Showing posts with label foreign affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign affairs. Show all posts

Monday, April 22, 2013

Discussion Topic: Authoritarianism and the Stateless Society

Your mission if you agree to accept it . . .
The real JoeAm?

JoeAm will be on family vacation for two weeks, returning in early May. He drops off this blog as a voluntary mission for readers, ala "Mission Impossible". 

Here's the framing:
  • The Philippines is an authoritarian society. Interpersonal rivalries are intense, a struggle to top or topple the opposition. The government is democratic but tends toward authoritarianism: laying down the law but enforcing it selectively, officious attitude in government offices, army and local government vigilante behavior, issuing dictates left and right with no open justice system for the people. Senators doling out millions in Christmas gifts as if it were THEIR money.
  • Richard Javad Heydarian in his recent article "Why the Philippines Failed" makes a very clear point that the Philippines does not keep pace with other developing nations because it does not have a strong concept of "State" governance. This article is the beginning point for the discussion and is required reading for volunteers.
Here's the issue: How can the Philippines be both authoritarian and weak of State? 

Here's the mission:
  1. Rationalize the apparent contradicition of authoritarianism and statelessness.
  2. Explain in clear terms what has to happen -- tangibly and practically achievable -- to move the Philippines forward to become of equal stature to Japan and South Korea as a core nation in Asia.
Whether and how you proceed is up to you.

This blog will self-destruct in two weeks . . .

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Blueprint for Philippine Defense?

Philippine and American Training Exercise
The following news report appeared in Ariraing News last week. It is short and well worth reading. Commentary follows.
_______________


S. Korea-U.S. Joint Forces Sign New Defense Plan

Arirang News, March 25, 2013

Since North Korea's torpedo attack on a South Korean warship and its shelling of a South Korean border island in 2010, the South Korea-U.S. joint military forces have been working on a plan to counter North Korean provocations more effectively.

After more than two years of talks, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Jung Seung-jo and the Commander of the U.S. Forces Korea General James Thurman signed a so-called "Joint Counter-Provocation Plan" on Friday which is a defense strategy led by South Korea, and supported by U.S. forces.
The plan went into effect immediately.

"With the completion of this plan, the South Korea-U.S. joint forces are now ready for strong and immediate counter actions against any North Korean provocation."

The new defense plan calls for military aid by the U.S. armed forces when required by the South Korean forces.

Previously, the U.S. forces were allowed to participate in an inter-Korean military conflict when a full-fledged war breaks out.

The plan also lays out specific joint counter military strategies against various types of North Korean provocations. 

Despite rising inter-Korean military tensions, South Korea's presidential office says it will offer humanitarian aid to North Korea and expand dialogue.. if Pyongyang doesn't carry out further provocations and shows efforts to stick to its international obligations.

A senior official in the presidential office told Seoul-based Yonhap News Agency on Sunday, that the Park Geun-hye administration's North Korea policy is different from that of the previous government's hard-line policy.

The remarks follow President Park Geun-hye's approval of a humanitarian aid shipment to North Korea by a private charity group on Friday.

Han Da-eun, Arirang News
_______________

This is a very unusual development. The U.S. will bow to the lead of South Korea.

American military leadership can do this confidently because multiple scenarios have been drawn up that define under what circumstances U.S. forces will engage, and how they will be deployed.

I would also suspect that South Korea has demonstrated a grasp of military strategy and execution that has gained the respect of top American military officials.

So we have a prototype plan here, do we not?

  1. Sovereignty of South Korea preserved; power of America standing ready.

  1. Specific agreements define what levels of U.S. force will be deployed in certain circumstances.

  1. Mutual confidence exists.

It took several years to finalize this plan, specifically, I would imagine, point 2. 

Can the Philippines craft a similar plan with the U.S. to counter China? After all, China is also being provocative. Some observations:

Point 1 is a given. The Philippines cannot be subordinate to U.S. military leadership.

Point 2 is a matter of time and talk, and having the Korean plan in place might shorten the timeframe. It can be the starting framework.

Point 3 is the crucial matter. Do American generals respect Philippine military leadership, discipline and thinking? I have no idea. But I can say with some confidence an opinion exists among the American generals based on joint training.

Under terms of the Visiting Forces Agreement ("VFA"), the U.S. will not allow her troops to be held in Philippine jails pending trial. I think this reflects the American military's lack of confidence in Philippine legal and judicial processes.

Is the Philippine military in the same boat? Viewed with skepticism? Or do top Philippine generals, schooled in American military academies and a frequent partner in military training exercises, command the respect of America's generals?  During training exercises, do they display the kind of crisp, firm decision-making required of top military leaders? 

I have no idea, but I don't mind posing the blunt question in the back of some American minds: are Philippine generals top-notch capable, or are they generals because they were someone's classmate?

The U.S. military will not subordinate American troops to Philippine generals in whom they have little confidence.

Very clearly, President Aquino would need a candid readout from American generals about Philippine competency. The President ought not think he can "sell" Philippine capability to American generals politically. They won't buy what he is peddling. They will only buy competence.

If Philippine top generals are good, no problem. A Korean-style defense agreement ought to be drawn up.

