‘Whatever Xi wants, Xi gets’

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

Some call it “debt-trap diplomacy.’’ Some call it “debt-book diplomacy.” But it doesn’t sound diplomatic at all. The key word here is “debt.” And in most cases, when the debtor fails to repay the loan, it leads the lender to take over the collateral.

Take the case of the much-publicized Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka. It started with China using “soft-power diplomacy” to attract Sri Lanka into doing business with her. Once Sri Lanka agreed to develop the Hambantota Port, the next phase kicked in, which was “debt-trap diplomacy.”

China uses “debt-trap diplomacy” to lure poorer countries by offering “cheap loans” for infrastructure projects. It involves certain conditions that greatly favor Chinese banks, to wit: no bidding process, project to be done by one of China’s state-owned companies, the workers to be Chinese nationals, cost overruns to be renegotiated (that usually ends in higher interest rates), and others including asset-based lending practices.

When these countries are unable to keep up with their repayments, China can then play “hardball diplomacy,” which is to demand economic or political concessions in exchange for debt relief. This was what happened when Sri Lanka failed to repay her $13-billion debt to a Chinese state-owned bank. Sri Lanka was forced to lease the port and 15,000 acres of land around it for a period of 99 years. For that, China gave Sri Lanka $1.12 billion in debt relief, which was the original cost of the Hambantota project. Hardly equitable, is it?

China’s playbook

Not surprisingly, the Hambantota project ran into big problems including cost overrun and delays. And each time the cost increased, a new loan was renegotiated ending in higher interest rates. There is no open bidding. China chooses one of her state-owned companies to do the work including the hiring of Chinese workers exclusively. That’s exactly what’s in China’s playbook.

Now, with a 99-year lease on the port and 15,000 acres of land surrounding the port to be used purportedly for industrial use, what is the likelihood that China would eventually build a military base on that land? Although Sri Lankan officials said that the agreement clearly rules out China’s military use of the site, Sri Lanka’s huge debt could be used to dangle a debt relief. With the current debt hovering over $45 billion and growing, Sri Lanka doesn’t have too much of a choice, does she? And it is at this point that China switches strategy again. It’s time for “hardball diplomacy,” which basically translates to “Either you agree or else…”

Predatory lending

In the case of the Philippines, she got past the “soft-power diplomacy” easily last November when Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Rodrigo Duterte signed 29 agreements in Manila.

Not long after the agreements had been signed, the Chinese Foreign Ministry held a press briefing in to give the just concluded “soft-power diplomacy” a glossy veneer of lacquer. “China’s loans only account for a very limited share of the Philippines' foreign debts. It's impossible for the Philippines to fall into the so-called ‘debt trap’ due to these loans," Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang said in a press briefing in Beijing. One reason why China addressed “debt trap diplomacy” was to counter allegations that Chinese lending is “predatory,” designed to attract countries into a “debt trap.”

But regardless of the sad experiences of those countries who fell into China’s “debt trap,” there is an aura of optimism among Philippine government officials. Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno said the country would not fall into a debt trap with China in reaction to US Vice President Michael Pence’s warning that China's loans to poorer nations came with strings attached and could build up staggering debt. Diokno also said that the Philippines only has 49% Debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio, which indicates the country has the ability to pay its debts. The Philippine government debt stands at around $140 billion today. But borrowing is at $800 million a month or $9.6 billion a year. The total debt service was 12.61% in 2016 (the latest data available).

“Pay, Pay, Pay”

Duterte’s “Build, Build, Build” program has identified 75 proposed infrastructure projects at an aggregate cost of $180 billion. But because of China’s predatory lending practices -- Chinese loans are 1,100% more expensive than ones from Japan -- it could plunge the debtor into perpetual indebtedness.

The cost could easily skyrocket if the project incurs cost overruns due to delays, errors, and construction changes that could easily increase interest rates, just like what happened to Sri Lanka and Djibouti. While Debt-to-GDP ratio is only 49% today, Duterte’s “Build, Build, Build” Project could end up in a “Pay, Pay, Pay” situation.

An American report by Harvard University researchers identifies 16 states vulnerable to China's so-called "debt-book diplomacy" and economic coercion, including Vanuatu, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tonga and Micronesia. Indeed, “Chinese loans worth hundreds of billions of dollars are saddling Australia’s smaller regional neighbors,” the report said. In fact, there were reports that China was moving to create a military base in Vanatu, which sparked panic in nearby Australia. If China succeeds in creating a military base in Vanatu, she’d be able to project power in the entire South Pacific all the way to Hawaii.

IBON warnings

Recently, the Philippine-based non-profit IBON Foundation warned: “The Duterte administration has been easing the way for China’s interests in the disputed waters in its eagerness to raise billions of pesos for its ‘hyped’ infrastructure program.” IBON is also concerned with the government’s “willingness to give up its territorial resources in the South China Sea to secure China investments and loans, including efforts to be part of China’s One ‘Belt, One Road’ (OBOR) Initiative which supposedly gives access to coveted infrastructure investments.”

IBON also warned of another lopsided condition in Chinese loans, which is a requirement that the agreement as well as the rights and obligations of both parties be put beyond the scope of Philippine laws and transparency in the public domain.

