meeting.
The G7 also urged “all states to refrain from such actions as land reclamations” and “building of outposts… for military purposes”.
Disputes should be solved “in good faith and in accordance with international law”, including dispute settlement mechanisms and arbitration, the group added.
Meeting host Japan and the US have repeatedly expressed alarm over Chinese moves, while Beijing has voiced suspicion that they are using the G7 to criticize it.
An international tribunal in The Hague is preparing to decide a case brought by the Philippines in connection with the South China Sea.
Beijing has refused to take part and says it does not recognize the tribunal’s authority.
Speaking in Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said he had not seen the G7 statement and refrained from commenting directly on it, but warned the G7 to avoid being biased towards China.
“If the G7 wants to continue to play an important role in the international community, it should maintain an objective attitude”, he told a regular press briefing. AFP
AFP/CC
AFP modernization: Army eyes more modern weaponry this year
March 28, 2016 by Ron E.J. Carleon
http://kickerdaily.com/
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine Army’s (PA) arsenal is expecting an upgrade this year as part of the current administration’s continuing modernization program for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
During a speech at the PA’s 119th founding anniversary celebration last March 22, Army commander Lt. Gen. Eduardo Ano disclosed that they are expecting the delivery of additional infantry fighting and fire support vehicles, including 155 mm howitzers, light utility vehicles, 60-mm mortars, 40-mm grenade launchers, rocket launcher light units and 50-watt armored vehicle-configuration radios.
The Army’s projected modernized weaponry is aimed at ensuring that ground troops, particularly those deployed in Mindanao fighting Muslim rebel groups, will be adequately armed in combat.
Ano said this will also further enhance the soldier’s capability to support the government’s battle against insurgency in other parts of the country.
The Army chief also highlighted the completed delivery last year of 56,844 R-4 carbine units, which are the replacement of the Vietnam-era M-16 automatic rifles, 124 additional armored vehicles, six armored personnel carriers fitted with .50 caliber remote-controlled weapon systems, 60 field ambulances and 300 light utility vehicles.
On top of this is 2,000 assorted radio and communication equipment the Army earlier acquired, boosting its command-and-control effectivity over various units of the branch.
At least P47-B worth of military assets acquisition has been approved by President Aquino last year as part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) modernization program initiated by the present administration.
The Philippines has allocated P75-B (US $1.7-B) for AFP modernization from 2013 to 2017, which is roughly P15-B (US $335-M) a year.
It came at a crucial time when the country is deeply embroiled in a bitter maritime dispute with China in the West Philippine Sea.
The figures however, still pales in comparison to China which spent a staggering US $ 132-B (P5.89-T) for its military in 2014 alone, which is almost equal to the Philippines’ annual budget for 2015.
http://kickerdaily.com/
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine Army’s (PA) arsenal is expecting an upgrade this year as part of the current administration’s continuing modernization program for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
During a speech at the PA’s 119th founding anniversary celebration last March 22, Army commander Lt. Gen. Eduardo Ano disclosed that they are expecting the delivery of additional infantry fighting and fire support vehicles, including 155 mm howitzers, light utility vehicles, 60-mm mortars, 40-mm grenade launchers, rocket launcher light units and 50-watt armored vehicle-configuration radios.
The Army’s projected modernized weaponry is aimed at ensuring that ground troops, particularly those deployed in Mindanao fighting Muslim rebel groups, will be adequately armed in combat.
Ano said this will also further enhance the soldier’s capability to support the government’s battle against insurgency in other parts of the country.
The Army chief also highlighted the completed delivery last year of 56,844 R-4 carbine units, which are the replacement of the Vietnam-era M-16 automatic rifles, 124 additional armored vehicles, six armored personnel carriers fitted with .50 caliber remote-controlled weapon systems, 60 field ambulances and 300 light utility vehicles.
On top of this is 2,000 assorted radio and communication equipment the Army earlier acquired, boosting its command-and-control effectivity over various units of the branch.
At least P47-B worth of military assets acquisition has been approved by President Aquino last year as part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) modernization program initiated by the present administration.
The Philippines has allocated P75-B (US $1.7-B) for AFP modernization from 2013 to 2017, which is roughly P15-B (US $335-M) a year.
It came at a crucial time when the country is deeply embroiled in a bitter maritime dispute with China in the West Philippine Sea.
The figures however, still pales in comparison to China which spent a staggering US $ 132-B (P5.89-T) for its military in 2014 alone, which is almost equal to the Philippines’ annual budget for 2015.
18 soldiers, 5 ASGs killed in Basilan clash
by Nonoy E. Lacson and Elena L. Aben
April 11, 2016, Manila Bulletin
Zamboanga City — Eighteen Army soldiers and five Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) bandits were killed while 103 others were wounded – 56 of them soldiers – in sporadic gun battles that lasted 10 hours in the forests of Tipo-Tipo, Basilan, last Saturday.
The clashes, breaking out as the nation was marking the “Araw ng Kagitingan” (Day of Valor) holiday, came after an April 8 ransom deadline set by the Abu Sayyaf, who had threatened to behead some of their foreign hostages.
Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Gen. Hernando Iriberri pins a medal Sunday on one of the wounded soldiers, who survived an intense gun battle between the military and elements of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) in Tipo-Tipo, Basilan, last Saturday. Iriberri was accompanied by top AFP officials in visiting the wounded soldiers being treated at the Camp Navarro General Hospital at the Western Mindanao Command in Zamboanga City. The encounter claimed the lives of 18 government troopers and five ASG men, including a Morrocan bomb expert.
A junior officer, Lieutenant Remegio B. Licena, was among the soldiers killed in the fighting that broke out at 7:55 a.m. in Sitio Bayoko, Barangay Baguindan, Tipo-Tipo.
At least four soldiers were beheaded in the fighting which involved about a hundred ASG fighters, said Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Western Mindanao Command (WesMinCom) spokesman, Major Filemon Tan.
A separate report from AFP spokesman Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla did not confirm the beheadings. “May attempted beheading ng dalawang tropa pero narecover namin agad, naprevent yun,” he said.
General Hernando Iriberri, AFP Chief of Staff, told newsmen that the intense battle resulted in the deaths of Moroccan terrorist Mohammad Kattab and Ubaida Hapilon son of Senior ASG leader Isnilon Hapilon.
Iriberri said Kattab was a bomb-maker instructor, Islamic jihadist and preacher, who unites lawless armed groups and kidnap-for-ransom groups (KFRG) in Sulu, Basilan, and the Zamboanga Peninsula.
Iriberri said soldiers of Joint Task Group Basilan Province (JTGBP) composed of troops coming from the 44th Infantry Battalion (IB), 4th Special Forces Battalion (SFBN) and 14 Cavalry, encountered a combined group of ASG led by Isnilon Hapilon and Furuji Indama.
“Our soldiers fought valiantly, hindi sila umatras,” said AFP public affairs office (PAO) chief, Col. Noel Detoyato.
The ASG reportedly planted landmines in the area and that shrapnels coming from these improvised bombs hit many of the troops.
“Gumamit ang kalaban ng IED (improvised explosive device) ito ’yun maraming nakatama sa tropa nung nag-maneuver sila, tinamaan ng shrapnels (The enemy used IEDs and these were what hit our maneuvering troops),” said Detoyato.
Apart from Lt. Licena, the other soldiers killed were Corporals Redel Perolino, Rodelio Bangcairin, Noel R. Else, Dionisio L. Labial, Rakib Kadil, Reezvi Arshcelo H. Gandawali, Darius Bulan, and Ibrahim Palao; Privates First Class (PFCs) Doren L. Aspuria, Marjun Duhaylungsod, Kevin Rey S. Verano, and Marjohn G. Monte; Sergeants Jason A. Alani, Akhad M. Usman, and Paterno G. Oquino; Staff Sgt. Makin B. Jarani; and Private Dunemark Gil Saldivar.
Fifty of the wounded soldiers are now confined at the Camp Navarro General Hospital inside WesMinCom, four at Ciudad Medical Hospital, and two at the Doctors Hospital in this city.
FOREIGN JIHADIST
According to the military, the slain Moroccan was an IED instructor and Islamic jihadist preacher who came to the country to organize and unite local lawless armed elements and kidnap-for-ransom groups in Mindanao to link with international terrorist organizations, as well as, to spread radicalism and extremism.
Detoyato said the military have been monitoring the presence of Khattab down south.
“Binubuo niya isang isang malaking grupo, namonitor namin ito kaya we conducted the operation,” he said.
Of the 20 militants reported wounded, among them was ASG leader Radzmil Jannatul, alias “Kubayab.”
SALUTE TO THE TROOPS
Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and Irriberi flew in to Zambonga Sunday to visit the wounded troops and condole with families of the fallen soldiers.
“Our troops fought gallantly and we salute them as they displayed the finest traditions of soldiery with utmost valor. We are truly better for their sacrifice and we will take inspiration from their exemplary service. After we grieve for our soldiers, we shall continue the fight to win the peace for our people,” said a message from Gazmin, Iriberri and the Wesmincom.
“Our soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice so that the people of Basilan will be free from terrorists and secure a peaceful and bright future for their next generation,” it added.
NO LET UP
Padilla said Gazmin and Iriberri were also received a briefing on the clash in Basilan, after which the AFP chief gave a standing order that there will be no let up in the operations against the ASG and other lawless groups.
“Dapat walang hinto ang operations, tuloy-tuloy pa rin yung operations. Hindi dapat sayangin yung mga buhay ng mga tropa na nawala, we must work harder in performing our missions para masugpo sila,” said Padilla.
As of noon yesterday, another encounter between government forces and the ASG was reportedly taking place in Basilan.
April 11, 2016, Manila Bulletin
Zamboanga City — Eighteen Army soldiers and five Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) bandits were killed while 103 others were wounded – 56 of them soldiers – in sporadic gun battles that lasted 10 hours in the forests of Tipo-Tipo, Basilan, last Saturday.
The clashes, breaking out as the nation was marking the “Araw ng Kagitingan” (Day of Valor) holiday, came after an April 8 ransom deadline set by the Abu Sayyaf, who had threatened to behead some of their foreign hostages.
Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Gen. Hernando Iriberri pins a medal Sunday on one of the wounded soldiers, who survived an intense gun battle between the military and elements of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) in Tipo-Tipo, Basilan, last Saturday. Iriberri was accompanied by top AFP officials in visiting the wounded soldiers being treated at the Camp Navarro General Hospital at the Western Mindanao Command in Zamboanga City. The encounter claimed the lives of 18 government troopers and five ASG men, including a Morrocan bomb expert.
A junior officer, Lieutenant Remegio B. Licena, was among the soldiers killed in the fighting that broke out at 7:55 a.m. in Sitio Bayoko, Barangay Baguindan, Tipo-Tipo.
At least four soldiers were beheaded in the fighting which involved about a hundred ASG fighters, said Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Western Mindanao Command (WesMinCom) spokesman, Major Filemon Tan.
A separate report from AFP spokesman Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla did not confirm the beheadings. “May attempted beheading ng dalawang tropa pero narecover namin agad, naprevent yun,” he said.
General Hernando Iriberri, AFP Chief of Staff, told newsmen that the intense battle resulted in the deaths of Moroccan terrorist Mohammad Kattab and Ubaida Hapilon son of Senior ASG leader Isnilon Hapilon.
Iriberri said Kattab was a bomb-maker instructor, Islamic jihadist and preacher, who unites lawless armed groups and kidnap-for-ransom groups (KFRG) in Sulu, Basilan, and the Zamboanga Peninsula.
Iriberri said soldiers of Joint Task Group Basilan Province (JTGBP) composed of troops coming from the 44th Infantry Battalion (IB), 4th Special Forces Battalion (SFBN) and 14 Cavalry, encountered a combined group of ASG led by Isnilon Hapilon and Furuji Indama.
“Our soldiers fought valiantly, hindi sila umatras,” said AFP public affairs office (PAO) chief, Col. Noel Detoyato.
The ASG reportedly planted landmines in the area and that shrapnels coming from these improvised bombs hit many of the troops.
“Gumamit ang kalaban ng IED (improvised explosive device) ito ’yun maraming nakatama sa tropa nung nag-maneuver sila, tinamaan ng shrapnels (The enemy used IEDs and these were what hit our maneuvering troops),” said Detoyato.
Apart from Lt. Licena, the other soldiers killed were Corporals Redel Perolino, Rodelio Bangcairin, Noel R. Else, Dionisio L. Labial, Rakib Kadil, Reezvi Arshcelo H. Gandawali, Darius Bulan, and Ibrahim Palao; Privates First Class (PFCs) Doren L. Aspuria, Marjun Duhaylungsod, Kevin Rey S. Verano, and Marjohn G. Monte; Sergeants Jason A. Alani, Akhad M. Usman, and Paterno G. Oquino; Staff Sgt. Makin B. Jarani; and Private Dunemark Gil Saldivar.
Fifty of the wounded soldiers are now confined at the Camp Navarro General Hospital inside WesMinCom, four at Ciudad Medical Hospital, and two at the Doctors Hospital in this city.
FOREIGN JIHADIST
According to the military, the slain Moroccan was an IED instructor and Islamic jihadist preacher who came to the country to organize and unite local lawless armed elements and kidnap-for-ransom groups in Mindanao to link with international terrorist organizations, as well as, to spread radicalism and extremism.
Detoyato said the military have been monitoring the presence of Khattab down south.
“Binubuo niya isang isang malaking grupo, namonitor namin ito kaya we conducted the operation,” he said.
Of the 20 militants reported wounded, among them was ASG leader Radzmil Jannatul, alias “Kubayab.”
