Catholic bullies and a ‘clown’

AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR 

By William M. Esposo
The Philippine Star

Tito Sotto, Vic Sotto, and Joey de Leon

The raging debate surrounding the Reproductive Health (RH) bill took its turn for the worse for the Philippine Roman Catholic Church when their staunch defender in the Senate, Senator Tito Sotto, was pilloried all over media for plagiarizing blogger Sarah Pope’s article. To the majority of Filipinos supporting the RH bill, Sotto represented a ‘clown’ whose feet got stuck in his mouth while talking. Of course, the ‘clown’ tag easily sticks to Sotto who was once a member of the Tito (Sotto), Vic (Sotto) and Joey (de Leon) comic trio.

Untypical of a politician who would have mastered the craft called damage control — Sotto went on a media blitz and added fuel to the fire. A simple, sincere sounding apology would have cut his losses but he had to look down on bloggers and even tried to defend his use of the material that Sarah Pope wrote. He stirred a hornets’ nest and the flak exponentially multiplied. Other bloggers exposed that it wasn’t only from Sarah Pope that Sotto copied — but allegedly from four others.

Instead of promoting the conservative wing of the Philippine Roman Catholic Church’s view against the RH bill, Sotto diverted the discussion to plagiarism and the residual public perception that the anti-RH bill militants — militants because they’re few and very noisy — are intellectually bankrupt. If that’s not bad enough, the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) President, Archbishop Jose Palma threatened to remove the Catholic status of Catholic schools that teach ideas that run counter to Church principles.

Posted last August 17 on the CBCP newsletter, the threat was being directed at the Jesuits after 160 Ateneo University professors publicized their collective position paper favoring the passage of the RH bill. It was the reaction that could be expected from a severely wounded and cornered animal. The conservative Bishops only succeeded in manifesting the desperation of their position and loss of equanimity.

“If we are a Catholic school, we should not teach anything contrary to the official teaching of the church,” Palma said. He added: “In some of the universities, we say that if you want to teach that idea, do not do it in a Catholic school because we are confusing the students… do it in other universities.”

How can Palma claim that pro-RH bill advocates are violating Catholic teachings when Pope Benedict XVI had already announced that the use of condoms could be allowed if its use is to protect human life? That reversal of what was once a strict NO CONDOMS policy opened a Pandora’s box of sorts for the Roman Catholic Church. The features of the RH bill are all meant to not just protect human lives but also to promote human dignity through responsible parenthood.

For the Jesuits, the threat from the conservative wing of Catholic Church is a mere rehash of persecution the order founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola had undergone in past centuries. Fr. Emetrio Barcelon, SJ provided us with insights to this sorry chapter of Church history in his January 21, 2012 article in the Manila Bulletin headlined “The Jesuits in the Philippines.”

Fr. Barcelon wrote: “Thrown out of the Philippines about 1766, the Jesuits are now celebrating their return 150 years ago.
The Bourbons did not like the Jesuits in Europe and in their empires since they were causing them too much trouble, probably reminding them of justice and love. At least that is what the Jesuits like to think, that they were a pain in the neck for the Bourbons for preaching against the excesses of power.

The Bourbons had enough power to make the Pope suppress the Jesuits, meaning they were no longer an approved institution of the Catholic Church in 1773. However, the decree of suppression was worded in such a way that it took effect only when the secular authorities approved it in their land.

It so happened, that Catherine of Russia did not like the Bourbons so she prohibited the reading of the decree of suppression in her lands. So the Jesuits survived in Russia.”

Fr. John J. Carroll, SJ wrote a May 4, 2011 article that was published in the Inquirer and pro-RH bill advocates have adopted his reasoning to counter the anti-RH Bill militants.

Fr. Carroll wrote: “…I recalled the unity in faith and hope of the millions who gathered 25 years ago at EDSA. But still there was an undercurrent of sadness, sadness due to the realization that the official Church no longer stands with a united people but with one part of a nation divided; and that the struggle is carried on, no longer in the respectful manner of the crowds at EDSA, but in an atmosphere of personal animosity and demonizing.

The sadness is made deeper by the sense that in the debate over the “RH bill, the Church seems to have backed itself into a no-win situation. If the bill passes over the total opposition of the hierarchy, there will be gloating in some quarters and a sense of “Who’s afraid of the big bad Church?” If it is defeated by the opposition of the Church, I fear a powerful backlash at the Church’s “interference in politics” and “reliance on political power rather than moral suasion”—the beginnings of an anti-clericalism such as has overwhelmed formerly Catholic bastions such as Spain and Ireland.

With all due respect for the position of the Philippine bishops, I do not see that total opposition to the bill necessary, once one gets past the polemics. First of all, the bill does not legalize contraceptives; they are already legal and may be purchased in any drugstore. What the bill proposes to do—rightly or wrongly—is to subsidize the cost of contraception as well as natural family planning to the poor. Neither does the bill legalize abortion; on the contrary it reaffirms the constitutional prohibition. It is highly probable in fact that if contraceptives become more available to the poor, the scandalous number of illegal abortions performed annually will be dramatically reduced.

