Officials: Syrian suicide bomber was an American

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — An American from Florida launched a suicide bombing against Syrian government troops earlier this week in what is believed to be the first time a U.S. citizen has been involved in such attacks since the start of the Syrian civil war, U.S. officials said.

The man’s name is Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement Friday that provided no other details about him. Abu-Salha was thought to be the first U.S. citizen to be involved in a suicide bombing in Syria’s three-year civil war, she said earlier.

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson told reporters in Miami that the American suicide bomber was from Florida.

At least 160,000 have died in the fighting between government forces and opposition forces seeking the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Opposition forces had identified the man who carried out a May 25 truck bombing outside a restaurant in the government-held northwestern city of Idlib as Abu Hurayra al-Amriki and said he was a U.S. citizen. The name al-Amriki means “the American.”

It’s unknown how many people died in the bombing. Opposition rebels with the al-Qaida-linked insurgency al-Nusra Front said Abu-Salha’s truck was laden with 16 tons of explosives to tear down the al-Fanar restaurant in Idlib, a gathering site for Syrian troops.

Asaad Kanjo, an opposition activist based in the town of Saraqeb in Idlib province, said he heard that Abu-Salha arrived in Syria a few months ago and tore up his American passport upon arrival.

Kanjo said even a local commander with the Nusra Front was surprised about Abu-Salha, quoting him as saying that people do all they can to try to go to the U.S. to get an American passport, and this man came here and got rid of his.

“From what I heard, I believe he was an American of Arab origin. People said that he spoke Arabic with a foreign accent, and he used to speak classical Arabic,” Kanjo said.

He added that Abu-Salha was a member of the Nusra Front but was not a commander. “Most probably he came to carry out this attack,” Kanjo said.

The truck bombing was one of four by suicide bombers who attacked over the course of a day in the area in Idlib province.


Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/607112/officials-syrian-suicide-bomber-was-an-american

The Mabini Reef

By REY O. ARCILLA  
MALAYA

(It is important for us to see what the US does if and when Nonoy decides to repel the Chinese provocative move in Mabini Reef. If she helps, then I say the EDCA was worth it. If not, then throw the agreement to the dustbin.)

Mabini Reef

The government says it will exhaust all diplomatic and legal means to prevent China from turning Mabini Reef into another Mischief Reef.

They ain’t gonna work! We’ve tried them before… in vain.

As I said in my last column, we should do as Vietnam has done in the disputed Paracels where China has planted an oil rig. She stood pat despite the ramming of her ships by the Chinese and withstood the latter’s water canons. They showed the Chinese they are ready to die for what they believe is right. And the Chinese have backed down. They have not withdrawn the oil rig and their ships, but neither have the Vietnamese withdrawn their ships.

We should send some of our ships to Mabini Reef forthwith no matter how decrepit they are to prevent the Chinese from undertaking any more activities on the isle and turning it into another fortified military garrison like Mischief Reef. We should show the Chinese we are ready to fight and die for what is ours. Sure, we are no match for them and they can easily obliterate our naval vessels. But that would be an attack on our territory. That would be an opportunity for the US to put her money where her mouth is. Isn’t that what EDCA is for?

I wonder if anyone has noticed that US Secretary of State John Kerry termed the Chinese action against the Vietnamese as “provocative”. On Mabini Reef, not a peep. And Vietnam is not even an ally, or what Washington likes to say a “treaty ally” to whom she has an ironclad commitment, an ally who should not stand alone.

A military source said, “We are doing all necessary means through the usual protocols. We are exerting what is necessary to dissuade or discourage them.”

What “means”, pray tell? And through what “usual protocols”? The Chinese have already rejected our diplomatic protest.

******

President Noynoy Aquino may wish to take note of what his friend, Prime Minister Najib Razak, said about Malaysia’s policy regarding her territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea.

Razak said the policy is not to jeopardize the “strategic importance” of his country’s ties with Beijing.
“We must look at the big picture and not define relations with China on a single-issue basis but look at the broad spectrum of the relations, and recognize the strategic importance of our bilateral relationship with China. We do not want [the territorial] issue to be an impediment to the growing ties between Malaysia and China,” Razak said during his recent visit to Japan.