IBON also warned that China’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) has been known to stipulate the collateralization of resources and state assets should a country default on its loan payments. As former Congressman Ruffy Biason said, “Protection and preservation of national interest compels us to reject the Chinese concept of using natural resources as loan collateral. It’s obvious that this is their mode of territorial expansion, as experienced by countries who fell into the Chinese debt trap.”

Caveat: “The current administration is surrendering sovereign immunity in connection with any loan obligations-related arbitration, is committing to follow China’s laws [not the Philippines’ laws]. It also agrees to subject disputes to the decision of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).” 

And this begs the question: In the event that the project goes to arbitration, does anyone think that CIETAC would rule in favor of the Philippines? As they say in boxing: “Beware of hometown decisions.”

What China has been doing is “economic imperialism” and she’s been very successful in achieving it without going to war. However, if she encounters resistance, she can then apply “hardball diplomacy” and use all her resources including military to achieve what she wants. Indeed, whatever Xi wants, Xi gets.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Is Trump a threat to national security?

Kaleidoscope
By Perry Diaz

When I read what Vice President Mike Pence said on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I felt a visceral outrage at his callous attempt to compare President Donald Trump to the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “Honestly, you know, the hearts and minds of the American people today are thinking a lot about it being the weekend we are remembering the life and the work of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.,” Pence said. He added, “One of my favorite quotes from Dr. King was, ‘Now is the time to make real the promises of Democracy.’ You think of how he changed America, he inspired us to change through the legislative process, to become a more perfect union. That’s exactly what President Trump is calling on the Congress to do, come to the table in a spirit of good faith.” Whoa! There is a big difference between King and Trump. King died trying to unite the country from her policies of racial inequality. And Trump is dividing the country by promoting hatred among her people; thus, weakening the social fabric that has kept the country together -- strong and stable. Trump made it clear: he doesn’t want America to be what she is today. He wants to isolate her from the rest of the world. But isolationism is not the way to greatness; it is the way to mediocrity.

Secession

Indeed, in the past two years of Trump’s divisive presidency, several states are thinking of leaving the Union. In California, the “Calexit” movement has been growing. If the backers of the Calexit measure get enough signatures to qualify, it would result in a special election in 2021. However, a poll in 2017 showed that Californians oppose independence by more than 2-to-1. But that translates to about 11 million in favor of secession, which is substantial.

There are movements in other states as well. Texas wants to secede and become independent. Minnesota’s government – in what is being referred to as “Minnexit” – announced the state’s intention to secede from the U.S. and join Canada. Governor Mark Dayton said that the result of a recent survey show that the majority are disgruntled with Trump’s policies and values.

In the case of the territory of Puerto Rico, her people have always been pro-American. As a matter of fact, each time statehood is placed on the ballot, a vast majority voted for statehood. In a status referendum in 2012, only 5.5% voted for independence while 61.11% voted for statehood. In the state referenda of 1967, 1993, and 1998, less than 4.5% voted for independence.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017, San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz criticized Trump as “insensitive” and “disrespectful” for Trump’s remarks that he does not support the idea of recognizing Puerto Rico as a US state because the mayor was “incompetent.” This is typical of Trump who always places personal feelings above policy.

On the day before Hurricane Maria’s one-year anniversary, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló – despite Trump’s slowness in responding to Hurricane Maria -- sent a letter to Trump, asking him to abolish America’s “territorial-colonialism” of Puerto Rico once in for all, and allow Puerto Rico to become the 51st state.

But the U.S. Congress had in the past disregarded Puerto Rico’s request for statehood. One theory that was being talked about was that the Republicans were not in favor because most Puerto Ricans were Democrats, thus giving them additional seats in the House and two in the Senate. Would it be suffice to say that if the US Congress continually rejects Puerto Rico statehood, the pro-independence movement would eventually grow?

Government shutdown

Today, Trump is facing the biggest challenge to his presidency. Now, more than 30 days since he partially shut down the federal government, there is no end in sight to the longest shutdown in US government history.

Obsessed with building a wall along the US-Mexico border, Trump threatened to shut down the government if the Democrats – now the majority in the House of Representatives – wouldn’t give him $5.7 billion to build a wall on a 234-mile section of the almost 2,000-mile long border. He then invited the congressional leaders to a meeting at the White House Situation Room. At the meeting, Trump offered to open the government provided that the Democrats would fund his wall within 30 days. Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a “No.” Trump threw a tantrum, pounded the table and stormed out of the room. In a press briefing after Trump walked out, Pelosi accused Trump of holding the federal employees hostage to get his wall.

A few days ago, Trump invited a few Republican Senate leaders and his son-in-law Jared Kushner to fashion a proposal to end the shutdown. In their proposal -- called the BRIDGE Act -- they offered a three-year extension of protection for the DACA “dreamers” and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for immigrants from some Latin American and African nations in exchange for $5.7 billion for the wall. The Democrats immediately responded, calling it a “non-starter.” Right-wing conservatives called it “amnesty.” The bipartisan opposition – for different reasons -- to Trump’s proposal, which Democrats call it a “ransom note” for the 800,000 federal employees being held “hostage,” is doomed.