SALUTE TO THE TROOPS
Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and Irriberi flew in to Zambonga Sunday to visit the wounded troops and condole with families of the fallen soldiers.
“Our troops fought gallantly and we salute them as they displayed the finest traditions of soldiery with utmost valor. We are truly better for their sacrifice and we will take inspiration from their exemplary service. After we grieve for our soldiers, we shall continue the fight to win the peace for our people,” said a message from Gazmin, Iriberri and the Wesmincom.
“Our soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice so that the people of Basilan will be free from terrorists and secure a peaceful and bright future for their next generation,” it added.
NO LET UP
Padilla said Gazmin and Iriberri were also received a briefing on the clash in Basilan, after which the AFP chief gave a standing order that there will be no let up in the operations against the ASG and other lawless groups.
“Dapat walang hinto ang operations, tuloy-tuloy pa rin yung operations. Hindi dapat sayangin yung mga buhay ng mga tropa na nawala, we must work harder in performing our missions para masugpo sila,” said Padilla.
As of noon yesterday, another encounter between government forces and the ASG was reportedly taking place in Basilan.
When China’s far-flung fishing fleet trespasses in other nations’ waters, Beijing has its back
Written by
Steve Mollman
April 04, 2016
With fish stocks declining in much of the Asia-Pacific region, it’s tempting for fishing fleets—from any country—to venture into waters belonging to another nation. In the case of China, fishing boats appear to be giving in to that temptation with some confidence, perhaps knowing they have unusually high levels of logistical support behind them. Recent confrontations between Chinese boats and the navies or coastguards of nearby nations highlight the backing enjoyed by adventurous Chinese fishermen.
Last week, Vietnam’s coastguard seized a Chinese vessel that, by outside appearances, looked to be an illegal fishing vessel intruding in its waters in the South China Sea. Vietnam has long complained about the presence of such boats. But what they discovered was more telling: The ship was merely disguised as a fishing boat. Carrying large amounts of oil, it was actually a refueling ship serving Chinese fishing vessels.
Last month, an Indonesian patrol boat seized a 300-ton Chinese trawler and arrested its crew for fishing within Indonesia’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone off the Natuna islands, northwest of Borneo. Indonesian officers commandeered the intruding vessel, the Kway Fey 10078, and were bringing it to a nearby base when a ship from China’s coastguard suddenly appeared, with another soon arriving in the vicinity. To avoid escalation the lightly armed Indonesians gave up the ship, which Chinese coastguard officials boarded and took out of Indonesia’s waters.
China’s long-distance fishing fleet will also be helped by the manmade islands China has been building out and militarizing in the Spratly archipelago. Based on a map drawn shortly after World War 2, China claims nearly all of the South China Sea as its own territory. With its new islands as a springboard, it will be able to exert more control over the waters, and could launch its fishing fleet even further afield, comfortably escorted by the Chinese coastguard.
China has the world’s biggest and possibly most voracious distant-water fleet, which it heavily subsidizes. Last year the nonprofit Stop Illegal Fishing said the fleet had 2,000-plus vessels. This fleet regularly operates in other nations’ exclusive economic zones, areas close to the shore where fish congregate.
Fishermen in the Malaysian state of Sarawak on Borneo, who traditionally fish around the Luconia Shoals, also know of China’s fishing-fleet support. They live in fear of the “Chinese gunboats” that provide cover to Chinese commercial fishing boats as they muscle into the area.
Even nations far from Asia have encountered the support China extends to its far-flung fishing fleet. Last month Argentina sank a Chinese-flagged trawler illegally fishing in its territorial waters, and arrested the crew. The trawler had ignored repeated warnings and even tried to ram the coastguard ship chasing it. China’s foreign ministry promptly urged Argentina to “protect the safety and lawful rights of Chinese sailors.”
Steve Mollman
April 04, 2016
With fish stocks declining in much of the Asia-Pacific region, it’s tempting for fishing fleets—from any country—to venture into waters belonging to another nation. In the case of China, fishing boats appear to be giving in to that temptation with some confidence, perhaps knowing they have unusually high levels of logistical support behind them. Recent confrontations between Chinese boats and the navies or coastguards of nearby nations highlight the backing enjoyed by adventurous Chinese fishermen.
Last week, Vietnam’s coastguard seized a Chinese vessel that, by outside appearances, looked to be an illegal fishing vessel intruding in its waters in the South China Sea. Vietnam has long complained about the presence of such boats. But what they discovered was more telling: The ship was merely disguised as a fishing boat. Carrying large amounts of oil, it was actually a refueling ship serving Chinese fishing vessels.
Last month, an Indonesian patrol boat seized a 300-ton Chinese trawler and arrested its crew for fishing within Indonesia’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone off the Natuna islands, northwest of Borneo. Indonesian officers commandeered the intruding vessel, the Kway Fey 10078, and were bringing it to a nearby base when a ship from China’s coastguard suddenly appeared, with another soon arriving in the vicinity. To avoid escalation the lightly armed Indonesians gave up the ship, which Chinese coastguard officials boarded and took out of Indonesia’s waters.
China’s long-distance fishing fleet will also be helped by the manmade islands China has been building out and militarizing in the Spratly archipelago. Based on a map drawn shortly after World War 2, China claims nearly all of the South China Sea as its own territory. With its new islands as a springboard, it will be able to exert more control over the waters, and could launch its fishing fleet even further afield, comfortably escorted by the Chinese coastguard.
China has the world’s biggest and possibly most voracious distant-water fleet, which it heavily subsidizes. Last year the nonprofit Stop Illegal Fishing said the fleet had 2,000-plus vessels. This fleet regularly operates in other nations’ exclusive economic zones, areas close to the shore where fish congregate.
Fishermen in the Malaysian state of Sarawak on Borneo, who traditionally fish around the Luconia Shoals, also know of China’s fishing-fleet support. They live in fear of the “Chinese gunboats” that provide cover to Chinese commercial fishing boats as they muscle into the area.
Even nations far from Asia have encountered the support China extends to its far-flung fishing fleet. Last month Argentina sank a Chinese-flagged trawler illegally fishing in its territorial waters, and arrested the crew. The trawler had ignored repeated warnings and even tried to ram the coastguard ship chasing it. China’s foreign ministry promptly urged Argentina to “protect the safety and lawful rights of Chinese sailors.”
IMT-Mindanao 11 pays courtesy call to MILF Leadership
Source: http://www.luwaran.com/home/index.php/news/20-central-mindanao/659-imt-mission-11-pays-courtesy-call-to-milf-leadership
International Monitoring Team - Mindanao Batch 11, headed by Major General Datuk Wira Zambrose Bin Mohd Zain paid courtesy call to MILF Leadership at the Moro Front’s Administrative in Camp Darapanan, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao at 2PM on March 30, 2016.
Major General Datuk Wira Zambrose Bin Mohd Zain and members of his contingent were received warmly by MILF Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim along with members of the Central Committee and the BIAF’s General Staff.
In his opening statement, Muhammad Ameen, Secretary to the Central Committee said, “It has been 12 years now that the first batch of IMT was deployed in the Bangsamoro, Southern Philippines. Since then, the IMT have been performing their mandate satisfactorily.
After Ameen’s message, Ustadz Abu Ismail Ibrahim read some verses from the Noble Qur’an.
BIAF Chief of Staff Sammy Al Mansor in his welcome remarks mentioned that the sending of the eleventh batch of IMT signaled the tour of duty's fresh mandate of monitoring is now in motion as it also implies that the peace process is still on track.
Chairman Murad praised the International Monitoring Team for being effective in maintaining and sustaining a conducive atmosphere in the ground in its more than ten years of tour of duty in the Bangsamoro homeland.
“Before the deployment of IMT, the peace process was suffering so many complex situations but when the IMT was already deployed, hostilities were gradually reduced until finally these last three years, zero encounters were achieved”, Al Haj Murad said.
Chairman Murad related the impasse situation of the peace process because of the non-passage yet of BBL.
Major General Datuk Wira Zambrose Bin Mohd Zain expressed his thanks for the honor of having visited the beautiful camp and the warm reception and hospitality afforded to them. His one year stay is short but he promised to try his very best to make sure peace process will prevail. Not only corrective measures will be applied, but preventive measures will be taken in his approaches.
Deputy Head of Mission Brig. Gen. Datu Hj Sanusi Bin Hj Samion, expressed with curiosity as he queried Bangsamoro Transition Commission Chairman (BTC) Mohagher Iqbal, on why the BBL failed to pass.
Chairman Iqbal said, "It’s the Congress, both the lower house and the upper house that did not pass the BBL."
In addition, as contained in his speech during the CAB Commemoration, Chairman Iqbal said that the reason why the BBL did not passed is because there are groups who worked for its non- passage in congress. Those are the groups with vested interest, power holders, economic holders, and some extreme religious groups.
The meeting ended up shortly, though it was cordial and the warm shake hands among them signifies sincere commitment to peace aspirations.
International Monitoring Team - Mindanao Batch 11, headed by Major General Datuk Wira Zambrose Bin Mohd Zain paid courtesy call to MILF Leadership at the Moro Front’s Administrative in Camp Darapanan, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao at 2PM on March 30, 2016.
Major General Datuk Wira Zambrose Bin Mohd Zain and members of his contingent were received warmly by MILF Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim along with members of the Central Committee and the BIAF’s General Staff.
In his opening statement, Muhammad Ameen, Secretary to the Central Committee said, “It has been 12 years now that the first batch of IMT was deployed in the Bangsamoro, Southern Philippines. Since then, the IMT have been performing their mandate satisfactorily.
After Ameen’s message, Ustadz Abu Ismail Ibrahim read some verses from the Noble Qur’an.
BIAF Chief of Staff Sammy Al Mansor in his welcome remarks mentioned that the sending of the eleventh batch of IMT signaled the tour of duty's fresh mandate of monitoring is now in motion as it also implies that the peace process is still on track.
Chairman Murad praised the International Monitoring Team for being effective in maintaining and sustaining a conducive atmosphere in the ground in its more than ten years of tour of duty in the Bangsamoro homeland.
“Before the deployment of IMT, the peace process was suffering so many complex situations but when the IMT was already deployed, hostilities were gradually reduced until finally these last three years, zero encounters were achieved”, Al Haj Murad said.
Chairman Murad related the impasse situation of the peace process because of the non-passage yet of BBL.
Major General Datuk Wira Zambrose Bin Mohd Zain expressed his thanks for the honor of having visited the beautiful camp and the warm reception and hospitality afforded to them. His one year stay is short but he promised to try his very best to make sure peace process will prevail. Not only corrective measures will be applied, but preventive measures will be taken in his approaches.
Deputy Head of Mission Brig. Gen. Datu Hj Sanusi Bin Hj Samion, expressed with curiosity as he queried Bangsamoro Transition Commission Chairman (BTC) Mohagher Iqbal, on why the BBL failed to pass.
Chairman Iqbal said, "It’s the Congress, both the lower house and the upper house that did not pass the BBL."
In addition, as contained in his speech during the CAB Commemoration, Chairman Iqbal said that the reason why the BBL did not passed is because there are groups who worked for its non- passage in congress. Those are the groups with vested interest, power holders, economic holders, and some extreme religious groups.
The meeting ended up shortly, though it was cordial and the warm shake hands among them signifies sincere commitment to peace aspirations.
Ombudsman takes control of cases vs government peace panel
By Michael Punongbayan and Paolo Romero
The Philippine Star, March 12, 2016
MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman has taken over the cases of treason and inciting to sedition filed against members of the government peace panel stemming from their efforts to have the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) passed by Congress.
In May 2015, Buhay party-list Rep. Lito Atienza, Abakada party-list Rep. Jonathan de la Cruz, former ambassador Jose Romero Jr. and lawyer Jeremy Gatdula filed a treason case at the Manila Prosecutor’s Office against the government peace panel for crafting and pushing for the enactment of the BBL.
The Manila City Prosecutor’s Office found the complaint to be sufficient in form and substance and endorsed it to the Office of the Ombudsman for further proceedings.
If enacted, the BBL aims to create a new autonomous region in Mindanao. A product of negotiations between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the BBL was submitted by Malacañang to Congress for approval in September 2014.
But the Mamasapano incident on Jan. 25, 2015, where 44 police commandos and several civilians and MILF rebels were killed greatly reduced support for the BBL.
Atienza said even the BBL’s sponsors in Congress made numerous amendments and deletions in the original draft and changed its name into what is now the Basic Law on the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region (BLBAR). The amendments were made as lawmakers found many of its provisions unconstitutional.
Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1“The acts of the respondents, in executing the Framework Agreement and in proposing the BBL, also effectively aided the MILF armed forces to successfully assert their existence as a separate and independent state. Therefore, the respondents must be held liable for the crime of treason,” the complainants said in the case they filed before Senior Deputy City Prosecutor Eufrosino Sulla.
“This strengthens our stand that the original framework which the government peace panel agreed on was detrimental to our peace and national security. But the BLBAR still failed to be passed before Congress adjourned for the campaign season because even this new version was still not acceptable to a great number of congressmen,” Atienza added.
The Office of the Ombudsman ordered the respondents – government peace panel chairperson Miriam Coronel-Ferrer, members Senen Bacani, Yasmin Busran-Lao, Teresita Quintos-Deles and 19 others – to file their comments on the charges of treason and inciting to sedition.
Also included as respondent in the complaint are MILF negotiating panel chair and Bangsamoro Transition Commission head Mohagher Iqbal; members Michael Mastura, Maulana Alonto and Abdulla Camilian; alternate negotiating panel member Antonio Kino; and BTC members Ibrahim Ali, Talib Abdulhamid Benito, Pedrito Eisma, Raissa Jajurie, Froilyn Mendoza, Hussein Muñoz, Akmad Sakkam, Said Shiek, Asani Tammang, Timuay Melanio Ulama and Johaira Wahab.