Noynoy has uttered similar sentiments in the past which everyone thought was fine. But being the Amboy that he and his minions are, he succumbed to US pressure to “jeopardize” the “broad spectrum of relations and recognize the strategic importance of our bilateral relationship with China” by approving the lopsided Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).

That is why it is important for us to see what the US does if and when Nonoy decides to repel the Chinese provocative move in Mabini Reef. If she helps, then I say the EDCA was worth it. If not, then throw the agreement to the dustbin.

******

Vice President Jejomar Binary has gotten it all wrong. He said he didn’t mind the report that the US National Security Agency had spied on him last year.

The point is, it is not about him. A foreign power has been spying on us and the number two official of the land doesn’t mind?! I wonder what he would do should he become president.

Obviously, spying on officials of a foreign government or even private persons is for an ulterior motive designed to subvert the interests of those spied upon. President Binay? Hmm…

******

The soon-to-retire AFP chief, Gen. Emmanuel Bautista said the EDCA is a “creative way to counter threats”. So how come China is reclaiming land on Mabini Reef obviously intended for military purposes and it is not countered? That’s a threat to us. Even to the US.

Noynoy’s administration is desperately trying its best to defend EDCA before the eyes of our people and the world.

For the umpteenth time, I would like to state categorically the simple truths which the EDCA advocates have been trying so frantically to obfuscate:

1) The EDCA is lopsided. It is decidedly not mutually beneficial.
2) It was entered into by the US because it is in her interest to do so, not for the love of us.
3) The US needs to have an increased presence in these parts to deter China from completely dominating the region.
4) The fact that by virtue of the EDCA, there will be US troops and military facilities, equipment, etc., based on our soil is irrefutable.
5) They may not be in the nature of the former US bases in Clark and Subic, but the fact still remains that there will be US troops and facilities based on our soil. Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution prohibits that… unless ratified as a treaty by both parties!

There… I hope that is clear enough to be understood by everyone, particularly those narrow-minded defenders of EDCA.

I hasten to clarify, however, that had the EDCA been a more equitable arrangement that is truly mutually beneficial, then that would be a different story.

Let me repeat… the US is here merely because it is in her interest to be here. Our perceived interest is only incidental to hers. Example: it was in her interest to invade Iraq. Now they have moved out because it is no longer in her interest to remain there. Same thing in Afghanistan. She will be moving out this year because it is no longer in her interest to be there.

More, she has not chosen to enter the fray in Syria because it would not be in her interest to do so, regardless of the massive human rights violations against the Syrian people. Likewise, she is not risking a confrontation with Russia over the Crimea and the Ukraine because it is not in her interest to do so, regardless of her much-vaunted democratic advocacy.

And closer to home, she has decided to stay neutral in our territorial dispute with China in the West Philippine Sea, unlike in the case of Japan, because her relations with China are more important to her than her relations with us. Her relations with Japan are also worth more to her than those with us. We are just a convenient tool in preserving and protecting her interests in the area.

So there… any question?

******

China and Russia have just concluded a 30-year $400 billion gas supply agreement. The huge deal was finally signed after a decade of negotiations.

Under the contract, Russia could eventually be supplying 38 billion cubic meters of gas to China.

Hopefully, this development may somehow quench China’s thirst for energy supply and temper her aggressive and provocative moves in the South China Sea that are apparently driven by her need for more energy to fuel her still growing industries.

******

For a while, the so-called Three Furies of the Nonoy administration have been much ballyhooed.

These days, however, the fire in the bellies of these three Furies appears to have severely dissipated.

Ombudsman Conchita Morales has been taking her sweet time to lodge the complaint against alleged plunderers in the Sandiganbayan. Right now, she is on some insignificant errand abroad while Noynoy’s bosses anxiously await the arrest of the alleged plunderers.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima has been mired in the Napoles affidavit. She is also reportedly under extreme pressure from Malacanang to sanitize it.

And Commission on Audit Chairman Grace Pulido Tan appears to have stopped dead in her tracks in the pursuit and exposure of wrongdoers in government. Worse, her track record of following up on anomalies unearthed by COA has been pathetic.

Among these is COA’s exposure of irregularities in the handling by the GSIS head, Robert “Pretty Boy” Vergara, of members’ contribution to the state pension fund, subject of the second item in the Reminders (for Noynoy) section below.