On the tricky scientific question whether the IUD and some contraceptive pills may prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the mother’s womb and so destroy a human life, the current draft of the bill passes the responsibility to the Food and Drug Administration, which should ban any such “contraceptives” from drugstores throughout the country.”

The Ateneo University is regarded as one of the country’s top educational institutions not because of its Catholic status but because of the deep bold thinkers of the Jesuit order. The Jesuits shouldn’t blink in the face of Catholic Taliban bullying.

* * *

Shakespeare: “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”

* * *

Chair Wrecker e-mail and website: macesposo@yhaoo.com and www.chairwrecker.com

Palliative solutions

By Rod Kapunan

The price of fuel has again soared and as usual, we are frantic in coming out with outlandish suggestions to counter the spike to impress upon our people that this wayward government is doing something to rein it.  The approach is hypocritical—wanting to open our mouth while in truth trying to appease the oil cartel for their unabated quench for more profit.

One strange thing about the many suggestions is one that came from the militant Bayan Muna Party List.  The suggestion made by Rep. Teodoro Casiño was a departure from their usual holistic approach on such problems as oil, trade, land reform, etc.   All of a sudden, he came out with a palliative recommendation no different from the politicians and apologists of the oil cartel.

The same position was expressed by party mate Representative Neri Colmenares, and both have their eyes on the natural gas-rich Malampaya oil fields.  To ostensibly reduce our heavy reliance on imports, they suggested the idea of reducing the current value-added tax (VAT) of 12 percent to 6 percent on basic commodities and the construction of a compressed natural gas (CNG) plant.  According to Casiño, Malampaya holds an estimated 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas at Recto Bank.

Maybe the two gentlemen hated Marcos for not espousing their brand of ideology.  But what cannot be ignored is Marcos advanced a formula that deviated from the stereotype socialist method of just nationalizing problematic industries.  Marcos boosted—or should we say refined—free enterprise by putting it back on track so  the market players could  bring down the price of oil and its by-products to a realistic level.   Marcos may not be like many of our imperialist-oriented economists who would flaunt their credentials, but common sense tells us that there is no such thing as fair competition in an industry characterized by oligopoly.

Such situation is likely to end up in the formation of a syndicated price cartel, which in fact was firmed up when the disciples of privatization sold all the government shares in Petron.    It did not even seep into their mind that privatization alone would not entice the private buyers.  In fact, they sought to append a law deregulating the price of oil just to assure them of a no-loss business proposition.  After all, in monopoly or oligopoly industries, consumers could only choose between taking it at their price or leaving it altogether.

The creation of Petron was designed to compete with the rest of the oil players, for it to make profit, and add revenue to the government.  Petron as government-owned corporation effectively dismantled the oil cartel much that public interest remains at its back.  It has to come out with its own price ceiling to break the price manipulation imposed by the cartel.   For that, Petron was able to slow down, if not reduce, the price of oil products without unduly hurting the profitability of the other players such as Shell and Caltex.

As the price setter in the industry, the two oil companies had no choice but to follow suit to prevent them from being eased out of the market by the natural impulse of open competition.  More than that, the complication that ensued with the advent of privatization such as the imposition of the 12-percent VAT on many of the basic commodities, the tax credit rebate in the importation of oil, and the weird proposal to impose subsidy on oil importation to induce oil companies to reduce their price was eliminated by the streamlining of the system in just allowing the government to participate.

Instead, privatization, deregulation, and the incentives given to oil companies gave criminals the idea to conceive of a multi-billion peso tax credit scam to defraud the government.  Corrupt employees in the Department of Finance, in connivance with private individuals and importers like oil companies,  confederated to defraud the government by their application of tax credit certificates to unqualified companies as in the Chingkoe tax credit scam case.

Admittedly, one of the objectives in nationalizing the industry is to stop the runaway increases in the price of oil.   However, that only substituted the unwanted approach of institutionalizing a government monopoly which often tends to be inefficient and graft ridden.   Besides, if government control cannot prevent oil price hike,  at least it could be minimized or lessened.  The government, by virtue of its monopoly, is always bound to be blamed even on the slightest increase in the price of oil because consumers see no other competitor.

Despite the realization that oil price hike could not be prevented, Marcos still came out with an alternative solution to cushion its impact without again swinging himself to the Left.  He then created the Oil Price Stabilization Fund.  As former Energy Secretary Geronimo Velasco explained: “…The pump prices were on the average, and the ministry, monitored the landed cost of crude oil being brought in by each of the members of the oil industry.  The ones with a lower average cost—the difference between the cost and the average pump price set by the Board of Energy—had to pay into the OPSF.  On the other hand, those who had costs higher than the average set by the board withdrew from the fund.  Through this mechanism, we managed to keep pump prices stable.  When the average general price declined, we just kept collecting OPSF contributions to ensure that we had enough buffer against future price spikes.”