If they are not good, they need to be changed or trained up more intensely than in the past. Philippine military leadership needs to be capable of commanding respect among very demanding, competent American generals.

I certainly have no idea of the character and capability of top Philippine generals. But I do know that Jun Abaya, former House Representative and head of the Department of Transportation and Communications ("DOTC"), ranked 2nd in his class academically at the U.S. Naval Academy. That gains huge respect points.

Maybe he'd make a superb general.

My point is that the top ranks have to be very, very good to impress American generals. You actually have to prove competence, not expect it because, well . . . we're the Philippines.

You can bet that the U.S. is not inclined to subordinate its troops to the weak of judgment, skill or will. They'd have to explain the loss of American lives to American parents, spouses and children. They also have to deal with an American public that knows very little about the Philippines. But once a "deal" is announced, the press spotlight will shine on the relationship, and the Philippine eviction of American military, and Philippine "first out" of Iraq, will be brought glaringly into that light by critics.

I find it interesting that America's pivot to Asia presents an opportunity for the Philippines to prove capability. American skepticism has always been, since 1898, can the Philippines get its self-governing act together? 

I'd opine that the proof is to be found in deeds, not politics.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Electioneering and the Blogging Foreigner

I have been silenced . . .
Philippine Immigration has made clear that foreigners are not to engage in Philippine elections in any way. Not even open our mouths or tap our keyboards.

Immigration has announced that it will deport foreigners who violate Section 4 of COMELEC Resolution 9615:

  • Resolution 9615, SECTION 4. Prohibition against Foreign Intervention. - It is unlawful for any foreigner, whether juridical or natural person, to aid any candidate, or political party, organization or coalition, directly or indirectly, or to take part in, or influence in any manner, any election, or to contribute or make any expenditure in connection with any election campaign or partisan political activity.

I feel your pain, Joe . . .
This is very different than the Unites States, I must say. In America, freedom of speech takes precedence over one's citizenship. Foreigners have full right of free speech. The Supreme Court made this clear in a 2012 ruling that confirmed that a ban foreign political contributions did not represent a violation of free speech:

  • “Notably, [the campaign finance law] as we interpret it, does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues,” the court said. “It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process – providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.”  ("Supreme Court upholds election law limiting foreign influence" by Warren Richey in The Christian Science Monitor)

In the States, a foreigner can say or write opinions all over the place, in or out of the election cycle, just like an American.

Well, almost all Americans are from immigrant families, so it is a different mindset over there.

Here in the Philippines, it is clear that we have a more protective and authoritarian form of democracy.  I rather fear Dr. Rizal would be disappointed.

Indeed, COMELEC Resolution 9615 is a minutely detailed, high-control, by-the-book directive from a powerful regulator. It is regulation by knit and grit. COMELEC refers to any information that is outside the narrow bounds of their determination of fairness to be "propaganda". Not ideas, or information, or platforms. Propaganda.

It is strange to me, the binding of expression. Open ideas are what drives honor and competence and solutions. Shutting them up is what assures abuse. And ignorance.

So I have an idea if you will allow me the courtesy of squeezing an impudent suggestion in here. Tighten the rules a bit. Don't let anybody say anything to anybody in any form at any time so the the Public is not burdened with original thought or pesky decisions requiring information and ideas. No one will be biased with any fresh insights whatsoever. They can just vote the "name".

Oh, wait. . . . Pardon me. You say that's the way it is done now?

Boy howdy, like the proposed cybercrime libel laws, this 9615 is enough to make an overbearing opinion-monger go Santiago. 

And so, dear readers, in recognition of COMELEC'S representation that you are not mature enough to read JoeAm's mighty opinions and sift them through your own cognative filter for reasonableness, it is with a huge sigh of reluctant retreat that I have withdrawn 12 blogs that have the potential of being declared in violation of COMELEC's ruling.

I'll republish one or two after they are duly sanitized for reading by lola and all the other nice ladies down at the Church bazaar.

Actually, I suspect this COMELEC ruling needs to be tested for constitutionality, but it is not gonna be done on this American's wallet. You want the kind of country that is afraid of opinions, you may have it.

You know, to some extent, I understand the hard and all-inclusive COMELEC position banning foreign campaign contributions and "influence", which includes speech. The Philippines has been abused by foreign engagement in politics in the past. Abused as in ruthlessly occupied. The U.S. has not.  Furthermore, the Philippines is a small nation. A large nation could take command of an election by funneling large dollar amounts into a campaign.

But money is money, an individual is an individual, and an opinion is an opinion.

The regulators look at an opinion as a weapon, a threat. I look at it as a seed. The germ of an idea that can be welcomed or rejected or debated. Indeed, that is what blogging is about. The dynamic of generating ideas through debate. Those who disagree with JoeAm can write their own opinion. They can debate the matter. They can strive for a sharing of enlightenments. As in think and teach and learn.

Read these discussion threads. It is not the article that is important in many cases. It is the debate.

That's what that comment box is for at the bottom of the page.

Vibrant discussion keeps a democratic nation healthy, alive and on course.