“We welcome this development and thank the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office for finding our case meritorious enough to be endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman for corresponding action,” Atienza said. – With Jose Rodel Clapano, Jess Diaz
The Philippine Star, March 12, 2016
MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman has taken over the cases of treason and inciting to sedition filed against members of the government peace panel stemming from their efforts to have the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) passed by Congress.
In May 2015, Buhay party-list Rep. Lito Atienza, Abakada party-list Rep. Jonathan de la Cruz, former ambassador Jose Romero Jr. and lawyer Jeremy Gatdula filed a treason case at the Manila Prosecutor’s Office against the government peace panel for crafting and pushing for the enactment of the BBL.
The Manila City Prosecutor’s Office found the complaint to be sufficient in form and substance and endorsed it to the Office of the Ombudsman for further proceedings.
If enacted, the BBL aims to create a new autonomous region in Mindanao. A product of negotiations between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the BBL was submitted by Malacañang to Congress for approval in September 2014.
But the Mamasapano incident on Jan. 25, 2015, where 44 police commandos and several civilians and MILF rebels were killed greatly reduced support for the BBL.
Atienza said even the BBL’s sponsors in Congress made numerous amendments and deletions in the original draft and changed its name into what is now the Basic Law on the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region (BLBAR). The amendments were made as lawmakers found many of its provisions unconstitutional.
Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1“The acts of the respondents, in executing the Framework Agreement and in proposing the BBL, also effectively aided the MILF armed forces to successfully assert their existence as a separate and independent state. Therefore, the respondents must be held liable for the crime of treason,” the complainants said in the case they filed before Senior Deputy City Prosecutor Eufrosino Sulla.
“This strengthens our stand that the original framework which the government peace panel agreed on was detrimental to our peace and national security. But the BLBAR still failed to be passed before Congress adjourned for the campaign season because even this new version was still not acceptable to a great number of congressmen,” Atienza added.
The Office of the Ombudsman ordered the respondents – government peace panel chairperson Miriam Coronel-Ferrer, members Senen Bacani, Yasmin Busran-Lao, Teresita Quintos-Deles and 19 others – to file their comments on the charges of treason and inciting to sedition.
Also included as respondent in the complaint are MILF negotiating panel chair and Bangsamoro Transition Commission head Mohagher Iqbal; members Michael Mastura, Maulana Alonto and Abdulla Camilian; alternate negotiating panel member Antonio Kino; and BTC members Ibrahim Ali, Talib Abdulhamid Benito, Pedrito Eisma, Raissa Jajurie, Froilyn Mendoza, Hussein Muñoz, Akmad Sakkam, Said Shiek, Asani Tammang, Timuay Melanio Ulama and Johaira Wahab.
“We welcome this development and thank the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office for finding our case meritorious enough to be endorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman for corresponding action,” Atienza said. – With Jose Rodel Clapano, Jess Diaz
Murad Meets with Malaysian PM
by Ali G. Macabalang
March 4, 2016
Manila Bulletin
Cotabato City — Moro Islamic Liberation Front Chair Al Hadj Murad Ebrahim has discussed with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary General Iyad Ameen Madani the fate of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), which was not passed by Congress, according to the official website of the MILF Central Committee on Information.
Separate reports in the information site said Murad personally met with Razak in Kuala Lumpur last February 25 before he proceeded to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on February 28 to have an audience with Madani.
Razak confirmed meeting with Murad in a statement and said that he had convinced the MILF chair that “despite the current setback, the MILF must remain faithful to the peace process since it is a practical choice to resolve the Bangsamoro issue.”
Murad had earlier expressed the MILF’s “deep frustration and grave dismay” over the non-passage of the BBL, which he described as a vital instrument to the peace deals signed with the Philippine government in 2013 and 2014.
In the same meeting, Razak was assured by Murad of the MILF’s “commitment to peaceful campaign for continuity in the four-decade old negotiations with the Philippine government.”
As a gesture of Malaysia’s continuing commitment to its role as third party facilitator in the peace process, Razak informed Murad that he would be sending another batch of Malaysian observers to be led by Defense Minister YB Dato Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein.
The Malaysian team is expected to join the International Monitoring Team (IMT) which will witness a “handing over” process in this city later this month.
“(I urge) the MILF to actively reach out to other Moro groups in order to foster Bangsamoro unity and ensure the inclusivity of the current peace process,” said Razak, as he also called on “all groups in Mindanao to reject radicalization and extremism.”
“We must uphold and implement wasatiyah (moderate approach), which brings forth a moderate, just and balanced way of life,” he added.
For his part, Madani said the OIC shared the dismay felt by the MILF over the non-passage of the BBL in Congress, but extolled its leadership and the Malaysian government-facilitator for renewing commitments for a peaceful conclusion of the years of armed conflict in Mindanao.
Madani also shared the MILF and Malaysia’s common desire for the revival of the BBL in the next Congress, hoping the re-filed measures would be more acceptable to all parties.
But he warned of the adverse effects of the delayed passage of the BBL or the adoption of a weak version especially on human, security and developmental provisions of the MILF-GPH peace deals.
The OIC leader also renewed call for the leaders of the Bangsamoro people, particularly the MILF and the Moro National Liberation Front to utilize the existing mechanism of the Bangsamoro Coordinating Forum (BCF) to achieve a more unified position, coherent and sustainable cooperation for the benefit of the Bangsamoro people.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/murad-meets-with-malaysian-pm/#QPQLrc71mlwhcim8.99
March 4, 2016
Manila Bulletin
Cotabato City — Moro Islamic Liberation Front Chair Al Hadj Murad Ebrahim has discussed with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary General Iyad Ameen Madani the fate of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), which was not passed by Congress, according to the official website of the MILF Central Committee on Information.
Separate reports in the information site said Murad personally met with Razak in Kuala Lumpur last February 25 before he proceeded to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on February 28 to have an audience with Madani.
Razak confirmed meeting with Murad in a statement and said that he had convinced the MILF chair that “despite the current setback, the MILF must remain faithful to the peace process since it is a practical choice to resolve the Bangsamoro issue.”
Murad had earlier expressed the MILF’s “deep frustration and grave dismay” over the non-passage of the BBL, which he described as a vital instrument to the peace deals signed with the Philippine government in 2013 and 2014.
In the same meeting, Razak was assured by Murad of the MILF’s “commitment to peaceful campaign for continuity in the four-decade old negotiations with the Philippine government.”
As a gesture of Malaysia’s continuing commitment to its role as third party facilitator in the peace process, Razak informed Murad that he would be sending another batch of Malaysian observers to be led by Defense Minister YB Dato Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein.
The Malaysian team is expected to join the International Monitoring Team (IMT) which will witness a “handing over” process in this city later this month.
“(I urge) the MILF to actively reach out to other Moro groups in order to foster Bangsamoro unity and ensure the inclusivity of the current peace process,” said Razak, as he also called on “all groups in Mindanao to reject radicalization and extremism.”
“We must uphold and implement wasatiyah (moderate approach), which brings forth a moderate, just and balanced way of life,” he added.
For his part, Madani said the OIC shared the dismay felt by the MILF over the non-passage of the BBL in Congress, but extolled its leadership and the Malaysian government-facilitator for renewing commitments for a peaceful conclusion of the years of armed conflict in Mindanao.
Madani also shared the MILF and Malaysia’s common desire for the revival of the BBL in the next Congress, hoping the re-filed measures would be more acceptable to all parties.
But he warned of the adverse effects of the delayed passage of the BBL or the adoption of a weak version especially on human, security and developmental provisions of the MILF-GPH peace deals.
The OIC leader also renewed call for the leaders of the Bangsamoro people, particularly the MILF and the Moro National Liberation Front to utilize the existing mechanism of the Bangsamoro Coordinating Forum (BCF) to achieve a more unified position, coherent and sustainable cooperation for the benefit of the Bangsamoro people.
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/murad-meets-with-malaysian-pm/#QPQLrc71mlwhcim8.99
STATEMENT OF THE PCFR ON THE PLAN B PROPOSAL OF THE THIRD PARTY MONITORING TEAM
Some members of the Third Party Monitoring Team (TPMT) were quoted in the Philippine Star urging the Philippine government for a Plan B should Congress fail to pass the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) and the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL). While the concern of some members of TPMT for peace in Mindanao is commendable – their apparent disregard for the sensibilities of the distinguished opposition to this executive initiative is condemnable.
It will be recalled that the opposition of many sectors of the Philippine society to the CAB and BBL are from the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations (PCFR), the Retired Ambassadors Association, the Association of Flag Officers, the Philippine Constitutional Association, members of the media and the business sector. Their opposition was duly registered during the hearings in Congress.
We believe the reasons which prompted our legislators to take a second look at the executive initiative with its dire implications for this nation and the subsequent proposal for a substitute bill was prompted by reasons explained by an editorial in the Manila Times. As an aside, the apparent failure on the part of the spokesperson of the TPMT to omit mentioning the massacre of SAF personnel who were only doing their lawful duties of pursuing international terrorists, smacks of callous disregard for the sanctity of human life. Coming as they do from countries that champion human rights and who consider justice delayed as justice denied – we find it difficult to understand how these spokesmen could be indifferent to loss of life. Perhaps this attitude can be traced to the cavalier dismissal of said encounter by the peace panelists as merely a “misencounter”.
The insistence of the TPMT spokesperson for the the swift passage of the CAB and the BBL giving little value to compelling and well thought out amendments in the substitute bill of the Marcos Committee of the Senate, can only show a lack of confidence in the capacity of our legislators in doing the right thing for the promotion of peace in Mindanao, a concern which is not a monopoly of our peace panelists who incidentally have not been chosen or elected by the Filipino people.
Acceptable perhaps in the days of the Commonwealth, the unsolicited advice of the representatives of the TPMT is no longer welcome with Philippine independence. If they think otherwise perhaps they can find a country where they can dictate on the representatives of the people.
We assure the members of the TPMT that peace in Mindanao will be achieved sooner than later not through the divisive and exclusive paths proposed by the BBL, but the result of solidarity in the people of Mindanao – Lumads, Christians and their Muslim brothers who believe in one nation under one God.
As a joker commented perhaps the Mamasapano encounter is a case of third party liability!
It will be recalled that the opposition of many sectors of the Philippine society to the CAB and BBL are from the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations (PCFR), the Retired Ambassadors Association, the Association of Flag Officers, the Philippine Constitutional Association, members of the media and the business sector. Their opposition was duly registered during the hearings in Congress.
We believe the reasons which prompted our legislators to take a second look at the executive initiative with its dire implications for this nation and the subsequent proposal for a substitute bill was prompted by reasons explained by an editorial in the Manila Times. As an aside, the apparent failure on the part of the spokesperson of the TPMT to omit mentioning the massacre of SAF personnel who were only doing their lawful duties of pursuing international terrorists, smacks of callous disregard for the sanctity of human life. Coming as they do from countries that champion human rights and who consider justice delayed as justice denied – we find it difficult to understand how these spokesmen could be indifferent to loss of life. Perhaps this attitude can be traced to the cavalier dismissal of said encounter by the peace panelists as merely a “misencounter”.
The insistence of the TPMT spokesperson for the the swift passage of the CAB and the BBL giving little value to compelling and well thought out amendments in the substitute bill of the Marcos Committee of the Senate, can only show a lack of confidence in the capacity of our legislators in doing the right thing for the promotion of peace in Mindanao, a concern which is not a monopoly of our peace panelists who incidentally have not been chosen or elected by the Filipino people.
Acceptable perhaps in the days of the Commonwealth, the unsolicited advice of the representatives of the TPMT is no longer welcome with Philippine independence. If they think otherwise perhaps they can find a country where they can dictate on the representatives of the people.
We assure the members of the TPMT that peace in Mindanao will be achieved sooner than later not through the divisive and exclusive paths proposed by the BBL, but the result of solidarity in the people of Mindanao – Lumads, Christians and their Muslim brothers who believe in one nation under one God.
As a joker commented perhaps the Mamasapano encounter is a case of third party liability!
WWII PHILIPPINE-JAPAN RELATIONS - Grandad Aquino’s KALIBAPI
January 26, 2016 8:22 pm
By Amb. Jose V. Romero, Jr.
With the arrival of Emperor Ahihito, our mind flashes back to the Japanese occupation, specifically the grant of independence by the conqueror (cynics would describe it as the erection of a puppet government) and the establishment of the Kalibapi or Kapisanang ng Paglilingkod sa Bagong Pilipinas [Association for Service to the New Philippines] – the political party which served as the only political grouping permitted by the Japanese conquerors. It is significant because it was the grandfather of President Benigno S Aquino who served as its director general – a position that, after the Allied victory, caused the Tarlac politician to be incarcerated in Sugamo Prison in Japan charged with collaborating with the enemy together with other prominent Filipinos.
Another prominent politician who served the Japanese-erected Philippine republic was former president Manuel Roxas who escaped incarceration due to the intervention of Gen. Douglas McArthur who vouched for Roxas.
The Japanese officially justified their occupation of our country as their noble act of liberating the Filipinos from US colonialism. American rule followed a bloody three year Filipino-American war, which cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand Filipino lives and thousands of US soldiers. While the US justified its occupation of the Philippines as its “manifest destiny” and its willingness to shoulder the “white man’s burden” to civilize and Christianize us Roman Catholic Filipinos whose Pontifical university antedated Harvard, the Japanese offered the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or GEACPS. This had an underlying ideology of pan-Asianism, Asia for the Asians with Japan as the primary Asian nation, an ideology that propagated the liberation and unity of all Asian peoples then colonized by different European powers.