Unfortunately, even on this aspect, our brothers from the Left could still not see the wisdom behind that formula.  For their hatred of the man, they only engendered isolation from the very people they wanted to liberate such that today, they are treated as some kind of political jesters serving to enliven the corrupt politics of the ruling elite.

rpkapunan@gmail.com

The South China Sea’s Gathering Storm

BY JAMES WEBB
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Ryan Inzana

Since World War II, despite the costly flare-ups in Korea and Vietnam, the United States has proved to be the essential guarantor of stability in the Asian-Pacific region, even as the power cycle shifted from Japan to the Soviet Union and most recently to China. The benefits of our involvement are one of the great success stories of American and Asian history, providing the so-called second tier countries in the region the opportunity to grow economically and to mature politically.

As the region has grown more prosperous, the sovereignty issues have become more fierce. Over the past two years Japan and China have openly clashed in the Senkaku Islands, east of Taiwan and west of Okinawa, whose administration is internationally recognized to be under Japanese control. Russia and South Korea have reasserted sovereignty claims against Japan in northern waters. China and Vietnam both claim sovereignty over the Paracel Islands. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia all claim sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, the site of continuing confrontations between China and the Philippines.

Such disputes involve not only historical pride but also such vital matters as commercial transit, fishing rights, and potentially lucrative mineral leases in the seas that surround the thousands of miles of archipelagos. Nowhere is this growing tension clearer than in the increasingly hostile disputes in the South China Sea.

On June 21, China’s State Council approved the establishment of a new national prefecture which it named Sansha, with its headquarters on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands. Called Yongxing by the Chinese, Woody Island has no indigenous population and no natural water supply, but it does sport a military-capable runway, a post office, a bank, a grocery store and a hospital.

The Paracels are more than 200 miles southeast of Hainan, mainland China’s southernmost territory, and due east of Vietnam’s central coast. Vietnam adamantly claims sovereignty over the island group, the site of a battle in 1974 when China attacked the Paracels in order to oust soldiers of the former South Vietnamese regime.

The potential conflicts stemming from the creation of this new Chinese prefecture extend well beyond the Paracels. Over the last six weeks the Chinese have further proclaimed that the jurisdiction of Sansha includes not just the Paracel Islands but virtually the entire South China Sea, connecting a series of Chinese territorial claims under one administrative rubric. According to China’s official news agency Xinhua, the new prefecture “administers over 200 islets” and “2 million square kilometers of water.” To buttress this annexation, 45 legislators have been appointed to govern the roughly 1,000 people on these islands, along with a 15-member Standing Committee, plus a mayor and a vice mayor.

These political acts have been matched by military and economic expansion. On July 22, China’s Central Military Commission announced that it would deploy a garrison of soldiers to guard the islands in the area. On July 31, it announced a new policy of “regular combat-readiness patrols” in the South China Sea. And China has now begun offering oil exploration rights in locations recognized by the international community as within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone.

For all practical purposes China has unilaterally decided to annex an area that extends eastward from the East Asian mainland as far as the Philippines, and nearly as far south as the Strait of Malacca. China’s new “prefecture” is nearly twice as large as the combined land masses of Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. Its “legislators” will directly report to the central government.

American reaction has been muted. The State Department waited until Aug. 3 before expressing official concern over China’s “upgrading of its administrative level . . . and establishment of a new military garrison” in the disputed areas. The statement was carefully couched within the context of long-standing policies calling for the resolution of sovereignty issues in accordance with international law and without the use of military force.

Even so, the Chinese government responded angrily, warning that State Department officials had “confounded right and wrong, and sent a seriously wrong message.” The People’s Daily, a quasi-official publication, accused the U.S. of “fanning the flames and provoking division, deliberately creating antagonism with China.” Its overseas edition said it was time for the U.S. to “shut up.”

In truth, American vacillations have for years emboldened China. U.S. policy with respect to sovereignty issues in Asian-Pacific waters has been that we take no sides, that such matters must be settled peacefully among the parties involved. Smaller, weaker countries have repeatedly called for greater international involvement.

China, meanwhile, has insisted that all such issues be resolved bilaterally, which means either never or only under its own terms. Due to China’s growing power in the region, by taking no position Washington has by default become an enabler of China’s ever more aggressive acts.

The U.S., China and all of East Asia have now reached an unavoidable moment of truth. Sovereignty disputes in which parties seek peaceful resolution are one thing; flagrant, belligerent acts are quite another. How this challenge is addressed will have implications not only for the South China Sea, but also for the stability of East Asia and for the future of U.S.-China relations.

History teaches us that when unilateral acts of aggression go unanswered, the bad news never gets better with age. Nowhere is this cycle more apparent than in the alternating power shifts in East Asia. As historian Barbara Tuchman noted in her biography of U.S. Army Gen. Joseph Stillwell, it was China’s plea for U.S. and League of Nations support that went unanswered following Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria, a neglect that “brewed the acid of appeasement that . . . opened the decade of descent to war” in Asia and beyond.