There is also the still outstanding and unbelievably obscene compensation of P16.36 million that Vergara received in 2012, as well as the issue of the huge bonuses that members of the GSIS Board of Trustees (trustees, my foot!) received last year and the year before that.

Paging Ms. Tan who, reports say, is among those about to be nominated to a pending vacancy in the Supreme Court.

******

Reminders (for Noynoy):

1) Filing of charges against officials of the National Food Authority (NFA) during Arroyo’s illegitimate regime. Noynoy himself said on several occasions that there is documentary evidence to prove the venalities in the past in that agency;

2) Investigation of reported anomalies in the GSIS during the watch of Winston Garcia and order his successor, Robert “Pretty Boy” Vergara, to file the proper charges, if warranted, against the former;

Noynoy should also order Vergara to report to him on COA’s findings that:

(a) He received the obscenely excessive compensation of P16.36 million in 2012 making him the highest paid government servant then, as well as how much he received in 2013; and

(b) That, about a year ago, at least P4.13 billion in contributions and loan payments made by 12 government offices to the GSIS had not been credited to the offices as of Dec. 31, 2011.

COA also said at the time that the amount of unrecorded remittances could go much higher because only 36 agencies have so far responded out of the 186 that were sent confirmation requests by government auditors. Of the 36, 27 confirmed “discrepancies” in their premium and loan payments ledgers when compared with those of the GSIS.

There are three questions being raised when remittances, or parts thereof, of government agencies are not recorded by the GSIS on time: a) Where are these huge sums “parked” in the meantime?; b) Do they earn interest?; and c) To where (whom?) does the interest, if any, go?

Pray tell, Mr. Vergara, what is the present status of these funds, including those that may have been remitted since and not yet recorded by the GSIS?

I believe it is time for COA to follow up on what Vergara has done on the above findings so that affected GSIS members would know the status of their contributions!

******

Today is the 30th day of the eighth year of Jonas Burgos’ disappearance.

Four weeks ago, Jonas’ mother, Edita, reminded Noynoy in a letter of his promise to conduct a “dedicated and exhaustive investigation” on her son’s enforced disappearance.

“Our hope was anchored on your promise to do what you could ‘on the basis of evidence’ when I personally pleaded for your help. This was almost four years ago, May 2010,” she wrote.

Mr. President, Sir?

******

From an internet friend:

To the persons who would screw up my day, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your crotch and may your arms be too short to scratch. Hehehe…

******

27 May 2014

Email: roacrosshairs@outlook.com

FB: https://www.facebook.com/reynaldo.arcilla.9847

Aquino regime must undergo a conversion

IN ancient up to Biblical times, even in non-Indo-European cultures like China’s, the folk believed that the sins of the rulers were visited upon their children—and their innocent peoples.

There is both some theological and temporal basis to this. A ruler—and his ministers– who behave toward God according to what they ought to do will continue to be blessed. Not necessarily with good weather, rich harvests and strong armies but often with the wisdom and prudence to save their realms from the worst natural calamities and wicked invaders. For they could mobilize their people effectively. The good rulers also had the wisdom and prudence to advance the well-being of the people and the kingdom in good times.

The bad rulers were those who neglected their religious duties –what was due from them to God. And these were ordinarily acts of piety and lives of virtue, most of all compassion, self-control and magnanimity to the people, specially the needy. For not only the Christian religion but also virtually all others, being respectful observers of natural law, say that the normal way to love and serve God is to care for God’s creatures, especially fellow human beings.

The good rulers—out of the desire never to offend God and to do His will—were truthful, humble, magnanimous, ascetic, just and wise. That is why their manner of governance made their subjects happy, and their decisions mainly led to their kingdoms’ prosperity, peacefulness and military invulnerability. When spoiled princes became young irreligious, self-indulgent, unwise kings, their kingdoms became weak and poor. Their people became restive and rebellious. And stronger kingdoms conquered them.

By and large, that fate has befallen the rich and powerful First World countries.

Why invite the tragic fate of others?

And it could become the fate also of our country, which has not even attained the level of prosperity that the better-off Third World countries are enjoying.