What’s the wall all about?

With the border wall issue in limbo and the government is shut down indefinitely, it puts the country’s security at risk. Yet Trump continues his demand for his “wall” come hell or high water, which begs the question: What is the wall all about?

Of the almost 2,000-mile border, 690 miles are already fenced. According to the Federation for American Immigration, only 403 miles of fencing is intended to keep pedestrians out, while the rest just keeps vehicles out. For 36 miles, there is a second tier of pedestrian fencing. And for 14 miles, there are three layers of fencing. Last October 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unveiled the 2.5-mile-long, 30-foot-tall steel slatted barrier in Calexico, California; dubbing it the first completed “border wall project,” despite the fact that it just replaced existing fencing. That still leaves more than half of the almost 2,000-mile border uncovered, and there are gaps and dilapidated fencing in the barriers that are in place. The fight that has shut down the government is basically about 234 miles of new border wall that President Trump wants, according to the Trump administration's latest request. [Source: Axios, “What the fight over Trump's border wall is really about,” 1/17/19]

It’s interesting to note that Trump originally asked for $25 billion for his wall. Then he lowered it to $18 billion and then to $5 billion. Then Vice President met with Democratic leaders and offered $2.5 billion. Wow! Does Trump really know how much he wants for his wall? Did he commission engineers to design and draw up construction plans for the 234-mile wall? Or did a White House aide do all the estimating from a high $25 billion to a low of $2.5 billion? Hmm…

When Trump visited the border last week, he was told that the prototype of the “beautiful” steel slat barrier that he plans to build along the US-Mexico border could be cut with a saw. It must have embarrassed him. But he said it was Obama’s wall. But the truth is it was built in 2017 during Trump’s first year in office. It was a prototype that he selected himself. And he wants to spend $5 billion to build a penetrable wall? As Speaker Nancy Pelosi had said: there are better and more cost effective ways to protect the border. But to Trump, it all comes down to a promise he made during the 2016 campaign, which was to build a wall that Mexico would pay for. But Mexico already said that they aren’t going to pay for the wall, which effectively broke his campaign promise. He’s like a wounded bull in a bullfight -- he gets angrier and attacks until the matador delivers the coup de grace.

Conservative political columnist Ann Coulter, who has clashed with Trump over the wall in the past, told The Daily Caller that without the wall, the linchpin of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump will “just have been a joke presidency who scammed the American people, amused the populist for a while, but he’ll have no legacy whatsoever.”

Does it seem then that Trump is indeed dividing the country and weakening the country’s security? If so, is he a threat to national security?

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Colonialism from within

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz 

 

When Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the island of Homonhon in Samar on the feast day of Saint Lazarus of Bethany in 1521, he named the group of islands Las Islas de San Lazaro in honor of Saint Lazarus. Twenty-two years later in 1543, Ruy Lopez de Villalobos reached the same islands and named them Las Islas Felipinas in honor of the Prince of Asturias, the then Philip II of Spain.

But Spanish colonization didn’t start until 1565 when Miguel Lopez de Legazpi became the first Governor General of the Spanish East Indies, which included Las Islas Felipinas (The Philippine Islands) and other Pacific islands. In 1571, Legazpi named Manila the capital of the Spanish East Indies.

To populate the Philippine Islands with Hispanic people, he attracted them from Nueva Espana (New Spain), which is now Mexico, by giving them land ownership. Most of them came without families. Needless to say, these single men intermarried with native women.

In my article, “The Landed and the Landless” (October 21, 2005), I wrote: “Land ownership, the Filipinos’ ultimate dream, has been the exclusive domain of the rich. Truly, ‘land ownership’ separates the rich from the poor — the landed from landless.

“Land ownership for the rich has its beginning when Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, upon colonizing the Philippines, instituted the Encomienda system. He divided the archipelago into large parcels and assigned each parcel to a favored Spaniard for administration and care. Encomienda, which means ‘to entrust,’ was adopted in Spain to reduce the abuses of forced labor.. It was implemented in Spanish America and the Philippines to take care of the economic and spiritual welfare of the natives. However, its benevolent purpose was circumvented and abused by the Spanish grantees — the ‘encomenderos.’ They collected tribute from the natives. Pretty soon the tribute became rents to powerful landlords and the natives became share tenants. In the end, the natives became virtual slaves of the encomenderos. In 1674, the Spanish Crown abolished the Encomienda system in all of its colonies. However, for more than 100 years after its abolition, it remained in effect in the Philippines.

“The Encomienda system evolved into the Hacienda system. Land grants were given to the ‘hacenderos’ – ‘Filipinos’ (pure Spanish), ‘mestizos’ (mixed Spanish and native ‘indio’), and the favored families (the ‘indio’ elite). The hacenderos expanded their influence in all sectors of the economy. They became the political masters, second only to the Spanish masters.

“When Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States at the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the Americans were precluded from touching the Friar lands because the treaty bound the US to protect the land owned by religious orders. When Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo established the first republic in 1899, he promised to confiscate large estates particularly the Friar lands. But that did not materialize because he spent his time fighting the Americans until he was captured and forced to pledge allegiance to the new masters.