The KALIBAPI it was designed to serve as an important political instrument for the implementation of the concept of the GEACPS in the Philippines. While some historians may be quick to claim that the KALIBAPI was a mere tool for Japanese propaganda, its pan-Asianism ideology had many adherents among nationalistic Filipino politicians who had before the WWII fought fiercely (as covert operatives and intellectuals and propagandists) to overthrow US colonial rule.
The decade of the 1930s was dominated by the Filipino independence movement which was spearheaded by Manuel Quezon, Sergio Osmena, Roxas and most of the top political figures.
The KALIBAPI functioned as the single political party led by Benigno S. Aquino, who acted as the party’s Director-General, along with Pio Duran as Secretary-General and Benigno Ramos as a member of the executive council. It was inaugurated on December 30, 1942, the death anniversary of Philippine national hero José Rizal, to emphasize the patriotic basis of the organization. Party members saluted each other by bowing with their right hand over their heart. Even though the KALIBAPI functioned as the sole political party, Aquino insisted that it was a “non-political service association.” At the same time, however, it was rule that only KALIBAPI members could be employed in the government and any of its institutions.
At the party’s inauguration, Jorge Vargas, chairman of the Executive Commission set up by the Japanese to administer the country, pointed to the close connection between the goals of José Rizal who was claimed “to have died for a Philippines freed from Occidental rule” and Japan’s war objective of allegedly emancipating and protecting the nations of the Orient.
The Philippine membership in Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere thus was hailed as the fulfillment of what was alleged to be Rizal’s dream of getting rid of bad, Western influence on the Filipino people and their culture. The KALIBAPI, Vargas added, would be “dedicated to Rizal’s great humanitarian principle of peaceful cooperation among all nations as brothers.”
Benigno S. Aquino, too, in his speech on the same occasion emphasized the necessity for the Filipino people to develop a spirit of self-sacrifice for the sake of the Philippine nation, just as Rizal had done. Aquino also considered it Japan’s obligation to provide the people of the Philippines with an “older brother’s guidance” in their efforts to contribute toward the formation of the GEACPS.
Indeed the pan-Asianists and architects of the KALIBAPI utilized Rizal as a figure who admired Japanese culture and fought Western rule in his country ignoring the fact that Rizal had been more of a cosmopolitan and a Filipino patriot, rather than an Asianist despite the fact that he had a Japanese girlfriend during his sojourn in Japan. He also had sweethearts in every country he lived in.
After the party’s inauguration, Aquino, Duran and Ramos toured the entire archipelago to promote the idea of the “New Philippines” and set up KALIBAPI chapters all over the country.
By pointing to Rizal, the initiators of the KALIBAPI wanted to stress their belief that its alleged Oriental values had always been part of Filipino culture but had been merely buried under US-imposed hedonism and superficiality during the years of American rule.
The KALIBAPI also played a crucial role in the preparations for Philippine independence as KALIBAPI delegates chose the members of the “Preparatory Commission for the Philippine Independence” at a meeting held on 18 and 19 June 1943. The Philippine Asianists Duran and Ramos were, however, not among the 20 persons chosen to join the commission.
It was a main duty of the KALIBAPI to propagate the concept of the GEACPS among the Philippine population. By April 1943, the KALIBAPI counted 550,000 members. The group’s strongholds were Aquino’s home province of Tarlac and the capital, Manila.
Despite the official inauguration of the KALIBAPI, and despite its not being officially counted as a political organization, it did in fact function as a political party, which sought to proselytize Japanese pan-Asianist thought throughout the islands. Its purpose was to convince Filipinos of the concept of the GEACPS and make them aware of their duties towards building the “New Philippines.” The concept of a “New Philippines” as part of an Asian brotherhood, were never realized under the Japanese and for decades after the Japanese defeat.
We had to wait more than half a century for partial Asianism in the form of an Association of Southeast Asian Nation (Asean) community to be realized!
As we speak, the Chinese is again waving the carrot of its version of an Asian Co-Prosperity sphere led by China with the New Silk Route and the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank as its engines for growth. On the other hand, the Americans want to return to the Philippines via the EDCA bases agreement.
Quo Vadis, Filipinas? Choose your wild as they say in poker!
By Amb. Jose V. Romero, Jr.
With the arrival of Emperor Ahihito, our mind flashes back to the Japanese occupation, specifically the grant of independence by the conqueror (cynics would describe it as the erection of a puppet government) and the establishment of the Kalibapi or Kapisanang ng Paglilingkod sa Bagong Pilipinas [Association for Service to the New Philippines] – the political party which served as the only political grouping permitted by the Japanese conquerors. It is significant because it was the grandfather of President Benigno S Aquino who served as its director general – a position that, after the Allied victory, caused the Tarlac politician to be incarcerated in Sugamo Prison in Japan charged with collaborating with the enemy together with other prominent Filipinos.
Another prominent politician who served the Japanese-erected Philippine republic was former president Manuel Roxas who escaped incarceration due to the intervention of Gen. Douglas McArthur who vouched for Roxas.
The Japanese officially justified their occupation of our country as their noble act of liberating the Filipinos from US colonialism. American rule followed a bloody three year Filipino-American war, which cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand Filipino lives and thousands of US soldiers. While the US justified its occupation of the Philippines as its “manifest destiny” and its willingness to shoulder the “white man’s burden” to civilize and Christianize us Roman Catholic Filipinos whose Pontifical university antedated Harvard, the Japanese offered the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere or GEACPS. This had an underlying ideology of pan-Asianism, Asia for the Asians with Japan as the primary Asian nation, an ideology that propagated the liberation and unity of all Asian peoples then colonized by different European powers.
The KALIBAPI it was designed to serve as an important political instrument for the implementation of the concept of the GEACPS in the Philippines. While some historians may be quick to claim that the KALIBAPI was a mere tool for Japanese propaganda, its pan-Asianism ideology had many adherents among nationalistic Filipino politicians who had before the WWII fought fiercely (as covert operatives and intellectuals and propagandists) to overthrow US colonial rule.
The decade of the 1930s was dominated by the Filipino independence movement which was spearheaded by Manuel Quezon, Sergio Osmena, Roxas and most of the top political figures.
The KALIBAPI functioned as the single political party led by Benigno S. Aquino, who acted as the party’s Director-General, along with Pio Duran as Secretary-General and Benigno Ramos as a member of the executive council. It was inaugurated on December 30, 1942, the death anniversary of Philippine national hero José Rizal, to emphasize the patriotic basis of the organization. Party members saluted each other by bowing with their right hand over their heart. Even though the KALIBAPI functioned as the sole political party, Aquino insisted that it was a “non-political service association.” At the same time, however, it was rule that only KALIBAPI members could be employed in the government and any of its institutions.
At the party’s inauguration, Jorge Vargas, chairman of the Executive Commission set up by the Japanese to administer the country, pointed to the close connection between the goals of José Rizal who was claimed “to have died for a Philippines freed from Occidental rule” and Japan’s war objective of allegedly emancipating and protecting the nations of the Orient.
The Philippine membership in Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere thus was hailed as the fulfillment of what was alleged to be Rizal’s dream of getting rid of bad, Western influence on the Filipino people and their culture. The KALIBAPI, Vargas added, would be “dedicated to Rizal’s great humanitarian principle of peaceful cooperation among all nations as brothers.”
Benigno S. Aquino, too, in his speech on the same occasion emphasized the necessity for the Filipino people to develop a spirit of self-sacrifice for the sake of the Philippine nation, just as Rizal had done. Aquino also considered it Japan’s obligation to provide the people of the Philippines with an “older brother’s guidance” in their efforts to contribute toward the formation of the GEACPS.
Indeed the pan-Asianists and architects of the KALIBAPI utilized Rizal as a figure who admired Japanese culture and fought Western rule in his country ignoring the fact that Rizal had been more of a cosmopolitan and a Filipino patriot, rather than an Asianist despite the fact that he had a Japanese girlfriend during his sojourn in Japan. He also had sweethearts in every country he lived in.
After the party’s inauguration, Aquino, Duran and Ramos toured the entire archipelago to promote the idea of the “New Philippines” and set up KALIBAPI chapters all over the country.
By pointing to Rizal, the initiators of the KALIBAPI wanted to stress their belief that its alleged Oriental values had always been part of Filipino culture but had been merely buried under US-imposed hedonism and superficiality during the years of American rule.
The KALIBAPI also played a crucial role in the preparations for Philippine independence as KALIBAPI delegates chose the members of the “Preparatory Commission for the Philippine Independence” at a meeting held on 18 and 19 June 1943. The Philippine Asianists Duran and Ramos were, however, not among the 20 persons chosen to join the commission.
It was a main duty of the KALIBAPI to propagate the concept of the GEACPS among the Philippine population. By April 1943, the KALIBAPI counted 550,000 members. The group’s strongholds were Aquino’s home province of Tarlac and the capital, Manila.
Despite the official inauguration of the KALIBAPI, and despite its not being officially counted as a political organization, it did in fact function as a political party, which sought to proselytize Japanese pan-Asianist thought throughout the islands. Its purpose was to convince Filipinos of the concept of the GEACPS and make them aware of their duties towards building the “New Philippines.” The concept of a “New Philippines” as part of an Asian brotherhood, were never realized under the Japanese and for decades after the Japanese defeat.
We had to wait more than half a century for partial Asianism in the form of an Association of Southeast Asian Nation (Asean) community to be realized!
As we speak, the Chinese is again waving the carrot of its version of an Asian Co-Prosperity sphere led by China with the New Silk Route and the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank as its engines for growth. On the other hand, the Americans want to return to the Philippines via the EDCA bases agreement.
Quo Vadis, Filipinas? Choose your wild as they say in poker!
Thoughts on a Double Vodka
By Atty. Jemy Gatdula
Trade Tripper, Business World, December 22, 2015
Recently got to re-watch the classic movie musical Singin’ in the Rain and interestedly noted how Don (Gene Kelly’s character) kept emphasizing his life rule to be: “Dignity. Always Dignity.” Quite apt actually, for the times we live in.
Not Christmas, of course, for it has it’s own inherent dignity. But more for the political campaign period, which is another way of saying it’s the silly season.
As example: a bunch of Davao City Mayor Rordrigo R. Duterte’s supporters got angry at me when all I did was write that Duterte’s statements and actions carried an internally coherent logic fulfilling the progressive concept of individual autonomy. Makes you wonder what they’d do if someone actually criticized their candidate.
Which takes me to Manuel “Mar” A. Roxas II’s Wharton issue.
It puzzled me why people all of a sudden are so obsessed with a candidate’s academic credentials. I mean, why weren’t we like this in 2010? Back then, the only thing important it seemed was that a candidate had a dead politician as parent.
Somebody asked me: are academic qualifications important? Of course it is. But not in the way most people think.
It doesn’t necessarily mean somebody is smart or able. But the point is that by going through a college or university course, that person now has a record to be scrutinized. The same with a person’s prior work experience.
No sane person will hire someone with practically no record or experience to his/her name to manage a tire vulcanizing shop. And yet we seem determined to do that for someone who literally has life and death powers over the Filipino population, either by police powers or by taking us to war.
The thing is, we don’t vote somebody for president just because that person talks well, has inspiring plans, and “has a good heart” and “makatao.” I know of a taxi driver like that but I won’t vote him for president.
No. We vote someone because he has a consistent record of getting things done, the right way. And we can know that by scrutinizing a person’s record and ignoring inane celebrity endorsements.
And dignity. Always dignity.
For the person we install as president will necessarily represent the country. And we simply cannot have a vulgarian in Malacañang. Or a guy who cracks under pressure. Or a foreigner.
Of criminals, yes we can’t have that too. But convicted ones. And these should include those that were convicted of extrajudicial forms of law enforcement, wrongful use of government funds, or deliberate misstatements in sworn public records. Mere allegations should not suffice. Such are just hot air and properly dismissed as part of partisan dirty works.
Speaking of academics, I’ve always suspected malice in some people’s persecution of Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr.’s Oxford credential.
Those critics miss the point: the important thing was to be accepted in Oxford. Not many do. Which is actually an understatement.
Royalty has no more chances of getting in than children of store clerks, let alone mere sons of presidents. What matters is personal merit.
Oxford has in recent years received around 17,000 undergraduate applicants worldwide and admitted only 3,200 (for an admissions percentage of 18%). And if it’s Oxford’s famous PPE course (philosophy, politics, and economics), you’re talking of one of the most rigorous courses in the planet, for which a considerable number of any generation’s most brilliant students won’t be able to finish.
That is why many Oxbridge alumni (meaning those who studied in either Oxford or Cambridge) prefer not referring to a year of graduation but instead discreetly indicate that they “read [insert field of study] in Oxford (or Cambridge).” Which is what Marcos practically did and which formulation was used by Oxford representatives in confirming that he did “read for a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.”
But it’s an indication of how silly things are that I’ve wretchedly descended to defending an Oxonian.
Incidentally, the admissions percentage for Wharton is an even stricter 14%.
Having said that, I’ll be the first to say that diplomas don’t give one class or pedigree. No.
It is “manners maketh man.” Which fittingly was said either by William Horman or William of Wykeham. Either way, both are Oxbridge men. So there.
Finally, why do we insanely insist in having these same oligarchic families rule over the country? UP professor Prospero De Vera (in a 2010 Forbes magazine interview) says insightfully: “In the Philippines it appears that is a crime and it is a sin to become rich.”
But that begs the question: why is it that for many Filipinos it’s a “crime” to be self-made? When the families that ruled this country have been richer for far longer and at the expense of this country?