That is because our leaders—in government and the private sector—have almost all, individually, personally, and collectively, in their political, professional and business organizations, swallowed the Godless (in practice) anti-religion, anti-family, anti-solidarity culture of the rich and self-indulgent First World.

Our leaders are even worse than those of the First World. The latter somehow made sure that their countries’ laws and systems included means that, without necessarily falling into the trap of socialism, created safety nets—in a compassionate, Christian-influenced sense of justice—for the poor. These safety nets, in labor and wage laws, prevent the obscenely wide gap between the wealth and quality of life of the tiny minority of the rich and upper middle-class and the vast majority made of low-income and poor families. In our country, there are ever so few such safety nets. And the few that we have cannot be adequately implemented because the public officials steal the public funds—like the PDAF/pork barrel of senators and congressmen.

We are offering our readers these reflections in view of the gross domestic product (GDP) slowdown in January-February-March (the first quarter or Q1) and the likely similarly sluggish rate of growth of the GDP in the April-May-June quarter.

In ancient times the Aquino administration’s hubris, mendacity, incompetence, dishonesty and hypocrisy would have been thought of by the people as deserving nothing less than a rain of coals on the heads of its top officials. The President and his key people must undergo a conversion.

A wake-up call
Some economic analysts (see the story “GDP slowdown a ‘wake up call”) are calling on the Aquino officials to invest massively on agriculture and manufacturing—something we have been urging over and over again in this space—because that is how to create jobs, which in turn would lift up a lot of our poor families from their destitution.

The administration should also be more kind to the millions of oppressed workers in malls and supermarkets whose contracts with their agencies are for less than six months—so that the workers remain “casuals” forever and don’t have to be given the dignity of being permanent employees.

The Aquino officials should also stop the much-expanded smuggling of produce, oil and other products. For it impoverishes the Filipino farmers and manufacturers. Who the smugglers are, the officials know. But even those who are willing to fight and arrest them don’t dare make the necessary moves because they fear these smuggling lords who are connected with the highest officials of the land.

President Aquino’s mantra “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” can still come true. And if he pushes sincerely to make it happen, it will result in our economy growing at a faster rate, GDP-wise, and the growth will be inclusive and equitable.

But he must make good his campaign promise to get a Freeedom of Information (FOI) law passed and enacted.

Doing these, ands other acts of goodness and love for our poorest families, will bring back the “Mandate of Heaven” on the Aquino regime and allow us to continue being one of the stellar economic performers in Asia and the world.

http://www.manilatimes.net/aquino-regime-must-undergo-a-conversion/100458/

Philippines draws up defense plan against China

By Dario Agnote
Kyodo News
  
Security plan to ensure access to hydrocarbon reserves in disputed sea

MANILA – The Philippine military has drawn up a 4-year plan to beef up its security fence in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) to deter China from occupying more features, including those in the energy resource-rich areas in the disputed sea, a senior military official told Kyodo News on Tuesday.

The move is to protect the Philippines’ “national interests” in the wake of China’s “increasing poaching activities within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zones, harassment of Filipino fishermen and increased presence of Chinese vessels and aircraft in the disputed sea,” according to an official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

“We need to ensure access to these oil-and gas-rich areas which are within our territory,” the official said, referring to the three potential hydrocarbon reserves of northwest Palawan, southwest Palawan and Reed Bank in the South China Sea.

The increasing presence of China’s warships and maritime surveillance ships in the contested sea have stalled Manila’s plans to start offshore oil and natural gas drilling activities off Palawan, an island province facing the South China Sea where these fields are located.

Philippine President Benigno Aquino, whose presidential term ends in 2016, has been attempting to explore these areas during his watch to raise money to fund his programs to alleviate poverty.

“(The plan includes) beefing up the forces of military’s western command in occupied islands while increasing the presence of northern command units in (Bajo de Masinloc),” the official said, referring to Scarborough Shoal which China occupied in 2012.

“It is highly evident now that the recent incidents are already on the east of the Mischief Reef (which China occupied in 1995 and fortified into a naval base). This shows that the foreign intrusions are closer to our shorelines, which increase the threat level to our country,” according to a classified assessment paper seen by Kyodo News.

“There is an actual threat,” said a military officer, citing the “active presence of Chinese ships, including frigates, around the Second Thomas Shoal.”