“During the commonwealth period under American colonial rule, the Rural Program Administration, created in March 1939, provided for the purchase and lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to tenants. However, the tenants were so poor, they simply could not buy the land they were farming.

“When the Philippines gained its independence from the United States in 1946, the hacenderos had complete control of the economy. They also became the political masters of the new republic. They constituted the new aristocracy and the oligarchy, all bundled into an exclusive class.

“The new Philippine government grappled with the problems of land ownership. Numerous agrarian reforms were instituted. During the presidency of Ramon Magsaysay, former HUK dissidents and landless farmers were resettled and given land ownership. His untimely death stopped the program.”

Communist insurgency

Today, Philippine society is still divided between the landed and the landless. Large segments of the rural population are still poor and landless. They work for the landed – the hacenderos. But many of them look up to the insurgents for deliverance.

It did not then come as a surprise that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military wing, the New Peoples’ Army (NPA) thrive because of their toehold in the rural areas where dissidence is common and unemployment high. They have been successful in attracting young men and women into the ranks of insurgents that have been at war with the government since the Philippines gained independence in 1946. In fact, they’re the only communist insurgency that exists in the world today.

Recently, President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 70, which ordered the creation of a national task force that would seek to “end local communist armed conflict.” The EO reads, “There is a need to create a national task force that will provide an efficient mechanism and structure for the implementation of the whole-of-nation approach to aid in the realization of the collective aspiration of the Filipino people to attain inclusive and sustainable peace. Towards this end, the Government shall prioritize and harmonize the delivery of basic services and social development packages in conflict-affected areas and -vulnerable communities, facilitate societal inclusivity, and ensure active participation of all sectors of society in the pursuit of the country’s peace agenda.” The President shall chair the task force, while the National Security Adviser shall serve as vice-chair.

While it’s commendable that Duterte has finally focused on ending the communist insurgency that has been taking a high toll on the social and economic agenda of the government, this author believes that there is one element missing in this “whole-of-nation” approach to achieve peace and prosperity.

Social Justice

It’s interesting to note that what made the then Secretary of Defense Magsaysay successful in breaking the back of the Huk communist movement was his “Land for the landless” program, which by the way, was “borrowed” from the Huks’ own slogan, “Land for the Landless.” For each insurgent who surrendered his weapon, the government gave him a carabao, a plow, and several hectares of arable land in Mindanao. Within two years, the communist insurgency was defeated. The anti-Huk campaign propelled Magsaysay to national fame. In 1953 he ran for president against his former boss, President Elpidio Quirino, and won with the support of 68.9% of the voters.

The social problem that Legazpi imposed on the “indios” in 1571 still exists today -- two classes of people – the landed and the landless, the rich and the poor. The Philippines is still a rural and agricultural society. And this situation provides a climate for dissatisfaction and resentment against the ruling elite. And that’s the reason why the country is still fighting an insurgency that seeks social justice, which by the way, was enshrined in the Constitution.

But the old colonialism is no longer around. It’s the present-day colonialism from within that hinders our progress. Indeed, the elite today are the new encomenderos.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Children Victims of a Globalized World Economy

Reflections
By Fr. Shay Cullen
PREDA Foundation, Inc.

The Philippines is a country with some of the greatest inequality. There are 16 million Filipinos who suffer serious poverty out of population of 107 million. Six million live in extreme poverty. They suffer the burning heat of summer and the downpours and floods of the rainy season in hovels made of plastic sheeting, scrap wood and rusty metal sheets. They eat only a meager one meal a day and seldom high protein fish and meat scraps. Most are uneducated, jobless and have low access to health care.

The children are the worst-affected. They suffer from bad food resulting into stunted growth and learning disabilities and live in a negative dysfunctional family. Here, harsh words and rejection, hard work and abuse is the norm. They witness violence and sexual activity from an early age. They are the abandoned throwaway children and families of the Philippines and the poor everywhere.

They eat less low-quality rice and a pinch of salt, a spoon of vegetables and seldom meat, if ever. The urban poor eat recycled leftovers from uneaten dinners from restaurants called “pagpag.” Their life is harsh, crude, rough and hopeless. Year after year, more children are born into dire poverty.

Government, which is supposedly there to uplift the lives of the poor and create a more equal society, has conducted a war-on-drugs policy killing as many as 22,360, according to the Philippine Daily Inquirer since May 2016.

The children take to the streets to survive, to escape beatings, broken homes, hunger and survive by joining street gangs, sniffing industrial glue to block the pain of living without love, care, education and enduring a life of misery without a future. They are mostly innocent children aged from ten to 15 years old and while not criminally liable for misdemeanors are nevertheless arrested for being homeless street children. They are jailed illegally and suffer beatings and “slavery” to other older inmates, sexual abuse and life in an empty cell. Children commit only two percent of all crimes in the Philippines.

Their alleged survival strategies- petty theft and drug use, are not crimes but an unconscious response to live and they endure injustice, greed and selfishness of society that condemns them as criminals and does little to change their dire situation. They are the first line victims of a Philippine economy dominated by a tiny rich elite where an estimated some .00001 percent own as much as 70 percent of the national wealth. They are part of a globalized world economy that creates dire poverty for hundreds of millions.