So I go back to my often-asked question, usually reserved for low-esteem blog commenters not the national government, why is an idea allowed if it is stated by a Filipino but not allowed if it is stated by a foreigner? It is the same idea.

I also think that in the modern era of the internet, enforcement of the "influence" provision by deporting violators who take partisan positions on the internet is rather strange thinking. As long as I am here, the government can put its autocratic tape over my electioneering mouth. When I'm deported, then it's balls to the wall influence in every online medium available to me.

So tossing me out would prove that it is not WHAT I WRITE that matters to the authorities. It is authority that matters to the authorities.

Furthermore, when Immigration starts deporting people for simply having an opinion, the Philippines will come across in the modern world as heavy handed and  . . . well, maybe not the best place to set up shop. Like backward. Like banana republic.

Same o same o authoritarian rot and malaise. Same o same o non-competitive Philippines.

But my parents taught me to obey, and my school taught me to respect authority, and my church taught me to exercise humility, so I will follow the rules.

And the Philippines will be one voice quieter during election time.

Candidates who represent a lousy choice for the Philippine public can sleep well.  JoeAm will not be badgering them.

My my. . . . do you suppose . . . the thought struck me . . .could it be . . . that if they can silence enough voices they will soon have everything in order. Only THEIR propaganda will be allowed?

Ship shape, as they say.

Hunky dory.

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah 

Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Monday, February 4, 2013

The Speech President Aquino Cannot Give

Good evening my friends. It's good to be Filipino, eh?

I want to talk to you about our country. About our history and future. And about who we are as a nation.

Lets start with the basics. We are an Asian country. Let's make that clear. We are not European, although we are a playground for Europeans and we hosted Spanish marauders for several centuries. We are not Middle Eastern, although Filipinos work in homes and offices across the Middle East. We are not Canadian although we speak English better than those Quebec rebels do. We are not Mexican although Mexicans box pretty damn well, too.

We are not American, for sure. And we are not America's little orphan brother.

We are the Republic of the Philippines. 

And we are an Asian country.

So today I want to speak to three audiences. First, I want to speak to our Asian neighbors, our friends and our rivals in the peaceful competition for markets and goods and travel in this exciting part of the world. Second, I want to speak to Americans and their friends, the Europeans - those we term "Western Nations".  And, finally, I want to speak to you, my fellow Filipino citizens. 

Long live the Republic! 

Although we are an Asian nation, our racial heritage is mixed. It's about as mixed as it can get. Native  Filipinos have been here since before some of our volcanoes broke from the earth. They are older than a hundred Enriles stacked end to end. And being at the heart of trade and commerce in Asia, we have had many visitors. Some stayed longer than we wanted, but that happens with some guests, eh?

And the visitors mixed with the native Filipinos. Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian, Moro, Spanish, American, African and who knows what else. People are surprised to look at us and see brown, eh? That is the bias, really, the discrimination of the Western world, is it not, to think that the mixing of all the races of the world should somehow turn up white?

Well, that is also the error of many cosmetics companies, too, but I don't begrudge them making a little money on colors they deem stylish.

But we are brown. If you blend all the nationalities of the world, as we have done in the Philippines, we get what we are. Brown. So those of you who are not brown, kindly set aside this notion that your color is the color of the world. It is not. We, the Filipino, are the natural color of this world.

Let me be very candid here. Our history is rich with conquest. Unfortunately, we were on the underside of that conquest much of the time. We of the hills and lands were no match for the military powers of Spain and the US and Japan. But we fought and bled with the best of them, with guns and knives and bare fists.  Our families have known of the tragedies of war.

And we don't like such tragedies.

We prefer peace. So let it be known, let all our neighbors and friends know, we are a peaceful land.

But we aspire to something we have never had as a nation.

We aspire to walk alone. To stand independent as a nation equal to all. Better than none, worse than none. Equal to all.

And we are passionate about doing that. We have been occupied by foreign lands and we want to be rid of foreign occupancy.

If our good friend China fails to understand why we are adamant about our territory, about our seas, we would encourage them to understand that we are angry about our past, about the abuses brought to our shores by militaristic conquerors of the past. We are determined to stand free, to claim what is ours, and to rule it our way.

If our good friend America fails to understand why we throw off the suffocating presence of foreign warships, or rise up in anger when one sails into a precious reef, we would encourage America to understand that we yearn to stand alone. To be masters of our own destiny. To be rid of foreign influence either real, or imagined.

To business people around the world. If our corporate ownership rules seem defensive to you, limiting foreign ownership to 40 percent, we would encourage you to understand that we are not for sale to anybody. That we are wary of those who would take control of our valued businesses and take the profits and run. We are through with being used for other people's well-being, and discarded. Perhaps there will be a day when our economy is strong enough to warrant a higher foreign ownership percentage. But this is not that day. We believe the determined among you will find a way to work with Filipinos and with Filipino corporations to make money. And in that way, you will participate in the blossoming of a vibrant economy in Asia.

When we are more secure, we can take more risks.

To my fellow citizens, my brown and beautiful and peaceful people, I say this. Corruption and ignorance are as powerful as any foreign occupancy at stopping our growth and our progress. If we look at the history of the Philippines, we can see that our wealth has been controlled by the landed few. The dynasties, the landowners, the big business owners. I am from such a dynastic family myself. We have captured the road leading to power and influence, and become occupiers of our own nation.