Anyway, every election is a chance for a fresh start. But as in everything else, there’s a right way of doing things.
And remember: Dignity. Always dignity.
Merry Christmas to all. And a happy new year.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]; jemygatdula.blogspot.com; facebook.com/jemy.gatdula; Twitter @jemygatdula
Trade Tripper, Business World, December 22, 2015
Recently got to re-watch the classic movie musical Singin’ in the Rain and interestedly noted how Don (Gene Kelly’s character) kept emphasizing his life rule to be: “Dignity. Always Dignity.” Quite apt actually, for the times we live in.
Not Christmas, of course, for it has it’s own inherent dignity. But more for the political campaign period, which is another way of saying it’s the silly season.
As example: a bunch of Davao City Mayor Rordrigo R. Duterte’s supporters got angry at me when all I did was write that Duterte’s statements and actions carried an internally coherent logic fulfilling the progressive concept of individual autonomy. Makes you wonder what they’d do if someone actually criticized their candidate.
Which takes me to Manuel “Mar” A. Roxas II’s Wharton issue.
It puzzled me why people all of a sudden are so obsessed with a candidate’s academic credentials. I mean, why weren’t we like this in 2010? Back then, the only thing important it seemed was that a candidate had a dead politician as parent.
Somebody asked me: are academic qualifications important? Of course it is. But not in the way most people think.
It doesn’t necessarily mean somebody is smart or able. But the point is that by going through a college or university course, that person now has a record to be scrutinized. The same with a person’s prior work experience.
No sane person will hire someone with practically no record or experience to his/her name to manage a tire vulcanizing shop. And yet we seem determined to do that for someone who literally has life and death powers over the Filipino population, either by police powers or by taking us to war.
The thing is, we don’t vote somebody for president just because that person talks well, has inspiring plans, and “has a good heart” and “makatao.” I know of a taxi driver like that but I won’t vote him for president.
No. We vote someone because he has a consistent record of getting things done, the right way. And we can know that by scrutinizing a person’s record and ignoring inane celebrity endorsements.
And dignity. Always dignity.
For the person we install as president will necessarily represent the country. And we simply cannot have a vulgarian in Malacañang. Or a guy who cracks under pressure. Or a foreigner.
Of criminals, yes we can’t have that too. But convicted ones. And these should include those that were convicted of extrajudicial forms of law enforcement, wrongful use of government funds, or deliberate misstatements in sworn public records. Mere allegations should not suffice. Such are just hot air and properly dismissed as part of partisan dirty works.
Speaking of academics, I’ve always suspected malice in some people’s persecution of Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr.’s Oxford credential.
Those critics miss the point: the important thing was to be accepted in Oxford. Not many do. Which is actually an understatement.
Royalty has no more chances of getting in than children of store clerks, let alone mere sons of presidents. What matters is personal merit.
Oxford has in recent years received around 17,000 undergraduate applicants worldwide and admitted only 3,200 (for an admissions percentage of 18%). And if it’s Oxford’s famous PPE course (philosophy, politics, and economics), you’re talking of one of the most rigorous courses in the planet, for which a considerable number of any generation’s most brilliant students won’t be able to finish.
That is why many Oxbridge alumni (meaning those who studied in either Oxford or Cambridge) prefer not referring to a year of graduation but instead discreetly indicate that they “read [insert field of study] in Oxford (or Cambridge).” Which is what Marcos practically did and which formulation was used by Oxford representatives in confirming that he did “read for a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.”
But it’s an indication of how silly things are that I’ve wretchedly descended to defending an Oxonian.
Incidentally, the admissions percentage for Wharton is an even stricter 14%.
Having said that, I’ll be the first to say that diplomas don’t give one class or pedigree. No.
It is “manners maketh man.” Which fittingly was said either by William Horman or William of Wykeham. Either way, both are Oxbridge men. So there.
Finally, why do we insanely insist in having these same oligarchic families rule over the country? UP professor Prospero De Vera (in a 2010 Forbes magazine interview) says insightfully: “In the Philippines it appears that is a crime and it is a sin to become rich.”
But that begs the question: why is it that for many Filipinos it’s a “crime” to be self-made? When the families that ruled this country have been richer for far longer and at the expense of this country?
Anyway, every election is a chance for a fresh start. But as in everything else, there’s a right way of doing things.
And remember: Dignity. Always dignity.
Merry Christmas to all. And a happy new year.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]; jemygatdula.blogspot.com; facebook.com/jemy.gatdula; Twitter @jemygatdula
To next year’s president: Slash government
Last Dec. 2, I spoke at the University of Asia and the Pacific’s Business Economics Club 2015 Year-end Business Economics Briefing. The theme this year was “2016: New Normal or New Mediocre.” It was apt, coming off a horrible 2015, even by merely using policy direction as sole standard.
And if public commentator Ben Kritz is to be believed, 2016 promises to be an annus horribilis. An assessment I happen to agree with.
In any event, the point I wanted to make in the Briefing was essentially threefold:
• Our foreign policy must flow from an effective domestic policy, for which experienced well trained leadership is vital;
• The traditional family institution must be protected for its vital social benefits, as well as economic significance and overall effect on the common good; and
• The need to cut back on government and put more responsibility (and choice) to the people.
Of the first, I need not dwell on, it being previously discussed in other articles for this column. What will be said is that many critical challenges will be faced by the next administration (perhaps so intended by the current one): managing a likely legal victory over China at The Hague in relation to our sea claims, a Moro Islamic Liberation Front disgruntled over perceived noncompliance of a possible implementing legislation with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the ramifications of public courtship (as what happened during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Manila) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
On the second, I refer the reader to “Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect The Wealth Of States?” (W. Bradford Wilcox, Robert I. Lerman, and Joseph Price; American Enterprise Institute, 2015):
“Higher levels of marriage, and especially higher levels of married-parent families, are strongly associated with more economic growth, more economic mobility, less child poverty, and higher median family income at the state level in the United States.”
Furthermore: “Violent crime is much less common in states with larger shares of families headed by married parents, even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic factors at the state level... This is noteworthy because high crime rates lower the quality of life and real living standards and are associated with lower levels of economic growth and mobility.”
Hence, this column urges people to vote for candidates that will do away with nonsense such as government subsidized contraceptives, gay “marriage,” divorce, and euthanasia; and instead support those that uphold the traditional marriage and the family. It’s really the socially and economically sensible thing to do.
On the last, it is really urged by this column (and will be a theme repeated throughout 2016) to move away from the paternalistic, socialistic form of government that crept over the country through the decades.
It comes with a cost: a proposed 2016 national budget ballooned to P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006. Add to that a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
And this will not be solved by better tax collection or increased personal income tax. Regarding the latter, as John Mangun pointed out, any non-insane increase would still only constitute 14% of the national budget.
The point is that whatever way our government goes regarding tax increases, a budget deficit will still result.
No. The best way for the Philippines moving forward is to really start cutting down the size of government, which now is a humongous 25% of our economy.
Right now, our welfare expenses (using the 2015 budget as benchmark) add up to 64%: this includes programs such as socialized housing, climate change, social protection such as the Conditional Cash Transfer, health care, and employment.
These are fine. But we’ll be far better off allowing the bulk of the responsibility to be shouldered by the private sector.
Cut the size of government, lower spending, lower taxes, allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money, and give them the power to choose which health care, school, business, etc., they want.
Cut the bureaucracy and allow our citizens the power to open and close up businesses as is needed, to hire and fire people, and give incentives for them to share their wealth (such as donations to charity) rather than coercively taking money through taxes.
Such policies are more democratic and empowering of Filipinos.
On the other hand (and again using the 2015 budget as benchmark), on the one job that government is really supposed to do, which is national security, we allocated only a mere 4.4%.
In a world where terrorists and secessionists abound, this is patently not enough. Increased military spending and beefing up our civilian police force should be encouraged.
Clearly, these things cannot be achieved overnight.
But those looking to vote in the next elections would do well seeking candidates that put their trust in the Filipino, encouraging personal responsibility, rather than in fat paternalistic bureaucracies.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Mr. Gatdula is also on Facebook and Twitter
And if public commentator Ben Kritz is to be believed, 2016 promises to be an annus horribilis. An assessment I happen to agree with.
In any event, the point I wanted to make in the Briefing was essentially threefold:
• Our foreign policy must flow from an effective domestic policy, for which experienced well trained leadership is vital;
• The traditional family institution must be protected for its vital social benefits, as well as economic significance and overall effect on the common good; and
• The need to cut back on government and put more responsibility (and choice) to the people.
Of the first, I need not dwell on, it being previously discussed in other articles for this column. What will be said is that many critical challenges will be faced by the next administration (perhaps so intended by the current one): managing a likely legal victory over China at The Hague in relation to our sea claims, a Moro Islamic Liberation Front disgruntled over perceived noncompliance of a possible implementing legislation with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the ramifications of public courtship (as what happened during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Manila) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
On the second, I refer the reader to “Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect The Wealth Of States?” (W. Bradford Wilcox, Robert I. Lerman, and Joseph Price; American Enterprise Institute, 2015):
“Higher levels of marriage, and especially higher levels of married-parent families, are strongly associated with more economic growth, more economic mobility, less child poverty, and higher median family income at the state level in the United States.”
Furthermore: “Violent crime is much less common in states with larger shares of families headed by married parents, even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic factors at the state level... This is noteworthy because high crime rates lower the quality of life and real living standards and are associated with lower levels of economic growth and mobility.”
Hence, this column urges people to vote for candidates that will do away with nonsense such as government subsidized contraceptives, gay “marriage,” divorce, and euthanasia; and instead support those that uphold the traditional marriage and the family. It’s really the socially and economically sensible thing to do.
On the last, it is really urged by this column (and will be a theme repeated throughout 2016) to move away from the paternalistic, socialistic form of government that crept over the country through the decades.
It comes with a cost: a proposed 2016 national budget ballooned to P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006. Add to that a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
And this will not be solved by better tax collection or increased personal income tax. Regarding the latter, as John Mangun pointed out, any non-insane increase would still only constitute 14% of the national budget.
The point is that whatever way our government goes regarding tax increases, a budget deficit will still result.
No. The best way for the Philippines moving forward is to really start cutting down the size of government, which now is a humongous 25% of our economy.
Right now, our welfare expenses (using the 2015 budget as benchmark) add up to 64%: this includes programs such as socialized housing, climate change, social protection such as the Conditional Cash Transfer, health care, and employment.
These are fine. But we’ll be far better off allowing the bulk of the responsibility to be shouldered by the private sector.
Cut the size of government, lower spending, lower taxes, allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money, and give them the power to choose which health care, school, business, etc., they want.
Cut the bureaucracy and allow our citizens the power to open and close up businesses as is needed, to hire and fire people, and give incentives for them to share their wealth (such as donations to charity) rather than coercively taking money through taxes.
Such policies are more democratic and empowering of Filipinos.
On the other hand (and again using the 2015 budget as benchmark), on the one job that government is really supposed to do, which is national security, we allocated only a mere 4.4%.
In a world where terrorists and secessionists abound, this is patently not enough. Increased military spending and beefing up our civilian police force should be encouraged.
Clearly, these things cannot be achieved overnight.
But those looking to vote in the next elections would do well seeking candidates that put their trust in the Filipino, encouraging personal responsibility, rather than in fat paternalistic bureaucracies.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Mr. Gatdula is also on Facebook and Twitter
MBC AND OTHER ALIEN LOBBIES EXPOSED
US and China will each push hard to own our next president
Whenever an important foreign policy issue surfaces you can be sure that certain groups will comment for or against.
Take the case of the EDCA and the BBL. In the case of the EDCA one is mostly certain that this pro-American administration will go for it against the wishes of the leftist and nationalist elements who succeeded in driving the bases out of this country in 1992.
In the case of the BBL the divide was less predictable but considering the interest of the US and allies in the West it stands to reason that the pro-US lobby would be hard at work to have it passed in Congress. Who are members of these pro-US (you can add the pro-British lobby) and what are their interests?
These are embedded in the Makati Business Club and other Makati-based organizations like the financial executives and the management association which are connected to the MBC through business affiliations. If the directors of the MBC are the top CEOs of multinationals operating in this country, the FINEX and MAP membership are the companies provide the essential services of the MBC companies. All in all, these groups have strong connections with the US economy. The strongest link of the MBC with US business is provided by the SGV group whose pater familias is at home in Washington and New York, the political and economic capital respectively of the US
As one of the founders and first managing director of the MBC, I can attest to the fact that the MBC’s connections in Washington D.C. hastened the fall of Marcos. It was the MBC which provided the forum for US officials to put pressure on the Marcos administration as well as organize the rallies which morphed into EDSA.
This US connection was cemented by Washington SyCip of the SGV group which provides accounting services to most multinational in this country and Hank Greenberg the top honcho of the AIG group whose local subsidiary is the Philamlife. It is not coincidental that these two big hitters in the MBC membership roster have managed to capture two key cabinet positions – the finance and foreign affairs. In the post-EDSA period after elevating a proxy president to the palace, the Makati business elite groups spearheaded the “yellows” which successfully catapulted the son to power. To say that the Aquinos owe a debt of gratitude to the MBC and allied groups is an understatement. This partly explains how a few individuals in this group have succeeded in the regulatory capture of key public utilities and heavy infrastructure projects with ease.
Indeed over time, through skillful and creative diplomacy the Americans who were unable to conquer the country through military might, simply co-opted the “ilustrados” and economic elite who continue to rule this country through their proxies. I anticipate that their economic clout will again determine who will be the next president.