The wealthy politicians are mostly members of the economic elite, the ruling dynasties and they buy their way to government positions of power to protect the wealth of the .00001 percent of the Philippine super rich. They pass laws to benefit themselves and their rich supporters with lower taxes and low level of regulation so their corporations and multinational partners can more or less do what they want to save money like disregarding environmental protections laws.

The inequality grows greater with the globalization of the world economy. Corporations are moving production to poorer countries that allow the lowest wages and overhead costs. They frequently have sweetheart deals with politicians and pay bribes to get ahead with illegal transactions. This is a simple statement but holds much truth. The rule of the rich, through dynastic families keeps the poor very poor, uneducated, jobless, and ready to sell their votes for a trifle and reelect their oppressor.

It allows the global corporations to exploit natural resources and earn vast profits and this concentrates the wealth throughout the world in the hands, pockets, and bank accounts of very few people. They are known as the 1 percent of a world rich population. So while a few are very rich, many hundreds of millions of people are very poor, hungry, unemployed or earning starvation wages.

It is now a proven fact that 1 percent or less of the world’s population owns, controls and enjoys more than half of the entire wealth on the planet. According to Credit Swiss bank, the wealthiest 1 percent of humans grew richer by 6 percent since 2012 and now own as much as US$ 280 trillion.

According to Oxfam research, the inequality is getting much worse. It is revealed that 82 percent of all the wealth created in the past 12 months (2018) went to the 1 percent of the world’s population amounting to few million people. Whereas, 3.7 billion impoverished people who make up the poorest half of humanity got nothing. They live in dire poverty, struggling to survive and stay alive. That’s the greatest inequality the world has ever known. Greed and selfishness is king.

The most equal countries in the world starts with Iceland, a very small country with a vocal and vibrant democracy that tolerates no corruption. It is followed by the Scandinavian countries- Norway, Denmark, Finland, Slovenia and then Austria and Sweden. The Philippines is among the most corrupt, according to Transparency International and among the greatest unequal countries of all where thousands of children marked as criminals are jailed.

www.preda.org

Filipinos thrive on the right environment

AS THE BAMBOOS SWAY
By RUDY D. LIPORADA
www.nordis.net

According to a lifted post on Facebook posted by my columnist friend, Zena Sultana Babao, Filipinos are a world class people. “According to a CNN report, Filipinos are now the second highest earning ethnic group in the USA (Indians are #1, Caucasians are #6). We are one of the ethnic groups least likely to go on welfare, we have one of the lowest crime rates and our children are attending the best schools and colleges. Given the right environment, we thrive and blossom. We have now become the emerging elite of America because we dream big, work hard, pray more and sacrifice more for family and kin back home who are in need.”

Given its colonial ties and current relationships with America, there are 3.5 million Filipinos in the United States. Moreover, according to a Population Review, “In addition to the over 100 million Filipinos living in the Philippines itself, there are estimated to be around 10.2 million Filipino people living abroad. Many have moved abroad temporarily to find work, but others have settled abroad permanently. There are also large Filipino populations in the Middle East (1 million in Saudi Arabia, 822,000 in the United Arab Emirates and 204,000 in Qatar), Malaysia (793,000), Japan (182,000) and Australia (397,000.). Interestingly, only about 42,000 Filipinos live in Spain, the Philippines’ old imperial master.” One would assume that those who choose to stay abroad, do for they thrive and blossom there, too.

Given this Filipino DNA class in the United States and other countries, the question is why is it that out of the 107.5 million Filipinos, the National Statics Coordination Board (NSCB) reported in 2012 that one third or 30% of Filipinos are extremely below the poverty line, subsisting barely on $1.25 a day. Where there is a classification of Class A, or upper class, or the 1%, then Class B, or middle class, then Class C, or urban poor, poor, or low wage earners, the NSCB further reports that those in the B and C classes “In order for a family of five to escape the label of “extremely poor” in 2006, they would have had to earn P1,681 ($39.09) a month. In 2009, they needed to bring home P2,042 ($47.49). By the 2012 survey, those income requirements more than doubled. The most recent NSCB report shows that families must earn P5,458 ($126.93) a month to put food on the table every day. If they want to meet non-food needs, such as clothing, they would have to earn P7,821 ($181.89).”

What should be more perplexing is the fact that the Philippines is endowed with natural resources. Amado Guerrero, in his book, Philippine Society and Revolution, says that the Philippine “mountains, many of which are volcanic, the extensive river systems and the tropical climate endow the Philippines with extremely fertile agricultural lands suitable for wide variety of crops for food and industrial use. It has vast forest, mineral, marine and power resources. Its forests cover a little over one-third of the land. Its mineral resources include iron, gold, copper, nickel, oil, coal, chrome and many others. Its principal rivers can be controlled to irrigate fields continuously and also to provide electricity to every part of the county. It has rich inland and sea fishing grounds. Numerous fine harbors and landlocked straits are available for buildings up the maritime industry.” Guerrero then concludes “If the natural wealth of the Philippines were to be tapped and developed by the Filipino people themselves for their own benefit, it should be more than enough to sustain a population several times bigger than the present one.”