This must stop. It is as oppressive as foreign armies and navies. We must open up government and business opportunities to more Filipinos. Those Filipinos from any family, with or without land, with or without name, who aspire to work hard and work smart to get ahead. Ambition is not a bad word. It is a good word, and it ought not be reserved only for those of name and land.

To the churches of this land, you are a part of our heritage and the values we possess. We thank you for standing firm as the conscience of our nation. But, frankly, we hope you will minister to the whole of our peoples and not limit yourselves to one political spectrum or another. Politics is a divisive business, and those churches that engage directly in political battles subject our people to unnecessary choices, to vote for the good of the Philippines, or to vote for their faith. The churches must accept that we are a nation of many people, many ideas, many faiths. The job of the State is to work for all, no matter the faith. So we ask church leaders to respect our State obligation to serve those of every faith, and even non-faiths.

We are a conservative nation, yet we too often live secret lives that are not conservative. We slip under too many radars, abuse too many laws, carry too many guns, exert too much violence as a way to solve problems. Violence does not solve problems. And disobeying rules is a cancer that leads to more and more rule-breaking until soon we forget what it means to live for the good of the community.

That is what laws are for. The good of the community.

And we ignore them too often.

So we, as Filipinos, need both greater freedom and opportunity, to compete for better jobs and more prosperity. And we need greater discipline, to do this honestly. Because discipline is best for the community of Filipinos.

So to the leaders of foreign nations, I say, respect our sovereignty. We are passionate about defending it. We will defend it to the death.

To those who would use and abuse the Philippines, we say, no more. We will govern our own affairs. We will do this in partnership with others when we share the same goals. But we will not bow to the whims and wills of nations that do not respect our right to self-determination.

And to our people, I say, rise! Stand up and stand for certain principles.

Stand for the freedoms we cherish, to speak openly and compete fairly for opportunities and prosperity. And stand up for discipline, for the strength it takes to obey the laws and give a little of ourselves to the community of Filipinos.

It's a great day to be Filipino. It is indeed. Thank you, and may God bless the Republic of the Philippines!


Monday, January 21, 2013

Why China is a Real Threat

Chinese mob attacks Japanese car
At the end of 2012, JoeAm identified four institutions that are interested in undermining the development of a modern Philippines. Here is a status report:
  • The Anti Blog Sites are best ignored as they dissolve in the acids of their bitter view of the Philippines and Filipinos. The positive developments in the Philippines are real. The Antis have been wrong for three years and still can't summon up the candor to acknowledge that fact. That, my friends, is called denial.
  • China is pursuing its belligerant approach to other nations in Asia. Today's article addresses this.
  • The Catholic Church is rather like the Republic Party in the US, just off a bitter political loss and trying to reconcile the defeat with their belief that they are the Lords of All Wisdom. JoeAm has written several articles on this topic and is prepared to resume doing his attack writings if the Church again raises its political head to try to drag the Philippine back into the dark ages. For now, he will let the Church partake of introspection in hopes that the CBCP leaders will see that their political engagements are as beneficial as flagellation. 
  • The Chronically Corrupt are on the run thanks to the Aquino Administration's attack dogs, the Ombudsman and Justice. JoeAm will comment from time to time.

Today's subject: China.

China is run by committee and, like any large state, has many challenges and internal disagreements on how to move forward. Very clearly, China wants to grow wealthier and provide for her citizens. This makes her a  rising gorilla of consumption and she is feeding her beast lavishly. Acquiring patented secrets through theft, gaining control of most of the earth's rare-earth metals (essential for electronics), expanding her reach in Latin America and Australia and anywhere she can gain entry.  Scraping rocks from the Philippine mountains for a cheap 2% excise payment.

Chinese rally in protest of Japan's claim to "Chinese" islands
From the Chinese point of view, this is good progress. Theft of secrets can be rationalized as essential to make up for historical discrimination and punishments. Capturing the market on rare earth metals is good competitive execution. Going after oil and minerals around the globe is essential to feed and raise the living standards of the millions of Chinese moving from poverty to middle class.

Americans or Europeans might not like this rising giant taking over all the choice markets, but they've each had their turn in the sunshine. It's a free world, after all.

The essential question is, does China have the depth and breath of tolerance and respect for others to pursue her aims in a way that avoids violent confrontation?

The two photographs above illustrate the depth of hostility that China is able to work up through State controlled media. China is an emotional nation, as Japan was an emotional nation leading up to World War II. Japan has been punished economically by China this past year for waging dispute over islands. Many Japanese businesses withdrew from Japan, others suffered material damages, physical or financial though boycotts.

The Philippine engagement is mild by comparison, but that does not mean it will stay that way.

This is a bit of a dance, but it is transpiring on the edge of a cliff. One best move carefully.

The great mystery for outsiders is understanding what the REAL policy of China is. When a military officer of substantial rank cites an opinion, is he speaking for the State of China?

When American military officers speak publicly, they are representing the United States, officially. So they speak with care, or not at all.