‘CHINA WANTS REED BANK’

The sustained presence of Chinese ships around the shoal indicates Beijing’s intention to gain military control of Reed Bank, about 85 nautical miles from Palawan Island.

“China will occupy Reed Bank,” the officer said. “It is highly possible that China is determined to assert its claim politically and militarily.”

Citing China’s strategy, the official said it also plans to occupy Sabina Shoal, Amy Douglas Shoal and Boxall Reef, which the Philippines considers part of its exclusive economic zone. “Occupying these shoals and reef is vital in creeping towards Reed Bank.”

“Occupation of Boxall Reef will restrict our activities in Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin Shoal) and could put pressure for us to abandon that shoal,” he said.

“To address this situation,” the paper says, “our current efforts are geared towards the forward deployment of two patrol vessels and two reconnaissance air assets at Pag-Asa Island (Thitu Island).

Thitu Island is the seat of government of Kalayaan, a town of about 95 islands, cays, shoals and reefs that the Philippines claims in the disputed Spratly Archipelago. It is the Philippine military’s main outpost in the chain of islands, shoals, atolls and cays being contested by the Philippines, Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.

The Philippine military also plans to develop and deploy “a patrol vessel each at Lawak Island (Nanshan Island) and Rizal Reef (Commodore Reef) detachment to protect the gas and oil exploration in the Reed Bank and nearby fields.”

KALAYAAN TASK FORCE

“(There is a need to) beef-up forces at the Philippine-held islands and the activation of a Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) joint task force utilizing a marine brigade of troops,” says the paper.

The KIG is a group of over 50 features and their surrounding waters that belong to the Philippines.

The military also plans to repair the airstrip on Thitu Island and the construction of a pier to accommodate its air and naval assets.

“With the projected gas exploration at Reed Bank, we need to develop Nanshan Island being the closest to it. There is a need to build a pier and helipad in that area and improve the buildings to bolster our security on this island,” says the paper.

“There is a need to improve the naval support facilities at naval stations Carlito Cunanan, Narciso del Rosario and Balabac to boost our defense capabilities at the backdoor.”

“Rehabilitation of Tarumpitao airstrip is also vital in support of our operations in the South China Sea…This air strip was formerly the Loran Station of the U.S. forces and at present it is occupied by the Philippine air force,” the paper says. “We also need the repair of Samariniana airstrip for joint combined operations.”

“We need to achieve a good satellite communications, radar monitoring system with full command and control and coast watch stations to all (nine) Philippine-held Nanshan Island, Thitu Island and Commodore Reef by the end of this year,” it says.

“Parola (Lankiam Cay) will be the second in order of priority being in the northernmost part of the KIG. Likas (West York Island) will be on 2016, while Patag (Flat Island), Panata (Northeast Cay) and Kota (Loaita Island) will be on 2018.”

There is a need to launch a “sustained information strategy,” the paper says. “We need to initiate and information strategy that will mainstream and raise awareness in order to gain publicity and generate more supporters globally.”

The Philippine military, one of the weakest in Asia, hopes that the “ironclad” security cloak provided for under the Philippines-U.S. Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement signed ahead of President Barack Obama’s April 28-29 visit to Manila will help boost its maritime defense capabilities.

http://rp5.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/06/14/philippines-draws-defense-plan-against-china

Ridiculous and stupid

By Rod Kapunan

The US, presided by Attorney General Eric Holder, held an unprecedented press conference announcing that the US grand jury has indicted five Chinese for 31 counts of economic espionage and trade secret theft.  The five identified as members of China’s People’s Liberation Army belonging to Unit 61398 were Wang Dong, Sun Kailiang, Wen Xinyu, Huang Zhenyu, and Gu Chunhui. 

The alleged cyber espionage was reported  by Mandiant, a US information security firm,  stating that the five carried out their hacking activities in Shanghai “to steal broad categories of intellectual property, including technology blueprints, proprietary manufacturing processes, test results, business plans, pricing documents, partnership agreements, and emails and contract lists from victims organizations’ leadership.”    The US companies affected by the alleged data theft were aluminum giant Alcoa, US Steel, the US Steelworkers Union, electricity and nuclear energy firm Westinghouse, Allegheny Technologies Inc., and Solar World.