It is not really perplexing when we consider that the majority of the Philippines could not take advantage of these resources, the “right environment,” where Filipinos could “thrive and blossom” because of the one percent of the population. This Class A one percent, mostly feudal lords, control the government in cahoots with foreigners who plunder the resources which should be the “right environment for the majority of Filipinos. American imperialists for example rule the mines. Now China controls the Philippines Seas and even the West Pacific Seas making Filipinos even import fish now when all islands are surrounded by salt water. For an agricultural country, Filipinos now even import rice because those in control of the lands even rent out their fields for cash crops that benefit foreign investments. Mining results to deforestation which destroys the ecosystems of the country resulting in severe flooding and erosions that have snuffed lives.

And because this kind of system where the feudal lords and foreigners benefit, they keep the Philippines in an agricultural feudal system and foreign controlled status. Industrialization is thus discouraged resulting in massive unemployment and underemployment with corollary low wages. This resulted to brain and brawn drain where Filipinos who have the chance go abroad where they are “given the right environment” to “thrive and blossom.”

Yes, there are a few like Senator Manny ‘Pacman’ Pacquiao who thrived and blossomed in his kind of environment but how many boxers went mentally deranged, physically disabled, and the like trying to be like him? And yes, while the majority are proud that the Miss Philippines Catriona Gray was crowned Miss Universe, becoming the fourth Philippine native to win the crown, how many of the Filipinos lives were uplifted by this? And since Gloria Diaz, the Pinakamagandang Hayop sa Balat ng Lupa first Filipina Miss Universe, how many of the majority Filipinos have been awakened from being lulled by telenovelas and other fantasies allowed by the government for Filipinos to be unaware of their thriving and blossoming in the right environment?

Clearly, for the Filipinos to be aware of their resources that should benefit them, they should be aware of the situation they are in and create the right environment for them to thrive and blossom. My friend said start with “Get rid of the dictators first.” They are part of the current environment which is not “right” for thriving and blossoming of the majority of Filipinos.

Then, maybe the Filipinos could be world class people, not only the USA but in their own Motherland.

Is Pax Americana coming to an end?

Kaleidoscope
By Perry Diaz

For two centuries, the British Empire was the most powerful empire in the world. She had dominion that stretched all over the world. As someone once said, “The sun never set on the British Empire.” At the height of her colonial power, the British Empire comprised of 57 colonies, dominions, territories and protectorates, from Australia, Canada and India to Fiji, Western Samoa and Tonga. She ruled about 20% of the world’s population and about 25% of the world’s landmass. It was the era of Pax Britannica.

But after World War II, the British Empire began to lose her imperial might. She started losing her territories due in large part to the “independence fever” that had been spreading all over the world. Today, except for 14 scattered islands across the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the once powerful British Empire is now known as the United Kingdom, a union between England and Scotland that has endured for 311 years.

Worldwide nationalism surged beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, a loss that reduced the British Empire’s colonial foothold. Financially drained by the two world wars, she could no longer afford to wage regional wars during the Cold War.

East of Suez

Suez Canal.

In July 1956, the British left the Suez Canal. Within weeks, Egyptian strongman Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser abruptly nationalized the Suez Canal Company. In October, after a series of negotiations with the British Empire failed, British, French, and Israeli troops invaded the Canal Zone, purportedly to protect the freedom of navigation on the canal. U.S. President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower was enraged for not being consulted. He asked the U.N. to impose a ceasefire.

The United Kingdom suffered a financial setback in the aftermath of the Suez Canal crisis. She asked the U.S. for financial support amounting to $1 billion. Ike’s answer was: No ceasefire, no loan. The invaders left and the U.N. sent a peacekeeping force.

In 1968, the U.K. decided to close a string of military bases in the Persian Gulf, which served as the linchpin of the British Empire for more than a century. By 1971, she withdrew from Southeast Asia including the major bases in Malaysia and Singapore, which were the largest and most expensive component of the country’s world‐wide role. That ended the British Empire.

Pax Americana

Pax Americana

The U.S. immediately replaced the U.K. as the main stabilizing power in the West. The free world turned to the U.S. as their “protector” against the Soviet Union’s aggressive advances.

The Cold War that began in the 1950s went on for three decades until 1989 when the Soviet Empire began to crack. Another round of “independence fever” spread, this time throughout the Soviet Empire. One by one, the Eastern Europeans under the aegis of the Soviet Empire declared their independence and overthrew their communist dictators.

On December 25, 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. Mikhail Gorbachev resigned his post as president of the Soviet Union. Fifteen republics within the Soviet Union declared their independence as well and ousted their communist rulers.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Cold War ended. America became the sole superpower of the world. Peace at last. Thus, began Pax Americana – the American Peace. As a result, the U.S. became the world’s policeman. Except for some regional and scattered civil wars, peace was maintained throughout the world under the leadership of the U.S.

The rise of Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals.