While America’s attention is distracted by the presidential campaign, all of East Asia is watching what the U.S. will do about Chinese actions in the South China Sea. They know a test when they see one. They are waiting to see whether America will live up to its uncomfortable but necessary role as the true guarantor of stability in East Asia, or whether the region will again be dominated by belligerence and intimidation.

The Chinese of 1931 understood this threat and lived through the consequences of an international community’s failure to address it. The question is whether the China of 2012 truly wishes to resolve issues through acceptable international standards, and whether the America of 2012 has the will and the capacity to insist that this approach is the only path toward stability.

Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044418470457758748391466125

Will the Chinese dragon and the U.S. eagle clash on Sri Lanka’s turf?

Part 1

“Let the Chinese sleep, when she wakes the world will be sorry” – Napoleon

Ever since China woke up in 1949, with Mao Tse Tung declaring that the “new China with a big population and a great wealth of products could change everything,” the US is indeed sorry. The new un-expected tectonic force of the East has been sending waves of fear, envy and resentment across the globe. As Mao promised, the new leaders of China want to change the west dominated world order that enabled the Opium war and nine foreign nations to tromp through China for nearly two centuries.

Deng Xiaoping, famously advised his colleagues in 1991, to maintain good relations with the U.S while building up China’s strength. Henry Kissinger, a connoisseur of fine diplomacy, proposed that a U.S. Chinese confrontation must be avoided. A.L. Friedberg (in his book “A contest for supremacy China, America) criticize Kissinger’s proposal saying it “fails to take national interest into account”. By synthesizing the views of Chinese intellectuals, authors, think tanks and a few military officers, he reads these experts as saying “China should seek to “displace the U.S. as the dominant player from East Asia and perhaps from the region altogether”. To the new breed of intellectuals in Beijing, US is a declining weak power. They pair 9/11 with 9/14, the day that Lehman Brothers collapsed in Wall Street. Chinese President Hu Jing Tao and Jin Ping (who will be the new President at the end of 2012) emphasize that “China is not spoiling for a fight with US!

The re-action of the global media to the re-awakening of China, and to a potential conflict between China and US, proves Napoleon was correct in his prediction. A selection of screaming and alarming headlines tell the story. “Clash of the Titans, the real clash of civilization” (Newsweek 24.04.1996), “War Games’’ (Newsweek 18.03.1996), The Dragon vs the Eagle” (L.M.D. Sep 2005), “China’s Merchant Marine, Alarm bells ringing in Washington’’ (Newsweek 28.03.2005) and “How to Think about China” (Time 10.04.2012) Add to this list, numerous Pentagon and think tank reports with titles such as String of Pearls, meeting the challenge of China’s rising power across the Asian littoral – Christopher J. Pehrson – July 2006. China Oil (Agence France Press – 18.01.2005). These titles themselves reflect the growing fear of a confrontation between U.S., the current super power and China, the superpower to be crowned.

Closer to home, former US Ambassador to Sri Lanka (and currently senior fellow of Brookings Institute), Teresita C. Schaffer, wrote to the Sunday Times of 01.04.2012 under the title “Sri Lanka and US, post Geneva repairs”, that “the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean, is not just a passage way between the major US Security presence in the Persian Gulf and the

Western Pacific. It has become a strategic zone in it’s own right and the US needs to engage with Sri Lanka on that basis”. Translation from diplomatic language – the strategic Chinese built Hambantota port, in the String of Pearls, is a major threat to US presence in the region.

Chinese current leaders claim that China is not spoiling for a fight with US. The truth though is that, the string of Pearls (SOP) is a classic example of Chinese strategy to win battles before you need to fight them. Kissinger quotes (in his new book ‘On China’) the advise of ancient Chinese military strategist Sun-Tzu, who argued that one can win battles before it begins, by staking out a dominant political and psychological position. In 1958, Mao Tse Tung received the Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev not in his office, but in the swimming pool, forcing Kruschev to negotiate in water wings. Is SOP such a tactical strategy, along with both Sri Lanka and US’s increasing indebtedness to China? (More on Suntze strategy and Chinese folk lore strategy later)

With SOP, China has re-shaped the landscape around both US presence in the region and India instead of colliding. Indians call SOP “a string of thorns round India”. The problem for Sri Lanka though is that we are a part of the problem, both for US and India. US waves the HR flag and India waves the 13th Amendment flag as a pretext to cover the threat from SOP. The slip was shown when India sent its national security adviser Menon recently to Colombo rather than a Kautilya from the South Block. A Kissinger or a Kadirgamar perhaps would have received Menon with a string of (artificial) pearls, to prove it is harmless.