So what do we hear if we listen to Chinese military men? Here is an excerpt from a fascinating Reuters article, just published, called "Special Report: China's military hawks take the offensive".

The Air Force Colonel, Dai Xu, is renowned for his regular calls to arms. With China in dispute for much of last year with Japan in the East China Sea and Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea, Dai argued a short, decisive war, like China's 1962 border clash with India, would deliver long-term peace. He also said Washington would not risk war with China over these territorial spats.

"Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real," he wrote in an August 28 commentary published in the Chinese-language edition of the Global Times, a nationalistic tabloid published by the Communist Party organ, the People's Daily.

"This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia," added Dai, a researcher at Beijing University's China Centre for Strategic Studies. "We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel."
Source: Reuters

And what do we THINK when we hear these statements.

"Running dogs?"

It's physical. Japanese Coast Guard corrals protesters.
"We only need to kill one?"

There is an arrogance, emotionalism and Chinese centrism to these statements that is frightening. One would be remiss to believe this is NOT the official attitude of the Chinese central committee.

One might conceivably argue that this man is just a colonel and does not speak for the State. He speaks for himself. Then one would have to conclude that the Chinese military has poor discipline, and there is nothing to prevent a hothead anywhere from pulling a trigger or pushing a button.

"Oh, it is just bluster. The Chinese are good at the subtleties of international gamesmanship."

So then we can't trust China at all, eh?

The most prudent course is to expect that China WILL use military force to take command of islands within Philippine territorial waters. Just as her Navy now resides on Scarborough Shoals with no intention of leaving. That's 124 nautical miles from Luzon. Pag-asa Island in the middle of the Spratleys, with a vibrant Filipino community, well outside the 200 nautical mile economic zone from Palawan, is perhaps the most dangerous place of contention. It is not like the bare rock at Scarborough.

It would be prudent to draw up alternative ways of reacting to further Chinese aggression.

Sooner rather than later.

When the day arises that China asserts claim, militarily, to occupied Philippine islands, Mr. Aquino must select the best alternative.

It should be well thought out ahead of time. That is my main point here.

You will notice that I did not say "if" the day arises.

Public statements following any incident should be quick. Clear. Firm. Confident. They should not be doubtful or timid or reflective of surprise.

The Philippines would be negligent if it were surprised by any step China might take.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Is China Stupid? Subtitled "America, the Spinach"

Okay, just off of my latest Ken Follett novel, "Code to Zero", I'm in the mood for a little international skullduggery, spies and intrigue. Those big games of "Who Do You Trust?".

China is a masterwork of controlled public reactions. Homebound Chinese seem to be emotional people, the Italians of Asia, I guess, easily stoked into indignant, patriotic angers by captive media that tout the government's line.

We certainly know that the Philippines is painted by China as a very bad nation when conflict with China occurs over islands.  Newspapers condemn evil Filipinos and Chinese stomp about in indignant anger.

Of course, it would appear that Japan is also a very bad nation, given that Japanese activists have landed on contested islands, really irritating the Chinese. Causing them to condemn the evil Japanese and stomp . . .

And Taiwan is a bad nation when it occupies contested islands.

And South Korea . . .

And Viet Nam . . .

When will China wake up to the fact that it's divide and conquer strategy on the territorial conflicts in the West Philippine Sea is producing a hornet's nest of enemies?

And in the background stands the biggest hornet of them all, with treaties in place to defend the Philippines and South Korea and Japan if they are attacked by China.

  • At what point will the people of China, the broad masses, ask, "why do all these other countries hate China so?"

  • And the follow-up question. "Could it be something that we, China, is doing?"

Well, hallelujah, yes indeedy. It's called being an obnoxious bully and presuming that being big gives you the right to stomp around and tell everyone else what the law is without regard for their history or self-interest.

The historical document they use to claim the seas is a slap-dash nine-line drawing that was prepared by an enemy of the Chinese communist state, Chiang Kai-shek. But it is useful, so what the hey . . .

The people with insight say China is acting tough now because it is going through a transition in leadership, and leaders who aspire to remain on the job or get promoted can't appear weak. So they posture as tough. Smart politics maybe, but dumb diplomacy.

Whatever the reason, China is acting like Bluto, the big dumb lummox who was always trying to steal Popeye's goil Olive Oyl.

Well, in this modern tale, Oyl is oil and Popeye is the Philippines and America is the spinach that gives the Philippines the muscle to do what is necessary.

Like occupy its own islands and repel that lummox Bluto.

Occupy and defend.

Ken Follett might come up with something different, but that would be my strategy, acted out in concert with similar moves by Japan, and Taiwan, and South Korea, and Viet Nam and any other nation tired of being muscled around by Bluto.

The strategy would be labeled "The Year of the Hornet" and every habitable island within 200 nautical miles of Philippine shores would be occupied within one year, starting in November, right after the U.S. presidential election.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

The Foundations of Patriotism

One of the concepts I struggle to express is a clear description of the kind of sacrificial patriotism found in the United States that runs through the entire broad population, versus the pride-based (self-interested) patriotism in the Philippines. U.S. patriotism involves a willingness to give of oneself to help the nation. It seems to me the Philippines does not have the same passion to build a strong nation, or the discipline required to do it. I suppose there are reasons for that.