In May 2000, former KGB officer Vladimir Putin became President of the Russian Federation that was born from the ashes of the Soviet Union. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, one of the republics within the former Soviet Union that declared her independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union began to fall apart. The Russo-Georgian War lasted five days after the European Union brokered a ceasefire. But Russia didn’t leave Georgia. Instead she illegally occupied two regions of Georgia in violation of the ceasefire agreement. She is still there today.

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution in 2014 that toppled the pro-Russian government, Russia sent troops with no insignias to help the pro-Russian Eastern Ukrainian rebels who wouldn’t accept the outcome of the revolution. They wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. A civil war ensued. Russia then intervened in Crimea by sending troops with no insignias to foment divisions. Crimea, upon the insistence of Russia, then held a questionable referendum to decide whether to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The result of the referendum favored the secessionists. Eventually, Russia annexed Crimea. Russia also threatened to invade Eastern Europe to bring back her lost republics, the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The problem is: the Baltic States are now members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which made Putin think twice.

The rise of Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump.

Then came Donald Trump. Without any political experience, Trump ran for U.S. president in 2016. He won the election; thus, began one of the most – if not the most – tumultuous presidencies in the history of the U.S. Besieged with scandals and allegations of colluding with Russia to win the election, Trump’s controversial leadership style and policies cost him 40 Republican congressional seats in the 2018 midterm elections. And impeachment looms in the incoming Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. He is also besieged with 17 investigations into his personal businesses and allegations of collusion with Russia, corruption, and other wrongdoings.

Last December, a series of unexpected events threw the Trump administration into chaos. First, the stock markets plunged. The DOW Jones plummeted 1,000 in one day, the worst since the Great Depression. Secondly, Defense Secretary James Mattis abruptly resigned over Trump’s hasty decision to withdraw troops from Syria. Trump was also considering withdrawing half of the troops in Afghanistan. And thirdly, Trump shut down the government over Congress’s refusal to give him the $5 billion he demanded to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.

While America’s allies were critical over Trump’s Syria withdrawal, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Iranian leadership were supportive of the withdrawal of the 2,600 American troops in Syria. “Donald’s right, and I agree with him,” Putin said, adding that Trump had made the correct decision to pull U.S. troops from the war-torn Middle Eastern country because the Syrian government never invited them to be there.

Déjà vu all over again

Foreign Ministers Zarif of Iran, Lavrov of Russia, and Cavusoglu of turkey.

What’s happening in Syria has an eerie resemblance to what happened after the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 when the British moved out of “East of Suez.” It signaled the end of the British Empire and the emergence of America as a superpower. Indeed, it’s déjà vu all over again — America withdrawing from Syria and Russia moving in to fill the power vacuum.

In a surprise trip the day after Christmas, Trump visited U.S. troops at the Al Asad airbase in Iraq. Upon arrival, Trump made some remarks to reporters. He defended his decision to withdraw American forces from Syria that was part of an international coalition fighting the Islamic State (IS) terrorists. “The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world,” Trump said. “We’ve knocked them [IS] out. We’ve knocked them silly.” But that’s farthest from the truth. According to military sources, there are at least 30,000 IS fighters in Syria that are expected to grow once the U.S. moved out of Syria. Why leave now when the IS are almost wiped out?

No sooner had Trump left Iraq for home than Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Reuters that he would probably meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the U.S. withdrawal from Syria. That’s interesting because it was Erdogan who encouraged Trump in a telephone conversation to withdraw from Syria and leave everything to him to “deal a harsh blow against the IS.”

Prior to Trump’s withdrawal announcement, Russia, Turkey, and Iran had appointed themselves as “guarantors of the Syrian peace process,” which makes one wonder: Was Trump aware of what these three powerful countries were up to? Why was the U.S. excluded from this group of self-appointing guarantors? And did Turkish President Erdogan trick Trump into agreeing in their telephone conversation to withdraw from Syria?

When Trump was in Iraq, he told the troops: “We’re not the suckers of the world, folks.” I believe that the U.S. wouldn’t have become the sole superpower without mutually benefitting from one another with her allies, which begs the question: Doesn’t Trump realize that the leaders of Russia, Turkey, and Iran might have been playing him for a sucker?

At the end of the day, one wonders: Is Pax Americana coming to an end?

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

What is Gloria’s game plan?

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

After a  controversial presidential term that lasted almost 10 years, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo decided to run for Congress in 2010 as soon as she stepped down from the presidency. She was elected to three terms representing her congressional district. And just like the coup in 2001 where she ousted then president Joseph Estrada, she staged a coup that ousted Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez last July. She was installed Speaker, which would end when she is termed out in June 2019. She’s not running for a Senate seat in 2019. And I doubt if she’s going to retire yet. So, what’s in her mind?

In my column, “Philippine politics at a crossroads” (August 10, 2018), I said: “A few months ago, Duterte appointed a Consultative Committee to draft a new federal constitution. While it is not yet in final form, it will divide the country into 18 federated regions. However, the national government, except for some changes, will remain in its present structure, which is somewhat similar to that of the United States. Region is to the Philippines what State is to the U.S.

The Executive Department will have a president and vice-president elected as a team. The Legislative Department will retain the current structure with a Senate and House of Representatives. Senators will be elected per region, two from each region; a throwback to the 1935 Constitution in which 24 senators are elected at large.”