China, through its Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, was quick to term the allegation “extremely ridiculous,” adding it constitutes a “grave violation of the basic norms of international relations that could harm Chinese-US cooperation and mutual trust.”  Aside from demanding that the charge be rescinded, China retaliated by halting participation in the US-China dialogue to curb internet hacking.   China’s State Internet Information Office accused the US of hacking Chinese computers from US soil.  Between March 19 and May 18, some 2,077 “botnet servers” in the US wielded control over 1.18 million computers in China.  During the same two months period, US-based Internet addresses were the source of some 57,000 “backdoor” attackers on Chinese computers.

The accusation against China failed to generate the expected impact.  Instead, China turned the tables by reminding the US that it does not have the high moral ground and the credibility to raise that issue against China.  The revelation made by Edward Snowden, an ex-CIA systems analyst, of the extensive internet and phone surveillance activities of the US National Security Agency (NSA), is something the world knows what the US has been doing for quite sometime now.    

The cyber-espionage activity of the NSA is definitely not an isolated undertaking, but is officially sanctioned to purposely eavesdrop conversations of government officials, business leaders, and individuals where the US could extract information useful to its national security, commercial and trade interest, and even at times use them to blackmail not-so-friendly political leaders.    After obtaining a secret court order, the US directed one of its telecommunication company, Verizon, to hand over all its telephone data to the NSA.  The NSA was also able to directly tap into the servers of nine internet firms including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to track online communications in a surveillance program known as Prism. 

The cyber-espionage of the US has somewhat been characterized by filial relations with its blood-brother in Europe.  UK’s own electronic spy agency, the GCHQ, has been sharing data with the NSA in operation code-name Tempora.  The NSA also tapped  the cell phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and collected information by tapping the three undersea cables with terminals to eavesdrop telephone calls and internet traffic in Italy. Not even its own allies were spared as when the NSA spied on the offices of the European Union. 

Clandestine operations today are not so much of wanting to extract information vital to US national security, but to put US corporations on the edge, vis-à-vis preempt rivals in any  commercial and trade transactions.  That is why many were astounded by the US Attorney General’s attempt to naively distinguish espionage for national security consideration from espionage for  purposes of gathering commercial and trade secrets, and conveniently elevating the latter to one of theft.  One could sense that the US wants to pin down China, while exculpating itself based on its self-serving claim of focusing  only in securing its national security.       

That claim has in fact been debunked when Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff canceled her state visit to Washington to show her displeasure after finding that the NSA had been spying on its state-owned oil company Petrobras.  Practically all heads of state, including our blindly pro-American president, embassies and missions have been targeted for spying using “extraordinary range” spying methods to intercept messages, including bugs, specialized antennae and wire taps.  It was also revealed that the US intercepted the top-secret communications of then Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, during his visit to Britain to attend the G20 summit in London in April 2013.

To the public mind, it does not matter whether the data obtained pertain to the state’s national security or of its trade, commercial interest or that the theft was done by copying or hacking those secret files.   What matters is that there was a breach of its security. For the US to delineate the charge against the five Chinese is  to advance a ridiculous and absurd theory that would legitimize its covert but illegal activities which nobody at this point is prepared to accept.  The unexpected distinction brings forth the usual scheming motivation of the US.   

Even if we take it that in our age of cyberspace, loss can happen without the thief barging into the office of another, but by merely hacking said documents stored in the computers, that theory has yet to be made into law and incorporated as part of international law, but definitely not for the US to unilaterally enforce as it now attempts on the case of the five Chinese.     In fact, the  US and Israel tried to sabotage and paralyze Iran’s nuclear power plants using their  super secret virus called Stuxnet worms to destroy Iran’s nuclear software program.  Iran having more common sense could only take the necessary precaution to protect its faculties from cyber-attacks. 

It is for this why the US looked more ridiculous when it announced the indictment of the five Chinese.   The theft, as the Chinese would put it, is now shouting to  the world to catch the alleged thief.   But how could they, when the one shouting is the biggest thief?  The circus not only  exposed the gravity of their own credulity, but made those who appeared in that press conference looked more like pathetic clowns entertaining the thought  that  US laws  are applicable anywhere. 

rpkapunan@gmail.com

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/05/24/ridiculous-and-stupid/

Will P-Noy accept the buck?