I want to take a shot at pegging why there is a difference. What are some fundamental differences between America and the Philippines as it pertains to the foundations of patriotism?

The Constitution

To be patriotic, you have to have a set of ideals. Something that inspires your passion.
  
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States were written by very smart people with historical perspective and a determination to avoid the punishments imposed on them by Great Britain. The punishments included autocrat governance, penalties (taxation) without representation, and religious persecution. The two documents lay out important ideals and the essential principles of law. The patriotic passion is found in all the opportunities represented by the idea of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that is the foundation for U.S. laws.

The Philippine Constitution was written by lawmakers who copied the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution but who had a bit of a deaf ear to the importance of brevity and profound meaning.  As a result, the Philippine Constitution is littered with detailed law rather than highlighting important principles. The wordy functionality of the Constitution doesn't grab citizens so they can passionately say, "Right on brother! I'll die for this". There is no "Declaration of Independence" that overlays the Constitution as a statement of passion. At least, not popularly so.

Furthermore, it seems that lawmakers would rather re-write or amend the Constitution with each change in administration or hiccup that occurs in the history-stream rather than commit to it as THE guiding law of the land. The ideals of nationhood are understood in the Philippines. But they are not crystallized in the Constitution. Edsa and Jose Rizal are more important symbols to Filipinos than the Constitution. The Philippines has had six constitutions since Rizal was executed.

The Philippines seems to be a nation missing an enduring ideal to rally around.

Obedience to Laws

The U.S. cherishes its courts. The courts are the place where politics is supposed to stay out, although it does occasionally sneak in like a thief in the night or germs on Your Honor's intellectual robes. The courts adhere to the notion that fast is fair, and fair is factual and built on a pile of case law that argues out the most infinite details of right and wrong in America. Courts earn their respect.

Courts in the Philippines are a mess. It can take years to get a case through and the facts are less important than the favors and cash that fly around between attorneys and judges and the plaintiff and defense. Case law is largely mushy if not downright irrelevant because rulings aren't built on legal principle.

In the Philippines, right and wrong are determined by what you can get away with. Not what is right, or wrong. So Filipinos aren't committed to obeying the laws. Therefore, the forests are clear-cut and the waters are overfished and voters have their hands out for the little spiffs that candidates dole out. And every gunslinger is a law unto himself. It's the Wild West in the East.

Intense self-interest is the opposite of the unity of values that is needed to form the bedrock of patriotism.

The Huddled Masses

Americans are immigrants, the huddled masses originally from Europe and then Latin America  and Africa and now Asia. You'll find Iranians and Jews living in harmony, Russians and Cubans alongside Cambodian monks, blacks and whites and yellows and reds and browns in a blazing quilt of colorful skin and cultural heritage. You can grab a burger, suck noodles, eat raw fish or nibble on falafel all within the same block.

The immigrants arrived to pursue the dream of opportunity, and damn, that's what they do.  No matter the racial or cultural heritage. They arrive and buy into the American dream of a FAIR SHOT. They work and innovate and produce and pursue a FAIR SHOT at growing wealthy, healthy and wise.

The Philippines is a bunch of natives who cross-pollinated with the occupying forces. Jose Rizal, the national hero, was part Japanese, Spanish, Malay, tribal native, Chinese, and stewpot. He was so mixed of racial heritage that he was Everyman and Noman at the same time.

Well, occupying forces have a different agenda than immigrants. Their agenda is to suppress and dominate, to rip out the heart of ingenuity and productivity and different ways of doing things, because it is a threat. It is a threat to the status quo.

Today the Philippines is locked in status quo. The modern occupiers are the oligarchs, the rich and powerful people who have a different idea of what patriotism is about than the immigrant sons and daughters of America. Their idea of patriotism is not to rock the boat of power and wealth that they and their families enjoy. The masses bow down and patriotism is called subsistence and doing what you are told. The overriding force is not to change. The Catholic Church is a major player in this well-cemented rooting in the tired old ways of doing things.

Where's the passion in that? The vigor and drive for wealth and success?

Warmongering

Americans don't really like war but the world is a contentious place. The U.S. is actually an ANTI-IMPERIALISTIC state, not an imperialistic state. She pursues hegemony, or an active pursuit of her self-interest, not land-grabbing or domination over other nations.

Because of her wealth and the productive energies and passions of her immigrant peoples, America is powerful at waging war. So she rides frequently to the rescue, or jams her guns and troops into nations that are viewed (sometimes erroneously) as troublesome. Americans rally around the troops, always. It doesn't matter the political party. War unifies like nothing else.

The Philippines gets battered by this power or that now and then because the nation does not have the wealth or the patriotic passion to pursue an international agenda. The Philippines is PAWN to the moves of the global power pushers of any given century. Spain, America, Japan, China. You can't rally around submission.

The Philippines does the best duck and cover drill on the planet because her citizens are tired of being  rebels and slaughtered. And poverty does not an army build. Or navy. Or air force.