Further, I said: “If federalism fails to win in the referendum, then it’s back to status quo. However, if federalism were approved, it would kick in a new ‘political game.’ It is not surprising then why Gloria wanted the speakership. With the support of Duterte’s PDP, Gloria’s Lakas-CMD, and all the balimbings who are waiting in the wings ready to jump ship, Gloria could wield immense power, which she could use to further her personal agenda.”

But the problem is the federal system proposed by Duterte’s Consultative Committee (Con-Com) doesn’t have a place for a Prime Minister, which many political pundits have been speculating is what Gloria wanted. She doesn’t want to run for President, she’d only have to make sure that a Parliament would elect her as Prime Minister, which she can have for a long time provided she gets the majority vote of the members of Parliament. With her Machiavellian way of using “politics of patronage,” which she perfected during her presidency, she should be able to do it again and be back in power for a long time.

But what Congress approved was a presidential-bicameral-federal system, exactly what the Con-Com recommended. Known as Resolution of Both Houses (RBH 15), it was approved last December 11, 2018. But there are several inclusions and changes that could have far-reaching effect. Most notable are the removal of term limits for lawmakers and return to the two-party system. However, the President will have a term of four years and entitled to one-reelection just like the U.S. It also did not include an anti-political dynasty provision.

It’s interesting to note that Gloria tried to remove the position of Vice-President and make the Senate President next in the presidential succession. It did not pass.

But here’s the rub: The Con-Com’s recommendation to create 18 federated regions was removed from Arroyo’s draft. RBH 15 instead would not impose the divisions of the country into a specific number of federal states, which was the centerpiece of Duterte’s federal system. RBH 15 stipulates that a federal state may be created in any part of the country “upon a petition addressed to Congress” by any contiguous, compact, and adjacent provinces, highly urbanized and component cities, and cities and municipalities in metropolitan areas.

In other words, structurally there would be no federated states when the new constitution takes effect in 2022. They’ll be created one at a time. They might not even be created at all if no region wants to be federated.

Meanwhile, RBH 15 is on its way to the Senate where some senators have been critical of the way it was “railroaded” in the House. Sen. Lacson said “senators were not keen on passing any measure shifting to federalism, especially now that the House of Representatives is led by Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.” “There’s nothing personal in this, but this is the sentiment of the Senate. When they changed the leader of the House, the majority, minority groups closed ranks. It’s dead in the water,” he said. Evidently, some senators have bad vibes against Gloria’s “coup” that brought her to the Speakership in the House, a position that gave her the power that she craved for.

“Most corrupt”

Speaker Arroyo leads members of Congress.

But regardless of her grip on power under the Duterte administration, Gloria carries a heavy load of excess baggage. In an article published by Reuters, Gloria is considered the most corrupt Philippine leader in history, more than Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada, who were ousted from office, according to a survey Pulse of Asia conducted last October. The poll showed that Arroyo was considered the most corrupt Philippine president by 42% of the 1,200 respondents. Thirty-five percent of respondents considered Marcos the most corrupt and 16% Estrada.

During Gloria’s presidency, Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel became the biggest source of corruption among the legislators. Kickbacks were common. “President Arroyo could choose who and how much to give to each congressman or senator which explains why some have more than others in the COA (Commission on Audit) report. But under this administration, everybody gets the P70 million or P200 million every year,” then Rep. Rolando Andaya said.

During her first term as a congresswoman, Gloria received a P2-billion pork barrel allocation for her district. How she pulled it remains vague to this day. Shall we say through some form of sleigh of the hand?

But this year she did it again. Speaker Arroyo’s district gets P2.4 billion House-approved budget for the 2019 budget. Another recipient of a huge pork barrel fund is House Majority Leader Rolando Andaya, who allegedly received a P1.9-billion allocation. This is in stark contrast to what the other 295 received, which is P60 million each.

On December 10, 2018, President Duterte reportedly wants Speaker Arroyo to explain the billions of pesos of alleged pork barrel insertions in the proposed 2019 budget. He said that “there must be some explanation on the part of Speaker Arroyo and the others, let’s hear them.”

Arroyo’s second-in-command House Majority Leader Andaya said that Arroyo promised a P60 million allotment for each lawmaker. However, he said these were not pork barrel, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2013. Andaya said that Arroyo was not responsible for the P4.3 billion alleged “pork barrel,” it was the House Appropriations Committee. Huh? Who are they trying to fool?

Parked pork

Recently, Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson exposed a new pork barrel scam where lawmakers supposedly earned “commissions” from parked “pork” in a legislative district of a “well-connected” member of the House of Representatives.

Lacson revealed that a staffer of a certain senator allegedly offered portions of the senator’s “parked pork” to a certain congressman who has very little or no pork barrel allocations, with the understanding that the senator will choose the contractor to be hired to do the congressman’s projects. Needless to say, as has been the norm, the contractor would kickback the senator. In this case everybody wins except the taxpayers.

Clearly, Gloria is honing the use of the “politics of patronage,” a tool that she used in the past to achieve what she had wanted… quite successfully. But now that the Prime Minister position that she craved for is gone with the wind, what’s her next move? What’s her game plan?

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)