Napoleon Bounaparte – the military genius of the 18th century, has been proved correct, by the global turbulence China has created without a fight. So what? Why should we in Sri Lanka be concerned? Let the Titans fight, could well be the response of those who are stone deaf and blind, even when VVIP political goons disrupt a peaceful, democratic political meeting and kill with T 56 rifles. The highly politicized police remain an impotent spectator. Truly amazing Sri Lanka!

The spectre that is staring at us though, is that just as wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and currently in Afghanistan were fought by US on Asian turf, destroying those countries in order to protect US national interest, will Sri Lanka be the next turf? Our folk lore teaches us when elephants clash, it is the grass that get crushed.

In Thailand, the adviser to the Thai Senate Paitoon Sayswant, provided an answer to the question, why we should be concerned. He said “Thais don’t want to take the risk of a turf battle between China and US. No Asian State does. But if they stand on an oil supply route, there may be no way to avoid the battle” (Newsweek 28.03.2005)

While Sri Lankans are exclusively focusing on the daily laundry list of rape plus murders by politicians’ goons, politicized and impotent police and public administration, laws and judiciary against opposition only, stench of corruption rising t the skies of Sri Lanka, monumental corruption, nepotism breaking Guinness Book of Records, and dengue mosquitoes killing those Prabhakaran could not, tension between US vs Pakistan, US + India vs China, are ratcheting upward in a queer love hate triangle. US military needs Pakistan’s road exit, even to escape from Afghanistan, US needs Chinese funds even to bridge the Budget deficit, China is India’s biggest trading partner and the two are pillars of BRICS. India secured observer status in Shanghai co-operation Organization (SCO). Sri Lanka applied for observer status lately.

Simultaneously disagreement between the two powers US and China, are mounting over Iran, Syria, Tibet and Dalai Lama, currency, climate change and Doha Trade Talks. While Sri Lanka (preoccupied with domestic issues) remains a passive spectator of those disputes, China is pulling Sri Lanka to it’s orbit with multi billion dollar funding for prestigious projects like, Sea ports, air ports and South Asia’s tallest tower! Hambantota port alone will cost ($510-810) US$ 1.3 billion with no return so far. China requested our authorities to allow Chinese navy to use Hambantota port as a supply hub-more later (para 30).

With the spectre of current Greek tragedy in mind, and since Hambantota port fiasco is a topic of discussion, I was asked by a journalist recently, what would happen if Sri Lanka defaults, with no EU or IMF to bail us? I replied somewhat light heartedly, by referring him to an ancient Chinese strategy. It is called “shangwu chauti” or “let your enemy get on to the roof, then take away the ladder.” Is this China’s strategy both for US and Sri Lanka or in respect of Sri Lanka, what biology calls co-evolution – work together to become strong? “God only knows”, may I say repeating the convenient answer by legal luminaries to embarrassing questions in courts.

Gavin Rabinowitz wrote under the heading “Hambantota harbor and Indo-Ceylon war” “India see ominous designs behind the project, while China is deeply concerned by the possibility of a US – India military alliance (Sunday Times 8-6-2008) Upul Joseph Fernando asked whether “Mahinda’s cherished dream, Hambantota port will turn into a gruesome nightmare due to a clash of stake holders in the Indian Ocean (Daily Mirror 8-9-2010). Did the brainstorming session for our diplomats (mostly of the family tree) at the military base in Diyatalawa include this subject? I bet not.

Gathering Storm

U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta in his address to the annual “Shangrila Dialogue” in Singapore in June 2012, announced US decision to shift 60% of the US fleet from the West to Asia Pacific. A move prompted no doubt, by the increasing tension in the region. After visiting Vietnam thereafter, Panetta held talks in New Delhi with PM Manmohan Singh and the Defence Minister. Next stop was Kabul from where he issued a stern warning to Pakistan saying “US officials are reaching the limits of their patience”. Panetta’s explicit description of frustration, is due to the fall of Saigon (in April 1975) type spectre, staring at US military planners for US exit in 2014. If Pakistan refuses to open the only exit route from Kabul, a military confrontation between US and Pakistan appears to be inevitable. Fearing this, Chinese Foreign Minister visited Pakistan in June 2012, and assured Chinese intervention to defend Pakistan if attacked by US. Chinese senior officials also visited Kabul to sign a deal to extract oil and to give a face lift to the ancient Silk Route through Afghanistan. Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) has given observer status to Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton in July 2012 conferred on Afghanistan non NATO ally membership. Thus Hillary brought NATO base to South Asia. Hence when US leaves Afghanistan after destroying (and plundering even most valuable museum artifacts) China may enter to begin repair work. If Tibet under Chinese, is a headache for US and India, Afghanistan with a Chinese face lift may become a nightmare. That’s how China wins battles without a fight. US Defence Dept. Publications “America’s Security Role in a changing world’’ describing India’s development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems “raises the risks to the physical security of both nations nuclear weapons” and that additional tests might compromise US-India nuclear agreement. The report highlights the risk of a nuclear war either through accident or misperception in crisis (page 232). I wonder whether either Defence or Foreign Ministry has seen the report?