The Philippine Constitutions outlaws war as a legitimate means for the State to defend Filipinos.  Article II, Section 2:

  • The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

It is hard to rally patriotically around peace when other nations do not play by the same rules.

What's Next?

America and the Philippines are today strategically aligned. The Philippines does not want foreign bases here (the Constitution bans them) and America does not need bases here. The Philippines does not want China sucking oil out of Philippine territory and the U.S. wants China to stop claiming Asian and Latin American resources as if China were some kind of privileged citizen of the planet. Like enough of the emotionally nationalistic China bully-boy routine, this snarling vampire sucking oil and gold and iron and rare metals from the planet's battered carcass. China's is a patriotism gone Hitleresque.

It seems to me that, for the Philippines to rise as a modern nation and as an important economic player in Asia, she needs to get her patriotic act together, where patriotism is founded on:

  • Passionate commitment to Constitutional  principles of freedom and opportunity.

  • Commitment to the unified Filipino community that comes from giving enough of oneself to obey laws.

  • Development of a patriotic conscience among the rich and powerful. Yes, and among the main religions.

  • Principled and firm advancing of self-interest in international affairs.

If it were me, I would want "war-making" re-inserted into the Constitution as a legitimate practice rather than rule it out. One can adhere to the preference for peace without stripping the nation of its right to defend itself with guns and bombs.

One final thought. You don't have to be rich to be patriotic, but you have to see a future rich with possibilities. Subsistence seldom looks forward. Poverty looks as far as the next meal.

  • Philippine patriotism will grow deeper if the nation can climb out of its relentless poverty.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The US of A

The U.S. is on the minds of many Filipinos these days. Not like in the hostile days of Nicole when it was figured that all Americans are sex mad rapists. Not like when the American military unnecessarily blasted Manila to rubble in WW II to drive out the rats and Japanese, at significant loss of Filipinos life. That was the MacArthur ego-fiesta, what a jerk. Not like in the Philippine American War when racist white Americans pulled every murderous dirty trick in the book to win the hearts and minds of Filipinos, by force. Not like in Mindanao where guessing is rampant about what Americans are REALLY doing there. Like maybe running drones and playing dirty in violation of the Constitution, seeking to annihilate those fine Filipinos who believe beheading of innocents is a proper way to impose a religious ideology.

No, the question is, will the U.S. be there for the Philippines?

I read a comment the other day that probably echoes the sentiment of many Filipinos. The writer said: "The U.S. is only out for its own interest". The point was that Filipinos can't depend on the U.S.

Excuse me, but that is about the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard.

Whose interest, exactly, should the U.S. put ahead of its own?

  • Philippine interests?

  • Russian interests?

  • Chinese interests?

That's the purpose of a nation. To put its own interests, and the interests of its citizens, first. To expect the U.S. to take care of the Philippines is that beggar mentality I was referring to the other day. Out of the graciousness of their hearts, Americans are supposed to pony up dollars and blood for their happy-go-lucky Filipino compadres? Why? Because of guilt that America was racist in 1898 and needs to do a make-good? Because the poor woeful Philippines needs it? Word association linkages: needs, needy, whiney, beggar, turnoff.
 
I will not bother to itemize ways the Philippines has not acted in U.S. interests. You know them. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The Philippines is entitled to sail its own ship.

But I rather think that now is a good time to step up, toss off the cloak of neediness in favor of a cloak of confidence, and recognize the U.S. is entitled to have interests of its own that may differ from Philippine interests and not blame Americans for every little pimple that appears on the Filipino national nose.

 "Okay, okay, Joe. Calm down, man. Put your patriotic passion back in its backpack and reason with us."

Yeah, yeah, okay.

U.S. Interests

If we use "U.S. national interest" as the fundamental guiding principle here, maybe we can figure out if the U.S. would back the Philippines. Let's do a quick scan of what we see:

  • China is aggressively seeking to acquire minerals around the world to support its massive manufacturing and wealth-building machine. It is doing this legally and forcefully, forcefully because China can act as a nation rather than a collection of corporate entities, like the U.S. China can subsidize and undercut any bidding from competitors.

  • The Spratleys and Scarborough Shoal are of high interest to China. They are "free" for the taking.

  • The trillions of dollars of "investments" China has made in the U.S. by buying U.S. debt is a two-edged sword. China can "play" the U.S. financial markets, and wreak havoc, but, at the end of the day, the value of its investment is only as good as U.S. financial strength. So China wants U.S. economic stability, because it supports Chinese stability. This is a starkly clear statement that China favors stability over disruption. Shooting at one another is extreme disruption.

  • Is China right now strong enough to force military confrontation with the U.S.? No. Not yet. China loses more than it gains in military confrontation with the U.S.  China loses the platform supporting its own wealth-building and strength-building.

  • Here's another signal. A disturbing one. China's drive to get to outer space has a strong military drive behind it. This is a nation that has not progressed to believe that China is better off in a cooperative global community. China has one foot in Maoist military arrogance and one foot in progressive capitalist ideas.

  • China's leadership is not unified. There are progressives and there are tyrants. China is pushing the edges right now because the current leadership is aggressive. But it is difficult to see how China would gain from a shooting conflict .