This will mean a continuation of the conservative top down development paradigm and more importantly – a Washington centrist foreign policy!
Earlier we referred to the interests of our so-called ally to which this country is tied through a mutual security arrangement which to many is more mythical than real. Since the US occupation of this country by our erstwhile colonizer US bases in this country has been central to US military strategy for Asia given the geophysical and geopolitical importance of this archipelago in the Southeast Asian sub-continent. It’s really all about the control of this part of the world in the Asia-Pacific century!
Indeed pre-positioning US logistics and materiel closest to the Chinese mainland provides the US a distinct strategic advantage. Anticipated by the Chinese eager to protect its southern flank which also happens to be the center of its economic drive, they quickly militarize islands in the South China Sea, thus beating the US to the draw. Indeed Russia did the same thing by beating the US to the draw in Crimea and Syria.
In the face of all these setbacks the US is determined to pursue a strategic stalemate with the Chinese preventing the latter from pushing the envelope further. To do the US feels that EDCA is the answer. Unfortunately many in this country do not want any part of the archipelago to be in the crosshairs of Chinese missile launchers when the pushing becomes a shoving match between China and the US It was not so long ago that Pearl Harbor, where the Seventh U.S fleet was concentrated suffered the first hit in World War II.
As far as the BBL is concerned it is part of the equation in the quest for US basing rights in the Philippines which a US former senator considers inimical to local interest. This explains the undue interest of the US in what is essentially a local matter. After investing heavily in infrastructure and goodwill in Muslim Central Mindanao, the US expects a compliant and cooperative MILF administered region to provide the US with a home away from home for its visiting forces. Expect then the US to get his cheerleaders in the MBC, FINEX and MAP to do their pr job on behalf of Uncle Sam.
The spanner in the works however is the PICC the haven of the Taipans which have invested heavily in Mainland China. It is significant that President XI will be lodged in Century Park Hotel which is owned by a top Taipan. Let’s face it – blood is thicker than water even if money is thicker than blood which the Taipans share both with their ethnic brothers in the mainland.
Incidentally, the comparative advantage of Binondo over Makati, is that while the Datu Putis and Castilaloys in Makati are far away from the boondoks and can rely only on their Forbes Park and other village votes, the Chinoys are quite close to the rural areas where they control the distributive trade.
What would be interesting would be to speculate who would be the proxy presidents of both superpowers in the country. For sure America will look for a Makati-anointed candidate while China will choose a Binondo-backed Sinophile candidate. We are sure that both are now preparing a “super pack” for their favorite horses.
Abangan!
Take the case of the EDCA and the BBL. In the case of the EDCA one is mostly certain that this pro-American administration will go for it against the wishes of the leftist and nationalist elements who succeeded in driving the bases out of this country in 1992.
In the case of the BBL the divide was less predictable but considering the interest of the US and allies in the West it stands to reason that the pro-US lobby would be hard at work to have it passed in Congress. Who are members of these pro-US (you can add the pro-British lobby) and what are their interests?
These are embedded in the Makati Business Club and other Makati-based organizations like the financial executives and the management association which are connected to the MBC through business affiliations. If the directors of the MBC are the top CEOs of multinationals operating in this country, the FINEX and MAP membership are the companies provide the essential services of the MBC companies. All in all, these groups have strong connections with the US economy. The strongest link of the MBC with US business is provided by the SGV group whose pater familias is at home in Washington and New York, the political and economic capital respectively of the US
As one of the founders and first managing director of the MBC, I can attest to the fact that the MBC’s connections in Washington D.C. hastened the fall of Marcos. It was the MBC which provided the forum for US officials to put pressure on the Marcos administration as well as organize the rallies which morphed into EDSA.
This US connection was cemented by Washington SyCip of the SGV group which provides accounting services to most multinational in this country and Hank Greenberg the top honcho of the AIG group whose local subsidiary is the Philamlife. It is not coincidental that these two big hitters in the MBC membership roster have managed to capture two key cabinet positions – the finance and foreign affairs. In the post-EDSA period after elevating a proxy president to the palace, the Makati business elite groups spearheaded the “yellows” which successfully catapulted the son to power. To say that the Aquinos owe a debt of gratitude to the MBC and allied groups is an understatement. This partly explains how a few individuals in this group have succeeded in the regulatory capture of key public utilities and heavy infrastructure projects with ease.
Indeed over time, through skillful and creative diplomacy the Americans who were unable to conquer the country through military might, simply co-opted the “ilustrados” and economic elite who continue to rule this country through their proxies. I anticipate that their economic clout will again determine who will be the next president.
This will mean a continuation of the conservative top down development paradigm and more importantly – a Washington centrist foreign policy!
Earlier we referred to the interests of our so-called ally to which this country is tied through a mutual security arrangement which to many is more mythical than real. Since the US occupation of this country by our erstwhile colonizer US bases in this country has been central to US military strategy for Asia given the geophysical and geopolitical importance of this archipelago in the Southeast Asian sub-continent. It’s really all about the control of this part of the world in the Asia-Pacific century!
Indeed pre-positioning US logistics and materiel closest to the Chinese mainland provides the US a distinct strategic advantage. Anticipated by the Chinese eager to protect its southern flank which also happens to be the center of its economic drive, they quickly militarize islands in the South China Sea, thus beating the US to the draw. Indeed Russia did the same thing by beating the US to the draw in Crimea and Syria.
In the face of all these setbacks the US is determined to pursue a strategic stalemate with the Chinese preventing the latter from pushing the envelope further. To do the US feels that EDCA is the answer. Unfortunately many in this country do not want any part of the archipelago to be in the crosshairs of Chinese missile launchers when the pushing becomes a shoving match between China and the US It was not so long ago that Pearl Harbor, where the Seventh U.S fleet was concentrated suffered the first hit in World War II.
As far as the BBL is concerned it is part of the equation in the quest for US basing rights in the Philippines which a US former senator considers inimical to local interest. This explains the undue interest of the US in what is essentially a local matter. After investing heavily in infrastructure and goodwill in Muslim Central Mindanao, the US expects a compliant and cooperative MILF administered region to provide the US with a home away from home for its visiting forces. Expect then the US to get his cheerleaders in the MBC, FINEX and MAP to do their pr job on behalf of Uncle Sam.
The spanner in the works however is the PICC the haven of the Taipans which have invested heavily in Mainland China. It is significant that President XI will be lodged in Century Park Hotel which is owned by a top Taipan. Let’s face it – blood is thicker than water even if money is thicker than blood which the Taipans share both with their ethnic brothers in the mainland.
Incidentally, the comparative advantage of Binondo over Makati, is that while the Datu Putis and Castilaloys in Makati are far away from the boondoks and can rely only on their Forbes Park and other village votes, the Chinoys are quite close to the rural areas where they control the distributive trade.
What would be interesting would be to speculate who would be the proxy presidents of both superpowers in the country. For sure America will look for a Makati-anointed candidate while China will choose a Binondo-backed Sinophile candidate. We are sure that both are now preparing a “super pack” for their favorite horses.
Abangan!
Radical Islam and the war of world views
Business World, November 19, 2015
The 13th of November, of course, was the day radical Islamic terrorists attacked Paris. It was also an anniversary of sorts, it being the day, almost a hundred years earlier, when Western troops occupied Constantinople, the capital of the Caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But this is what’s certain: Islamic terrorists specifically targeted in Paris a football game between France and Germany, a heavy metal rock concert (where the US band Eagles of Death Metal was playing), a hip upscale Cambodian restaurant, and three bars.
This was an attack not simply on Paris but against a way of life. Which is the same kind recognized by most in this globalized world. Of which the Philippines is a part.
Anybody who says those barbaric acts are solvable with better understanding and tolerance of other’s viewpoints to achieve peaceful coexistence is in cuckoo land.
There is no compromise or inane “don’t judge” position available in this case.
Accept it or not, the moment you ask for tolerance and plea for coexistence you make a stand. A stand peculiarly Judeo-Christian Enlightenment in view regarding human right, freedom, and reason. And which is precisely diametrically opposed to and clashes with the radical Islamic belief that everyone must think and do as they do.
If you don’t believe that, try asking for gender equality and religious freedom in radical Islam controlled areas.
Indeed. What these radical Islamic terrorists want is for us to change our way of life or lose it.
Realistic coexistence is unobtainable. Sayyid Qutb (a 20th century Egyptian Islamic theorist) influentially equated modernity and nonbelief in Islam to jahiliyya (ignorance of divine guidance), and declared that “Islam cannot accept any compromise with jahiliyya. Either Islam will remain orjahiliyya. The mixing and co-existence of truth and falsehood is impossible.”
Or, if you like, take the late unlamented Osama Bin Laden’s rant against Western culture, demanding we “reject homosexuality, intoxicants, gamblings, and trading with interest... drugs... art, entertainment, tourism, and freedom,” and further demanding that people be ruled by the “Sharia of Allah.”
And it goes on and on. Hating our freedoms: the fact that women are free to be educated or work, for homosexuals to be treated as people, for anyone to be free to join any religion, and to have a constitutional system that espouses the separation of Church and State.
Thus, more than foreign intervention or economics, what radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on is our world view: their unenlightened totalitarian version of existence against our twin pillars of faith and reason that created democracy and religious tolerance.
And they absolutely abhor the fact that we celebrate our freedom and that such influences their youth: from Manchester United to the trashy Kardashians, the sublimity of Bach, to reading Shakespeare and watching animé.
And that is why radical Islam prefers isolation rather than assimilating with other societies. In France alone, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of so-called “no-go zones” that Fox News was forced to apologize for even though it actually exists.
These autonomous areas are not officially recognized but are parts of the country dominated by Muslims and largely exclude non-Muslim people or culture. Civil authorities have abdicated control for fear of violence and secular laws are supplanted by Shariah.
Unfortunately, these areas have been taken advantage by radical Muslim clerics to preach their hateful ideology, resulting in the brainwashing of future terrorists and provide safe havens for present ones.
And thus the unfortunate and ironic statistic (taken last year) where 27% of 18- to 24-year-old French citizens support the Islamic State (IS; 16% for the whole population).
Due to the social media environment we live in, this quite blindingly obvious caveat is made: I am not against Muslims or the Islamic faith. I am not against any religion or race. What I am against are people who seek to impose their beliefs on others by violence.
So what do we do?
First is to value our way of life. We defend it rather than apologize for it. And aggressively, completely reject the littlest notion that real or imagined oppression or minority status will ever justify the slaughter of innocent people.
Another is to call these terrorists for what they are: radical Islam. Because that’s what they call themselves. Because you don’t see Catholic nuns blowing up restaurants. Because these terrorists wreak havoc to make the world ruled by an Islamic Caliphate.
We must also strongly call on the US to finally lead: restrictively guarded measures on refugees and putting boots on the ground.
While France (along with others in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) took the admirable step of committing to obliterating IS, they just cannot do it without US strength and resources. And President Obama’s incredibly incompetent “leading from behind” presidency is utterly making matters worse.
Finally, we must also act with this realization: foreign policy is but an extension of our domestic policy. By which I emphasize: our policy in relation to Philippine territory.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Mr Gatdula is also on Facebook and Twitter
The 13th of November, of course, was the day radical Islamic terrorists attacked Paris. It was also an anniversary of sorts, it being the day, almost a hundred years earlier, when Western troops occupied Constantinople, the capital of the Caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But this is what’s certain: Islamic terrorists specifically targeted in Paris a football game between France and Germany, a heavy metal rock concert (where the US band Eagles of Death Metal was playing), a hip upscale Cambodian restaurant, and three bars.
This was an attack not simply on Paris but against a way of life. Which is the same kind recognized by most in this globalized world. Of which the Philippines is a part.
Anybody who says those barbaric acts are solvable with better understanding and tolerance of other’s viewpoints to achieve peaceful coexistence is in cuckoo land.
There is no compromise or inane “don’t judge” position available in this case.
Accept it or not, the moment you ask for tolerance and plea for coexistence you make a stand. A stand peculiarly Judeo-Christian Enlightenment in view regarding human right, freedom, and reason. And which is precisely diametrically opposed to and clashes with the radical Islamic belief that everyone must think and do as they do.
If you don’t believe that, try asking for gender equality and religious freedom in radical Islam controlled areas.
Indeed. What these radical Islamic terrorists want is for us to change our way of life or lose it.
Realistic coexistence is unobtainable. Sayyid Qutb (a 20th century Egyptian Islamic theorist) influentially equated modernity and nonbelief in Islam to jahiliyya (ignorance of divine guidance), and declared that “Islam cannot accept any compromise with jahiliyya. Either Islam will remain orjahiliyya. The mixing and co-existence of truth and falsehood is impossible.”
Or, if you like, take the late unlamented Osama Bin Laden’s rant against Western culture, demanding we “reject homosexuality, intoxicants, gamblings, and trading with interest... drugs... art, entertainment, tourism, and freedom,” and further demanding that people be ruled by the “Sharia of Allah.”
And it goes on and on. Hating our freedoms: the fact that women are free to be educated or work, for homosexuals to be treated as people, for anyone to be free to join any religion, and to have a constitutional system that espouses the separation of Church and State.
Thus, more than foreign intervention or economics, what radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on is our world view: their unenlightened totalitarian version of existence against our twin pillars of faith and reason that created democracy and religious tolerance.
And they absolutely abhor the fact that we celebrate our freedom and that such influences their youth: from Manchester United to the trashy Kardashians, the sublimity of Bach, to reading Shakespeare and watching animé.
And that is why radical Islam prefers isolation rather than assimilating with other societies. In France alone, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of so-called “no-go zones” that Fox News was forced to apologize for even though it actually exists.