COMMONSENSE 
By Marichu A. Villanueva 
The Philippine Star 

“The buck stops here” is a phrase that was popularized by the late US President Harry S. Truman. He put up this sign on top of his desk at the White House Oval Office during his term and has become a national principle handed down to succeeding US Presidents.

This principle will be tested with the unexpected disclosure made at the Senate committee on finance public hearing called yesterday by Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero. This was in the course of the Senate hearing into the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) being implemented by the administration of President Benigno “Noy” Aquino III.

The disclosure came from Rowena Candice Ruiz, director of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) who was among the agency officials invited to shed light on pending resolutions calling for legislative inquiries and referred to the Senate finance committee. One of which is a Senate Resolution filed by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada who unwittingly uncovered the once unknown existence of the so-called DAP.

In a privilege speech in September last year, Estrada revealed certain senators, including himself who voted for the conviction of erstwhile Supreme Court (SC) chief justice Renato Corona during the Senate impeachment trial were each rewarded with P50-million “incentives” by the Aquino administration. Estrada questioned the legality of such fund releases in retaliation after he and several other senators were linked to alleged anomalous transactions of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) with businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles.

Estrada’s exposé led to a public admission by DBM Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad that indeed there were such fund releases. But Abad cited these were official and regular releases from the annual budget. He explained these come from government savings which were eventually lumped by the DBM into what was dubbed as DAP.

Abad, who was subsequently also implicated by Napoles in the pork barrel controversy, admitted having allocated over P1 billion for the 20 senators who voted to convict Corona in 2012. Little did Abad realize his DAP admission opened up a can of worms that now dragged no less than President Aquino himself.

Under oath in yesterday’s Senate public hearing, Ruiz testified all approvals for DAP pass through the Office of the President before they at the DBM officially release the funds. Without the President’s imprimatur, Ruiz stressed no funds will be ordered released by the DBM.

Asked whether DAP goes all the way to the President, Ruiz replied: “Yes sir. DAP is a program of the Aquino administration to disburse for slowly moving projects.” Although the “lists” of what are these slow moving projects are submitted to them, the DBM cannot make any decision which project or government agency can tap funds out of the DAP, she pointed out. “Lahat po ng list submitted to sa amin. Yun po hinihingan namin approval ni President para magamit sa DAP.” (All of the lists are submitted to us but we ask them to seek approval of the President to use DAP).

In fact, Ruiz told the Senate hearing yesterday the DBM had earlier submitted to the SC the documents that bear the President’s signature that approved the DAP releases made so far by the DBM. According to her, the DBM enumerated all the DAP releases coming from savings and from the un-programmed fund.

On this note, Escudero requested that his Senate committee be given the same copies of these documents. Incidentally, Escudero was also subsequently dragged into the alleged PDAF scam of Napoles. Although he had casual meeting with Napoles, Escudero however vehemently denied having channeled his PDAF allocations to her alleged “bogus” non-government organizations.

Much earlier, the 15-man High Court already decided with finality on the unconstitutionality of the PDAF. This is why the DAP issue is awaited with bated breath.

The constitutionality of the DAP is the subject of nine pending petitions that questioned it before the Supreme Court (SC) in October last year at the height of PDAF scam. Petitioners have scored the Aquino administration for inventing the so-called DAP which they deplored was just another lump sum appropriation unheard off until Abad revealed it.

The High Court conducted oral arguments on these DAP petitions, the last one held in January this year. It has long been submitted for resolution but no ruling yet up to now.

Being the “alter ego” of the President, the DBM Secretary and the rest of P-Noy’s Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

Despite being directly pointed to as having taught Napoles the ways to go around the PDAF releases, the Palace reiterated for the nth time P-Noy continues his trust and confidence in his DBM chief.

As the highest elected official of the land, President Aquino has no choice but to assume and accept the responsibilities of his executive action and decision. That’s why the buck stops at his desk at the Office of the President. Will he accept or pass the buck again?

http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/05/28/1328105/will-p-noy-accept-buck

The Next South China Sea Crisis: China vs. Indonesia?