The growing tension in Sri Lanka’s neighbourhood which is becoming almost palpable while China is building economic blocs sending diplomatic sherpas in to overdrive. Hillary Clinton and Panetta held discussions in New Delhi in May and June 2012. Talks were on explosive developments in the region and Sri Lanka’s conduct while on bail, after the Geneva conviction. Soon after, the Indian Foreign Minister went to Washington to hold US-India “strategic talks”. He may not come to Sri Lanka to be cheated again! American power is the only plausible bulwark against China’s hegemony in Asia – says Indian defense analysts. A plane load of Sri Lankans too, led by the President visited Cuba, the thorn in the US underbelly. What bravado of David against Goliath! The latest sherpa is Indian National Security Adviser visiting Colombo despite a one to one meeting between our President and Indian PM in Rio de Janeiro. What is the message Menon delivered in Colombo? God only knows!

In the first Indo-China war of 1963, India was given a drubbing by China. CIA was credited for instigating that war. Once bitten twice shy they say. But will India with US backing give a second try, as Sri Lankan did in London recently in a speech making duel, which we lost!

US Presidential elections are due in November 2012 while in China Vice President Xi Jinping is expected to succeed Hu Jin Tao at the end of 2012. If the Republicans win the US elections, US-China war over SOP and other disputes may become inevitable. China has been building economic blocs like Shanghai Co-operation Organization, China Africa Forum and BRICS while USA has been building military blocs and bases around China in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.

Jin Ping sent a loud message from Mexico across the borders to US recently. He said, “China does not export revolution, poverty or trouble to other countries.” It’s a message worth listening to by Indian leaders to avoid Nehru’s blunder in 1963. Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, repeated the blunder by exporting terrorism to Sri Lanka. Will Indira’s daughter-in-law Sonia with US backing export a turf war to Sri Lanka? India is ahead of Sri Lanka on two fronts – a disastrous foreign policy and corruption.

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=59519

Who Do We Turn To?

By Erick San Juan

Washington continues to implement it’s political and military plans in the Asia Pacific region and expand it’s presence in the region as a counterweight to China’s interests. At the Nato summit in Chicago recently, the United States announced the completion of the first stage of the Asian segment of the U.S. global missile defense system. In Japan, Patriot air defense systems are on alert. The U.S. and Japanese destroyers are equipped with the latest maritime defense component, the Aegis system. Each year, the U.S. Navy participate in over 170 military exercises and visit over 250 ports in the region. Oppositors are not convinced and believe that the U.S. is just using this pretext of protecting Japan and South Korea from the North Korean missile threat.

According to strategic observers, territorial disputes in South China Sea between countries in the region should be resolved only under international law while China believe that it must be between the parties involved in the dispute. Internationalization of these problems can reportedly cause undesirable consequences which could drag the security of the region, The Asean community has seen this during the stand off between the Philippines and China. The Philippine government is perceived to be a willing tool in the U.S. expansionism. Even the U.S. Coast guards took part in the said military exercises as part of the maritime security operation.

The American government is even willing to offer their services to the Asean nations to contain China. The U.S. assistant secretary for political and military affairs, Andrew Shapiro, talked about this with the military leadership of Thailand at a meeting in Bangkok last June 22,2012. Shapiro added that his government’s defense establishment is ready to participate in creating a system of deterrence to any possible threat. The ‘permanent’ stay of the U.S. military in the region was perfectly achieved through the accreditation of their humanitarian and rescue operation centers.

According to the “China Choice”, a new book written by Professor Hugh White of the Autralia’s National University’s Strategic Studies and a veteran China watcher, if America tries to be dominant, if it tries to keep China in the box, that it has been in these last few decades, then China’s going to push back. That’s going to make rivalry more likely. Just like the Asean, Australia will be faced with that terrible situation of having to make a choice between U.S. and China, which is really a choice we don’t want to make, we can’t afford to make. White added that as rivalry grows, a clash could ensue and grow to a war. the war could become a nuclear war if the two sides are’nt very careful. A risk that we all have to be conscious of.

Philippa McDonald, reporter of ABC news in Australia said that Australia is reliant on China for it’s prosperity and the U.S. for it’s security blanket. But former Australian ambassador to China, Stephen Fitzgerald, said that strengthening U.S. alliance and hosting hundreds of American marines in down under is risky. Fitzgerald believe that despite the denial of their government, the deployment is clearly aimed at China. It is just like choosing the devil and the deep blue sea.

In this kind of situation, who do we turn to?

Is the HAARP being played again?

By Erick San Juan

Major world disasters in contemporary history where thousands of precious lives were sacrificed were viewed as natural disasters. Thanks to internet, it answered some unexplained ‘weird’ events that are just some clicks away.

The tsunami that hit Aceh, Indonesia and nearby coastal areas and the Haiti earthquake and the recent Japan earthquake cum tsunami are just some few examples where HAARP was played through weather engineering or modification.