  • Chinese leaders are talented at leveraging ethnic Chinese pride and nationalism into a love/hate frenzy. It can spin to anger quickly and even reset what leaders do. There is a cultural emotionalism to China that makes a wrong play dangerous.

  • Perhaps China is pushing hard to claim the seas to establish a negotiating position against the U.S. It will give up the Spratleys and Scarborough for . . . what? U.S. pullback from Asia? Backing off from criticizing China's monetary policy? Something else significant?

The Number One U.S. interest is to encourage China to develop respect for other nations and  to become a cooperative and peaceful partner, even a leader, in the world community. But China is like an unruly pupil, a bully, wanting to dominate other nations. The military expansion being undertaken by China is almost warlike, never mind the rationalizations that China throws out. It is intense.

Furthermore, not only is China pushing into Asia, but China is also pushing into South America. The U.S. shudders to imagine a South America that is under China's influence as much as Asia is under U.S. influence. Consider strong U.S. commerce and/or military ties and influences in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. The U.S. can imagine a Chinese naval base in Venezuela, an Army base in Argentina.

How and where can China learn respect for other nations? Where is there a good place to put a halt to Chinese unilateral expansionism? To draw some lines, to put some limits on the bully? To work on diplomacy before the shooting, and not after. To continue to encourage China to join the global community of nations rather than stand apart.

Right here, right now, off the shores of the Philippines. And Viet Nam. And Taiwan. And Japan.

The Number Two U.S. Interest is to honor its contract to defend the Philippines. This does NOT mean the U.S. will act as the Philippine military proxy and put its warships into the Spratleys to chase out Chinese intruders. But it means the U.S. will talk the Philippines up as a nation warranting China's respect. And the U.S. will apply diplomatic pressure to keep China from being rash. And, should shooting start at China's initiative, the U.S. will shoot back.

A person can go nuts trying to draw alternative scenarios as to what can happen.

  • If the Philippines forces a military confrontation, say by trying to stop the Chinese coral raids going on now off Palawan, there will be a military face off. The U.S. will likely play it soft, diplomatically,  to get both contestants back into their respective corners. Chinese expansion will stop. That's good for the U.S. and Philippines.

  • If China shoots at Philippine boats, military or civilian, the U.S. is likely to move its own ships behind Philippine ships. China will stand down. That's good for the U.S. and Philippines.

  • If the Philippines starts drilling on islands or in areas China claims, China will forcefully put a stop to it. The U.S. will enter the fray (diplomatically) to calm both sides. The drilling will stop. Chinese expansion will stop. It's a good result for the U.S. but not the Philippines.

  • If China starts drilling on islands or in areas the Philippines claims and the Philippines takes action to stop it, the U.S. will add its voice to get the drilling stopped and the parties separated. The result is of  benefit to the U.S. and the Philippines.

  • If the Philippines does nothing, it will lose its rightful territory and resources because the U.S. has no cause to act. Chinese expansion will continue. It's bad plan for the Philippines. I would think even the U.S. would not like that plan.

Wrap-Up

It is hard to see how the Philippines can gain much because in the stopping of China (the primary U.S. interest), Philippine oil drilling also stops, at least for a time. However, the Philippines clearly LOSES if it does nothing and allows China to push out. And so does the U.S.

The U.S. will urge Asean to push forward on a code of conduct to allow open seas, ensure demilitarization of disputed zones, and promote negotiated settlements on commercial development. 

China will not accept the U.N. maritime rules put forward by the Philippines. The Philippines can try to secure U.N. endorsement of its 200 NM territorial boundaries without Chinese agreement, which at least isolates China. However, the U.N. is unlikely to rule on such a matter because of China's resistance.

 China is pushing. The U.S. is tap dancing until after the presidential election and developing strategy. The Philippines is fretting.

I personally believe it behooves the Philippines to act firmly. But that it is best to withhold from direct confrontation of China until after the U.S. presidential election.

The fundamental guideline is to imagine the seas within 200 NM as land. Would the Philippines allow China to put military troops on its shores?

If Chinese military ships entered the picture, my message to China would be clear: you are using force to occupy Philippine territory and we will use every means at our disposal to get your fighting ships out of Philippine seas. Use the "occupation" word liberally. It is about as offensive as you can get without firing a gun.

And I'd stop Chinese fishermen from ripping up the coral. That is extraordinarily offensive and the entire civilized world would back the Philippines on that. Replicate the stand-off over Scarborough Shoals but don't allow the affront to continue.

In other words, the Philippines should push back. 

U.S. and Philippine interests are fundamentally the same. Both lose if Chinese aggressive expansion is not stopped.

Roles: China = crook, Philippines = bad cop, U.S. = good cop.

The only way the Philippines could be the good cop would be if it slipped back into a beggar role that asks America to represent its military interests. The U.S. won't do that because it would cross with their number one aim, to bring China into the global community of nations as a cooperative participant.

The Philippines must stand tall. No choice. It can play its bad cop role better if it upgrades its military tools. You know, learns to swear and knock the crook upside the head.

Mr. Aquino is doing fine as far as I can tell. I'd only suggest he use the "occupation" word so that the Chinese understand how offensive their military incursions are.