By Jack Greig
The National Interest

A recent Foreign Policy article argued that China’s deployment of a billion-dollar offshore oil rig into maritime territory claimed by both Vietnam and China represents a potentially dangerous escalation of tensions in the South China Sea—one signaling China’s determination to exploit energy resources that lie under disputed waters.

Over the past two decades, China has gone from being a net energy exporter to a net energy importer. Forecasts in the 2013 IEA World Energy Outlook show Chinese demand will account for 31% of global net energy demand growth between 2011 and 2035. Its energy demand in 2035 will be double that of the United States and triple that of the European Union. And China’s growing appetite for energy resources will be increasingly backed by its growing naval power—meaning it’ll have options to push the strategic envelope in the South China Sea in order to enhance its own future energy security.

The seabed around the Natuna Islands is gas-rich and falls partly within the boundaries of China’s so-called nine-dash line in the South China Sea. But it’s also a part of Indonesia’s maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Indonesia has asserted on a number occasions that there’s no dispute with China around the EEZ because China’s audacious claim has no basis in international law. But Beijing has simply refused to respond consistently or clearly to Jakarta’s multiple requests for clarification.

At the least, there’s a conflict over the interpretation of the 1982 UNCLOS—and the legal concept that ‘land dominates the seas’—between China and Indonesia. Jakarta’s attempts to find consensus in ASEAN over the South China Sea has rested primarily on diplomatic efforts to engineer a middle-power driven construct—known as ‘dynamic equilibrium’ (PDF)— that might moderate the growing power imbalance in Southeast Asia. Regarding Indonesia’s perspective on China’s long-term interests and role in the region, Rizal Sukma defines (PDF) Indonesia’s relationship with China in terms of ongoing ‘strategic ambiguity’.

The ambiguity that pervades the relationship is driven in part by historical anxieties. Beijing and Jakarta suspended diplomatic relations for 23 years after Suharto’s ascent to power. Their resumption in 1990 did not prevent another crisis in the relationship in 1994 over the treatment of Chinese Indonesians in North Sumatra. In 1998, during the height of the Asian Financial Crisis and Jakarta riots, Chinese Indonesians were again targeted, resulting in thousands fleeing abroad. Even though both countries are currently reaping the economic benefits of good relations, Jakarta can’t help but factor Chinese coercive practices elsewhere in the region into its strategic thinking.

Most notably, TNI chief General Moeldoko recently acknowledged that ‘[Indonesia’s] main challenges in the near future were disputes over areas of the South China Sea and border security’. As Scott Bentley recently identified in his CSIS cogitASIA article, there’s good reason to believe that this sort of rhetoric signals a shift in the TNI’s strategic priorities, at least within the military leadership.

But analysts remain divided over how much can be read into decisions to review force posture across the archipelago that will see military assets significantly bolstered at the Ranai airbase on the Natuna Islands. On that particular point, Evan Laksmana has suggested that the TNI is speaking out of kilter with the foreign ministry and the policies of the wider Indonesian establishment.

Still, on the issue of China’s growing sphere of influence in the South China Sea the foreign ministry and TNI do see eye-to-eye. Speaking in February after the implementation of China’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa warned, ‘we have firmly told China we will not accept a similar zone if it is adopted in the South China Sea’.

Even though both China and Indonesia currently enjoy a remarkable stint of amicable relations, tensions in the South China Sea are continuing to simmer. So Jakarta should maintain its push for clarity with an official agreement that excises the Natuna Islands EEZ from all iterations of the nine-dash line map. Bentley’s suggestion that Jakarta ought to situate its diplomatic policy within a wider strategic framework—in order to more proactively manage its maritime environment—is also a pertinent one. Future scenarios that involve Indonesia having to take steps to protect its national interests in the South China Sea are plausible.

It’s in Australia’s strategic interests that the region remains stable and that Indonesia enjoy good relations with China—albeit not at the expense of good Australian-Indonesian relations. As such, Canberra could offer diplomatic support to Jakarta for proposals that would enhance a rules-based system in the South China Sea. Expending diplomatic capital to improve the security of our nearest neighbor would be a good strategic investment.

Jack Greig is a visiting analyst at ASPI. These are his personal views. The following article first appeared in ASPI’s The Strategist publication here.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-next-south-china-sea-crisis-china-vs-indonesia-10522