These autonomous areas are not officially recognized but are parts of the country dominated by Muslims and largely exclude non-Muslim people or culture. Civil authorities have abdicated control for fear of violence and secular laws are supplanted by Shariah.
Unfortunately, these areas have been taken advantage by radical Muslim clerics to preach their hateful ideology, resulting in the brainwashing of future terrorists and provide safe havens for present ones.
And thus the unfortunate and ironic statistic (taken last year) where 27% of 18- to 24-year-old French citizens support the Islamic State (IS; 16% for the whole population).
Due to the social media environment we live in, this quite blindingly obvious caveat is made: I am not against Muslims or the Islamic faith. I am not against any religion or race. What I am against are people who seek to impose their beliefs on others by violence.
So what do we do?
First is to value our way of life. We defend it rather than apologize for it. And aggressively, completely reject the littlest notion that real or imagined oppression or minority status will ever justify the slaughter of innocent people.
Another is to call these terrorists for what they are: radical Islam. Because that’s what they call themselves. Because you don’t see Catholic nuns blowing up restaurants. Because these terrorists wreak havoc to make the world ruled by an Islamic Caliphate.
We must also strongly call on the US to finally lead: restrictively guarded measures on refugees and putting boots on the ground.
While France (along with others in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) took the admirable step of committing to obliterating IS, they just cannot do it without US strength and resources. And President Obama’s incredibly incompetent “leading from behind” presidency is utterly making matters worse.
Finally, we must also act with this realization: foreign policy is but an extension of our domestic policy. By which I emphasize: our policy in relation to Philippine territory.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
Mr Gatdula is also on Facebook and Twitter
National identity vs. national interest
October 31, 2015
The Manila Times
Dr. Clarita Carlos of UP and a member of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations expressed her disdain for nation states, the creation of which started with the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century. These states have become perennial pests with their periodic quarreling over turf, religion, trade, etc. Worse still nations are multiplying like amoeba, which may be increasingly more difficult to house them in that NY headquarters over time. Indeed at the latest count, some 145 nation-states have been created since 1816 driven by nationalist elements and encouraged by the French and American revolutions.
Her proposition supports the opposition voiced by many sectors against the attempt of our Muslim brothers in Mindanao to erect yet another “bangsa” or nation in an island first occupied by our indigenous ancestors. The IPs rather than the Muslim can truly claim the first nation status.
For my part, I rejoiced that the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire lorded over by autocratic European monarchs was degraded by the treaty. I also welcomed the arrival on the scene of Jean Baptiste Colbert French Minister of Finance of King Louis XIV of France, the granddad of political economy which reshaped the architecture of European politics and created a template which gave birth to North and South American democracies and indeed of the New World.
I rejoiced at the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire “where the sun never sets” the defeat of the conquistadores that gave rise to the nation states of Latin America, the Balkanization of Eastern Europe, post-World War decolonization which spawned many nations now delinked from the commercial exploitation by the First World and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At home, I welcomed the statement of President Manuel Quezon that he would rather see this country “run like hell by Filipinos than heaven by Americans,” (he surely got his wish). Actually, the Americans did not run this country like heaven if you consider, how they tricked Aguinaldo, perpetrated the Balangiga Massacre, used water treatment as an instrument of torture, “civilized” us with the Krag – all these to accomplish the “manifest destiny” of President McKinley. But that was water under the bridge.
Since then this country has eschewed the so-called “special relations” with the US, thrown out her military bases, even as we concluded a more respectable Mutual Defense and Visiting Forces Agreements with a country that we share important values. Today a few million Filipinos, which include members of my family have pledge allegiance to the U.S. “in pursuit of the American dream,” even as hundreds of our countrymen line up daily in front of the U.S. Embassy hoping for a U.S. visa.
Today the world has embraced regionalism, multilateralism and other forms of solidarity. The vertical economic and political integration of colonial days is now replaced by horizontal integration. The European model, the template for economic and political integration has not however killed protectionism and political systems that range from left to right of its member countries. British economic liberalism has not rescued the citizens of socialist member countries from the demands of the social market economics of their populist governments. Nations continue to be divided along ideological lines and competing development paradigms.
In the Asean alone, it is doubtful whether Vietnam will give up its socialism or Myanmar the dictatorship of the military junta. The great divide in our part of the world is also ethnic, cultural and religious. Kashmir will never join India and a lot of blood was spilled in the effort to integrate the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Christian Aceh fought the Muslim Indonesians and Tibet will never bow to China, etc. This will be a stumbling block to integration. Nation states have therefore been set up to provide the necessary firewall to separate the clash of civilizations.
Today political scientists are split between “constructivists” and “realists.” The former give much importance to national pride, identity or consciousness while the realist gives a premium on interest. At home, the division is between the economic nationalist or protectionists and free-traders who favor an open economy. The former while not exactly favoring state-owned enterprises of the Chinese model favor infant industries surrounded by tariff walls and generous fiscal incentives while the latter favor global trade linkages and trans-nationalism.
State-centric adherents of International Political Economy (IPE) reject a belief popular among many scholars, public officials, and commentators that economic and technological forces have eclipsed the nation-state and are creating a global world economy in which political boundaries and national governments are no longer important. While it may be true that economic and technological forces are continuously reshaping international affairs and influencing the behavior of states in our shrinking world with its highly integrated global economy, countries continue to use their power and to implement policies to channel economic forces in ways that favor their own national economic interests These national economic interests include the quest for a favorable balance of trade and payments and control over monetary and fiscal affairs that are in consonance with the rising expectations of its citizenry and its quest for higher productivity incomes and employment – in short, for a better life.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, nation states have come under attack from within and from without; both transnational economic forces and ethnic nationalism were tearing at its economic and political foundation but these trends only work at creating more countries rather than less.
In sum, nation-states were created to meet specific needs – to provide economic and political security and to achieve other desired goals; in return, citizens preserve the territorial integrity of the nation state, obey its laws and support it through taxes.
The big question is should identity be a more important consideration than interest in the life of a nation? As a political-economist my problem is an accurate definition of “identity” and the qualitative and quantitative measurement of “interest.”
This is an important consideration if this country is to pursue an independent foreign policy as mandated by the Constitution!
The Manila Times
Dr. Clarita Carlos of UP and a member of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations expressed her disdain for nation states, the creation of which started with the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century. These states have become perennial pests with their periodic quarreling over turf, religion, trade, etc. Worse still nations are multiplying like amoeba, which may be increasingly more difficult to house them in that NY headquarters over time. Indeed at the latest count, some 145 nation-states have been created since 1816 driven by nationalist elements and encouraged by the French and American revolutions.
Her proposition supports the opposition voiced by many sectors against the attempt of our Muslim brothers in Mindanao to erect yet another “bangsa” or nation in an island first occupied by our indigenous ancestors. The IPs rather than the Muslim can truly claim the first nation status.
For my part, I rejoiced that the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire lorded over by autocratic European monarchs was degraded by the treaty. I also welcomed the arrival on the scene of Jean Baptiste Colbert French Minister of Finance of King Louis XIV of France, the granddad of political economy which reshaped the architecture of European politics and created a template which gave birth to North and South American democracies and indeed of the New World.
I rejoiced at the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire “where the sun never sets” the defeat of the conquistadores that gave rise to the nation states of Latin America, the Balkanization of Eastern Europe, post-World War decolonization which spawned many nations now delinked from the commercial exploitation by the First World and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At home, I welcomed the statement of President Manuel Quezon that he would rather see this country “run like hell by Filipinos than heaven by Americans,” (he surely got his wish). Actually, the Americans did not run this country like heaven if you consider, how they tricked Aguinaldo, perpetrated the Balangiga Massacre, used water treatment as an instrument of torture, “civilized” us with the Krag – all these to accomplish the “manifest destiny” of President McKinley. But that was water under the bridge.
Since then this country has eschewed the so-called “special relations” with the US, thrown out her military bases, even as we concluded a more respectable Mutual Defense and Visiting Forces Agreements with a country that we share important values. Today a few million Filipinos, which include members of my family have pledge allegiance to the U.S. “in pursuit of the American dream,” even as hundreds of our countrymen line up daily in front of the U.S. Embassy hoping for a U.S. visa.
Today the world has embraced regionalism, multilateralism and other forms of solidarity. The vertical economic and political integration of colonial days is now replaced by horizontal integration. The European model, the template for economic and political integration has not however killed protectionism and political systems that range from left to right of its member countries. British economic liberalism has not rescued the citizens of socialist member countries from the demands of the social market economics of their populist governments. Nations continue to be divided along ideological lines and competing development paradigms.
In the Asean alone, it is doubtful whether Vietnam will give up its socialism or Myanmar the dictatorship of the military junta. The great divide in our part of the world is also ethnic, cultural and religious. Kashmir will never join India and a lot of blood was spilled in the effort to integrate the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Christian Aceh fought the Muslim Indonesians and Tibet will never bow to China, etc. This will be a stumbling block to integration. Nation states have therefore been set up to provide the necessary firewall to separate the clash of civilizations.
Today political scientists are split between “constructivists” and “realists.” The former give much importance to national pride, identity or consciousness while the realist gives a premium on interest. At home, the division is between the economic nationalist or protectionists and free-traders who favor an open economy. The former while not exactly favoring state-owned enterprises of the Chinese model favor infant industries surrounded by tariff walls and generous fiscal incentives while the latter favor global trade linkages and trans-nationalism.
State-centric adherents of International Political Economy (IPE) reject a belief popular among many scholars, public officials, and commentators that economic and technological forces have eclipsed the nation-state and are creating a global world economy in which political boundaries and national governments are no longer important. While it may be true that economic and technological forces are continuously reshaping international affairs and influencing the behavior of states in our shrinking world with its highly integrated global economy, countries continue to use their power and to implement policies to channel economic forces in ways that favor their own national economic interests These national economic interests include the quest for a favorable balance of trade and payments and control over monetary and fiscal affairs that are in consonance with the rising expectations of its citizenry and its quest for higher productivity incomes and employment – in short, for a better life.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, nation states have come under attack from within and from without; both transnational economic forces and ethnic nationalism were tearing at its economic and political foundation but these trends only work at creating more countries rather than less.
In sum, nation-states were created to meet specific needs – to provide economic and political security and to achieve other desired goals; in return, citizens preserve the territorial integrity of the nation state, obey its laws and support it through taxes.
The big question is should identity be a more important consideration than interest in the life of a nation? As a political-economist my problem is an accurate definition of “identity” and the qualitative and quantitative measurement of “interest.”
This is an important consideration if this country is to pursue an independent foreign policy as mandated by the Constitution!
Do presidential candidates’ qualifications matter? Have you seen the Philippines lately?
Jemy Gatdula
November 05, 2015
Opinion, Business World
By coincidence (or not), the questions asked of me by news outlets last week were my views on the qualifications of the presidential candidates. Or, put another way, how important are qualifications in choosing our president? And do our voters even care about these things?
My response was that qualifications do matter.
But sometimes the “qualifications” sought by our voters are of a different nature, for a different purpose, and occasionally without any relevance whatsoever to the position being voted for.
In 2010, our country had the following to choose from as president:
Richard “Dick” J. Gordon (1971 Constitutional Convention delegate, lawyer, Procter and Gamble executive, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority Chairman, Tourism Secretary, and Senator);
Gilbert C. Teodoro, Jr. (Bar topnotcher, Harvard graduate, Congressman, Defense Secretary); and
Manuel “Manny” B. Villar (UP Business Administration, self-made successful businessman, House Speaker, Senate President).
Instead, we chose Benigno S. C. Aquino III (son of Cory and Ninoy Aquino).
Forget surveys and government statistics.
Just look out the window and commonsensically see the consequences of that 2010 vote: Filipinos paying among Asia’s highest income tax with the world’s lowest wage rates for the longest work hours; world’s worst traffic, world’s worst airports (with bullet planting), slowest Internet speed; 23.2% unemployment, nearly 26% poverty incidence; 3.5 million families hungry, deteriorating education; increased crime, increased smuggling, 1.3 million illegal aliens, China’s territorial grab, Quirino Grandstand massacre, Yolanda rehabilitation, Bangsamoro, Mamasapano.
All messes left to the next president to clean up.
And it comes with a further asking price of a proposed P3-trillion 2016 budget, amidst a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
All this because people got weepy in 2010.
Now with a 2016 vote just a few months away, some are toying with the idea of letting those who got us into this humongous wreck to fix it. That’s lunacy.
Others, meanwhile, are under the insane delusion that we’re currently doing fine and that previous governments are to be blamed for whatever problems there are.
The president elected in 2016 faces incredibly complicated international security and economic problems.
Aside from the West Philippine Sea, there’s a possible oncoming global recession, trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and overseas Filipino workers.
So, quite reasonably, we should be concerned that the person we choose to represent us can at least match up with the following:
Prayut Chan-o-cha (Thai prime minister; Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy, former Army chief of staff);
Joko Widodo (Indonesian president; successful businessman, former Governor of Jakarta);
Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak (Malaysian prime minister; University of Nottingham, corporate executive, former deputy prime minister, as well as former minister for defense, education, finance, and culture);
Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore prime minister; Trinity College, Cambridge, a Brigadier General, and former minister for trade, finance, and defense, and deputy prime minister);
Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah (Sultan of Brunei; Royal Military Academy Sandhurst);
Xi Jinping (Chinese President; Tsinghua University, multiple government posts);
Shinzo Abe (Japanese Prime Minister; Seikei University, University of Southern California, Kobe Steel executive, and a number of government positions, including executive assistant to the Minister for Foreign Affairs);
Narendra Damodardas Modi (Indian prime minister; Delhi University, and Gujarat University MA in political science.