These ‘weird” (to some) events involved human interference and if you will find this article unbelievable or too good to be true, just check your internet and there you will find what I am talking about.

HAARP and Weather Engineering

To my regular readers (@ericksanjuan.blogspot.com) and listeners (@ DWSS 1494khz daily at 5:30 to 6p.m.) weather engineering through HAARP and the New World Order’s depopulation agenda are not new and ‘weird’ topics. I have written about these topics in the past and the reason we are revisiting this topic is because of the events our country is experiencing as of this writing. According to Pagasa weather bureau, the endless rains and thunderstorms brought about not by an Ondoy-like typhoon but only ‘habagat’ or southwest monsoon. The heavy rains has devastated the nation’s capital (NCR) and the nearby provinces where economic activities are concentrated.

One of my avid listeners has sent me documents explaining how our current weather condition can be triggered by HAARP, and that is through the Doppler Radar. Yes, the same Doppler Radar that we had been wanting to have to help our weathermen give the public accurate weather forecasts.

According to the said documents, the Doppler radars can serve as conductors that will trigger electromagnetic beam through the HAARP. This is where the weather manipulation will come in. What is HAARP anyway?

Some bloggers said that weather manipulation is the new kind of terrorism and to have the equipment to do this is like owning a weapon of mass destruction. And the best weapon is a secret weapon.

The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma, Alaska –jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy– is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). It is operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate. HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating “controlled local modifications of the ionosphere”.

As what Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich –actively describes HAARP as:
“A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything — living and dead.” (Source: Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change by Michel Chossudovsky)

Furthermore, from the same article – The use of HAARP — if it were to be applied — could have potentially devastating impacts on the World’s climate. Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the world resulting in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems.

It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense’s National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on “imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, landslide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change” with data relayed from satellites.

The abovementioned excerpts from Prof. Chossudovsky are just a part of the big picture how this WMD can cause worldwide devastation. Like my listener Rels Octaviano, I did my part as a Filipino and sent the documents to some of PNoy’s cabinet officials suggesting to stop the operation of the Doppler radars at the moment to validate what I’m talking about. If they will not heed to our call, the blood of the victims in this calamity is in their hands. Dr. Jaime A. Sison, an avid radio listener added that these mad scientists controlling HAARP are like little gods without mercy. They are out to destroy our economically devastated country and people. Our government has no contingency plan to confront the ‘reptilian’ attack. While there’s devastation in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao’s weather are very normal.

We have to stop the HAARP being played on us. May God save us all.

(For more details on our topic, my email culdesac0002@yahoo.com.ph)

Barefaced lie

BY REY O. ARCILLA
MALAYA

‘The military logistics to be moved here from Afghanistan couldn’t possibly be mainly tents, blankets and the like. The bulk must be war materiel and equipment.’

THE United States, according to news reports, plans to redeploy military logistics in Afghanistan to the Philippines ostensibly for better access during natural disasters in the Asia-Pacific region.

Last I heard, the only disasters that have been taking place in landlocked Afghanistan are man-made, not natural like the ones that have stricken our region in the recent past. There is a war going on in that country.

It is obvious the US move is due to the winding down of her entanglement in Afghanistan by next year, her earlier disengagement from Iraq and her recent “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific region. To say that the logistics being moved are solely for assisting the countries in the Asia-Pacific region during natural calamities is, to me, a barefaced lie. Nobody would believe they consist mainly of tents, blankets and the like – except, it seems, our Department of National Defense. The bulk of those logistics could only be war materiel and equipment.

What would be the implication to us of the US move?

Section 25, Article XVIII of our Constitution, states:

“Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”

It is clear that the planned storage of military logistics which is the same as putting up military facilities in the country would violate the above provision in the absence of a treaty ratified by both parties. We have once made the mistake of allowing US troops to be based in the country without a treaty ratified by both parties, the Visiting Forces Agreement. Let us not make the same mistake again.

The “expanded” relations between PH and US involves the basing of US troops here on a “rotational” basis. That simply means that those who are already here will be replaced on a continuing basis. If that does not mean maintaining a base for these rotating US troops here on a permanent basis, I don’t know what does. Ergo, that would also be a violation of the above constitutional provision unless covered by a treaty ratified by both parties.

I am not against the planned US moves per se as long as they are covered by a duly ratified treaty. But definitely, I would like her to pay us an appropriate amount for the use of our land, ports and airfields for their Asia-Pacific “pivot”. US$3 billion per annum would be just right.

Again, let us not delude ourselves. The US move is not being taken for altruistic reasons – to help a “special” friend. No Siree! She wants to be here in these parts to protect and promote her own national interests – no more, no less.

The US could either take it or leave it. Let’s see if she can go elsewhere in the region. Let’s see if Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand or even Vietnam would welcome them on their soil. I doubt it. The leaders of those countries are more nationalistic than ours.