Malcolm Bligh Turnbull (Australian prime minister; Oxford, Rhodes scholar, journalist, lawyer, investment banker, and former environment minister.
Now the point of looking at the academic credentials and work experience is not for some sort of mathematical process, of whoever has most is best qualified.
What a lengthy resume does is to allow our people to get to know the candidate more and somehow gauge from past performance how that person will be as president.
The problem with a slim resumé’d candidate is that such person is practically an unknown, a risky investment for a logical people. Such a person would not make sense in a field of experienced candidates.
Objectively, what our people should be looking for in a candidate’s past are clues as to judgment, humility, and the ability to get things done.
Judgment: because a president needs to be steady (not prone to emotional hysterics under stress or tactless insensitivity); and the ability to make right decisions, quickly if need be and, as if often the case, with imperfect information.
Humility: because a president needs to be able to form a good working relationship with the other co-equal branches of government. A politician who ends up unnecessarily having to bully others is simply not presidential material.
And finally, the ability to deliver.
Of what use is a lengthy resume, great speeches, and charisma if that person only ends up botching every assignment he (or she) took over?
Yes, integrity is an indispensable trait.
But additionally the Philippines also needs (specially after the last five years) a president in whose hands things flourish, people perform better, and with a clear sense of correct direction.
In short, a president who obeys his oath and can get the job done.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
November 05, 2015
Opinion, Business World
By coincidence (or not), the questions asked of me by news outlets last week were my views on the qualifications of the presidential candidates. Or, put another way, how important are qualifications in choosing our president? And do our voters even care about these things?
My response was that qualifications do matter.
But sometimes the “qualifications” sought by our voters are of a different nature, for a different purpose, and occasionally without any relevance whatsoever to the position being voted for.
In 2010, our country had the following to choose from as president:
Richard “Dick” J. Gordon (1971 Constitutional Convention delegate, lawyer, Procter and Gamble executive, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority Chairman, Tourism Secretary, and Senator);
Gilbert C. Teodoro, Jr. (Bar topnotcher, Harvard graduate, Congressman, Defense Secretary); and
Manuel “Manny” B. Villar (UP Business Administration, self-made successful businessman, House Speaker, Senate President).
Instead, we chose Benigno S. C. Aquino III (son of Cory and Ninoy Aquino).
Forget surveys and government statistics.
Just look out the window and commonsensically see the consequences of that 2010 vote: Filipinos paying among Asia’s highest income tax with the world’s lowest wage rates for the longest work hours; world’s worst traffic, world’s worst airports (with bullet planting), slowest Internet speed; 23.2% unemployment, nearly 26% poverty incidence; 3.5 million families hungry, deteriorating education; increased crime, increased smuggling, 1.3 million illegal aliens, China’s territorial grab, Quirino Grandstand massacre, Yolanda rehabilitation, Bangsamoro, Mamasapano.
All messes left to the next president to clean up.
And it comes with a further asking price of a proposed P3-trillion 2016 budget, amidst a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
All this because people got weepy in 2010.
Now with a 2016 vote just a few months away, some are toying with the idea of letting those who got us into this humongous wreck to fix it. That’s lunacy.
Others, meanwhile, are under the insane delusion that we’re currently doing fine and that previous governments are to be blamed for whatever problems there are.
The president elected in 2016 faces incredibly complicated international security and economic problems.
Aside from the West Philippine Sea, there’s a possible oncoming global recession, trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and overseas Filipino workers.
So, quite reasonably, we should be concerned that the person we choose to represent us can at least match up with the following:
Prayut Chan-o-cha (Thai prime minister; Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy, former Army chief of staff);
Joko Widodo (Indonesian president; successful businessman, former Governor of Jakarta);
Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak (Malaysian prime minister; University of Nottingham, corporate executive, former deputy prime minister, as well as former minister for defense, education, finance, and culture);
Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore prime minister; Trinity College, Cambridge, a Brigadier General, and former minister for trade, finance, and defense, and deputy prime minister);
Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah (Sultan of Brunei; Royal Military Academy Sandhurst);
Xi Jinping (Chinese President; Tsinghua University, multiple government posts);
Shinzo Abe (Japanese Prime Minister; Seikei University, University of Southern California, Kobe Steel executive, and a number of government positions, including executive assistant to the Minister for Foreign Affairs);
Narendra Damodardas Modi (Indian prime minister; Delhi University, and Gujarat University MA in political science.
Malcolm Bligh Turnbull (Australian prime minister; Oxford, Rhodes scholar, journalist, lawyer, investment banker, and former environment minister.
Now the point of looking at the academic credentials and work experience is not for some sort of mathematical process, of whoever has most is best qualified.
What a lengthy resume does is to allow our people to get to know the candidate more and somehow gauge from past performance how that person will be as president.
The problem with a slim resumé’d candidate is that such person is practically an unknown, a risky investment for a logical people. Such a person would not make sense in a field of experienced candidates.
Objectively, what our people should be looking for in a candidate’s past are clues as to judgment, humility, and the ability to get things done.
Judgment: because a president needs to be steady (not prone to emotional hysterics under stress or tactless insensitivity); and the ability to make right decisions, quickly if need be and, as if often the case, with imperfect information.
Humility: because a president needs to be able to form a good working relationship with the other co-equal branches of government. A politician who ends up unnecessarily having to bully others is simply not presidential material.
And finally, the ability to deliver.
Of what use is a lengthy resume, great speeches, and charisma if that person only ends up botching every assignment he (or she) took over?
Yes, integrity is an indispensable trait.
But additionally the Philippines also needs (specially after the last five years) a president in whose hands things flourish, people perform better, and with a clear sense of correct direction.
In short, a president who obeys his oath and can get the job done.
Jemy Gatdula specializes in international economic law (WTO and ASEAN), and teaches international law and legal philosophy at the UA&P School of Law and Governance.
[email protected]
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
STATEMENT OF THE MEDIA BUREAU OF THE PCFR
On the campaigning of the Philippine ambassador to the US for administration candidates
October 22, 2015 9:03 pm* Manila Times
THIS morning at a show (Thursday October 22) on the ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC) which covered the registration in Los Angeles, California, of Filipino voters [for the Philippine elections] the Philippine Ambassador to the United States addressed the Filipino voters urging them to vote so that “the gains of this administration can be pursued.”
Given that the Chief of Mission represents the Republic of the Philippines and not the Liberal Party, which controls this administration, this would be deemed as premature campaigning in favor of the administration party.
Considering that Filipino OFWs in the United States have their own party preferences, the Philippine Chief of Mission should just have stood neutral!
In the face of this anomaly we now call upon all Chiefs of Mission to cease and desist from campaigning for the administration and just encourage our OFWs to exercise their right of suffrage and vote with their consciences.
THIS morning at a show (Thursday October 22) on the ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC) which covered the registration in Los Angeles, California, of Filipino voters [for the Philippine elections] the Philippine Ambassador to the United States addressed the Filipino voters urging them to vote so that “the gains of this administration can be pursued.”
Given that the Chief of Mission represents the Republic of the Philippines and not the Liberal Party, which controls this administration, this would be deemed as premature campaigning in favor of the administration party.
Considering that Filipino OFWs in the United States have their own party preferences, the Philippine Chief of Mission should just have stood neutral!
In the face of this anomaly we now call upon all Chiefs of Mission to cease and desist from campaigning for the administration and just encourage our OFWs to exercise their right of suffrage and vote with their consciences.
ON FOREIGN AMBASSADORS’ MANIFESTO ABOUT MINDANAO
Statement of the Philippine Ambassadors Foundation Incorporated
October 19, 2015 8:24 pm * Manila Times
LAST Friday 16 October 2015, a group of Foreign Ambassadors and heads of mission in Manila was reported to have issued a joint statement to the press and media calling on the Philippine Government “to stay engaged in the Mindanao peace process.”
In this connection, the Philippine Ambassadors Foundation Incorporated, while it notes with appreciation the interest of the diplomatic community in the peace process in Southern Philippines, takes exception to the above action of the said diplomats as improper , unnecessary, and undue interference in a purely domestic concern and disrespectful of the Constitutional processes of their host country.
The Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro and the proposed Bangamoro Basic Law are subject of an ongoing debate among various sectors of Philippine society. The BBL is under consideration by the houses of the Philippine Congress. The CAB is subjudice before the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
In this connection, the Philippine Ambassadors Foundation Incorporated, while it notes with appreciation the interest of the diplomatic community in the peace process in Southern Philippines, takes exception to the above action of the said diplomats as improper , unnecessary, and undue interference in a purely domestic concern and disrespectful of the Constitutional processes of their host country.
The Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro and the proposed Bangamoro Basic Law are subject of an ongoing debate among various sectors of Philippine society. The BBL is under consideration by the houses of the Philippine Congress. The CAB is subjudice before the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Declare these ambassadors personae non-grata
October 16, 2015 11:53 pm * Manila Times
ON the opposite page, we print in full an immensely important statement of the Philippine Council on Foreign Relations about the statement made by ambassadors of “at least 18 countries” (as our story on it on page 2 of yesterday’s Times says) that we believe deserve the highest condemnation of every Filipino who values our Republic’s dignity, the rule of law, and the principle of foreign non- interference in our internal affairs.
The Department of Foreign Affairs should have loudly spoken out to protest the “ambassadors’ statement” — or if it wished to be discrete–should have written a note verbale to each of the embassies.
But the DFA did not. And this does not surprise us. For the Aquino Administration has been depending on foreign moral support and actual funding from foreign governments, not for the usual monetary needs to combat poverty and deliver better services to our people, but to cover up of its misdeeds and to dampen the anger of our people against its evil works and policies. These works and policies cause hardships for our people and pose threats to the very existence of our democracy and our Republic.
The statement expresses the ambassadors’ support for the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), which the more thoughtful, knowledgeable, educated and good-hearted Filipinos have found to be in serious need of redrafting because it will not bring peace to Mindanao but will instead plunge it into greater conflicts.
To begin with, the BBL version favored by the Aquino Administration and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is based on two grossly anti-Philippine Republic, anti-Filipino people, illegal documents or in fact treaties that the BS Aquino negotiators signed with their MILF counterparts. These are the Framework Agreement and the Comprehensive Agreement on Bangsamoro, which the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional. Both contain provisions that contradict existing Philippines laws, apart from the Philippine Constitution itself. Both will subject Christian Filipinos and Lumad Filipinos, as well as Muslim Filipinos, unwilling to be under MILF control to a manner of living they do not prefer.
If only because the Framework Agreement, the Comprehensive Agreement on Bangsamoro and the BBL are facing legal suits from many sectors of Philippine society, suits that are still pending at the Supreme Court and are the subject of a process of amendment in our Congress, these ambassadors should have had the wisdom and decency to refrain from disrespecting our laws and dishonoring our High Court.
The ambassadors who have instigated this unhealthy demonstration of support for the BBL show they are not true friends of the Philippines and the Filipinos. Some of them are also supporters of the biggest political crime ever committed against our Republic, the murder of our election process by the Smartmatic-TIM conglomerate and their PCOS machines.
They are acting to promote their vested interests and the prospect of profiting from Mindanao in a way that they are now unable to do. And they are showing their support for a rebel group, the MILF, against the interests of all Filipinos.
ON the opposite page, we print in full an immensely important statement of the Philippine Council on Foreign Relations about the statement made by ambassadors of “at least 18 countries” (as our story on it on page 2 of yesterday’s Times says) that we believe deserve the highest condemnation of every Filipino who values our Republic’s dignity, the rule of law, and the principle of foreign non- interference in our internal affairs.
The Department of Foreign Affairs should have loudly spoken out to protest the “ambassadors’ statement” — or if it wished to be discrete–should have written a note verbale to each of the embassies.
But the DFA did not. And this does not surprise us. For the Aquino Administration has been depending on foreign moral support and actual funding from foreign governments, not for the usual monetary needs to combat poverty and deliver better services to our people, but to cover up of its misdeeds and to dampen the anger of our people against its evil works and policies. These works and policies cause hardships for our people and pose threats to the very existence of our democracy and our Republic.
The statement expresses the ambassadors’ support for the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), which the more thoughtful, knowledgeable, educated and good-hearted Filipinos have found to be in serious need of redrafting because it will not bring peace to Mindanao but will instead plunge it into greater conflicts.
To begin with, the BBL version favored by the Aquino Administration and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is based on two grossly anti-Philippine Republic, anti-Filipino people, illegal documents or in fact treaties that the BS Aquino negotiators signed with their MILF counterparts. These are the Framework Agreement and the Comprehensive Agreement on Bangsamoro, which the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional. Both contain provisions that contradict existing Philippines laws, apart from the Philippine Constitution itself. Both will subject Christian Filipinos and Lumad Filipinos, as well as Muslim Filipinos, unwilling to be under MILF control to a manner of living they do not prefer.
If only because the Framework Agreement, the Comprehensive Agreement on Bangsamoro and the BBL are facing legal suits from many sectors of Philippine society, suits that are still pending at the Supreme Court and are the subject of a process of amendment in our Congress, these ambassadors should have had the wisdom and decency to refrain from disrespecting our laws and dishonoring our High Court.
The ambassadors who have instigated this unhealthy demonstration of support for the BBL show they are not true friends of the Philippines and the Filipinos. Some of them are also supporters of the biggest political crime ever committed against our Republic, the murder of our election process by the Smartmatic-TIM conglomerate and their PCOS machines.
They are acting to promote their vested interests and the prospect of profiting from Mindanao in a way that they are now unable to do. And they are showing their support for a rebel group, the MILF, against the interests of all Filipinos.