US3 billion a year is not stiff price if one considers the fact that Afghanistan, a fellow Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA), will be getting US$4 billion a year after the US departure next year! Consider also the major economic and strategic importance of our country to the US. Hosting her military troops and facilities and the use of our ports and airfields by her warships and military aircraft are really of immense value to her.

Please do take note, President Noynoy Aquino, Sir. The US has been taking us for a ride for so long now.

***

During the Senate hearing on the DFA budget last week, some senators kept asking Foreign Secretary Albert “Amboy” del Rosario about the status of our dispute with China over certain areas in the West Philippine Sea and PH-China relations in general.

To the credit of Del Rosario, he said he’d rather answer such delicate questions in an executive session. He also said that it would be best for us to speak only with one voice on the matter, with which the senators agreed. Mabuti naman. I have been saying that for a while now.

I was very disappointed though when none of the senators sought clarification from Del Rosario where the US actually stands on our problem with China. That is where they should have asked searching questions because the government has not exactly been transparent on what the US “pivot” to this region and her consequent “expanded” presence in our midst entail and what exactly are we getting in return. Aside from “feel good” statements emanating from Washington, there has been no clear indication of what the US will do in case the situation gets worse. The government has also not been forthcoming in telling our people what they may expect from the US by way of helping us attain a “minimum credible defense posture”.

I double dare anyone of our honorable senators to ask these questions and more in their next encounter with Del Rosario.

Incidentally, whatever happened to the Senate resolution passed sometime ago urging the government to review or revise the Visiting Forces Agreement? Del Rosario has also categorically stated once or twice in the past that the Agreement was under review.

***

In my last column, I enumerated several matters that Del Rosario should have long acted upon but has apparently not.

I forgot to include in that list the weeding out of DFA personnel who have acquired citizenship or permanent resident status in another country. They should relinquish it or be fired. If Del Rosario is a citizen or permanent resident of the US as alleged, he naturally would have to start with himself. The reason for this proposal is really a no-brainer – how can one promote and protect the interest of his country when he has double loyalties?

Such dual citizenships or permanent residence in another country of all active DFA personnel should be prohibited by law.

In this connection, I suggest that Del Rosario should take advantage of the recent move by Congressman Rodolfo Biazon to amend certain provisions of the Foreign Service Act, RA 7157 as amended. He should coordinate with Biazon to also include in the bill (aside from the case of dual citizenship) the addition, revision or deletion of such provisions as he may consider essential to streamline the operations of the DFA. It could be his greatest legacy to the DFA – the “Del Rosario Amendments”, one of which could be reducing from six years to four the tour of duty abroad of all personnel.

***

Senator Franklin Drilon should push through with his proposal to move the opening of classes from June to September. Climate change has evidently taken hold and it is unlikely the present weather pattern will change in the foreseeable future.

As an educator, my greatest concern is short-changing the students in getting the education they or their parents pay for. Experience of the recent past has shown that they don’t get their money’s worth due to the frequent suspension of classes on account of floods.

The switch to September opening of classes does not have to be done in one go. Beginning next year, the opening of schools could be deferred by one month at a time for three years. That would make the transition less complicated.

***

When the Autonomous Region in Mindanao was being formed some years back, one of its consequences was the breaking away of the MILF from the MNLF. Now that the peace talks with the MILF is nearing conclusion, according to news reports, there has been no mention of how the proposed absorption of the ARMM in an expanded autonomous region will be received by the MNLF.

Have both the government and MILF peace panels taken this into account? Have they been consulting with the MNLF? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that any final arrangement will be altogether resented and objected to by the MNLF if their concerns are not considered? What role will they be playing in the new entity? Is it too far-fetched to assume they may resort to armed rebellion again? Wouldn’t that be a repetition of history with the MNLF fomenting trouble this time?

What about the breakaway faction of the MILF, the BILF? It looks to me like we are heading to a never-ending vicious cycle, to the amusement of other countries, particularly our neighbor Malaysia.

***

Speaking of amusement, we must be the laughing stock of the world with the lurid tale of a prisoner being kidnapped inside the prison compound. As Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said, “only in the Philippines”.

***

US Ambassador Harry Thomas proudly announced an additional pledge of about US$400,000 to help the victims of “Habagat”. It brought the US pledge to a total of US$500,000. For sure, we appreciate the US gesture. I must confess, however, that I could not get over the fact that Australia has pledged US$2 million – four times more than the US’! And we are supposed to be her “special” friend?! Oh well…

Special thanks should also go to the other countries and institutions which have extended assistance to the flood victims.

***

Reminders (for Noynoy’s ac­tion):

1) Filing of charges against of­ficials of the National Food Administration (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; 3) Facilitating the investigation of rampant cor­ruption in the military and police establishments; and 4) Expedi­tious action by the AFP on the case of Jonas Burgos.

***

Today is the 107th day of the sixth year of Jonas Burgos’ disap­pearance.

***

From an internet friend:

Famous lines from Bob Hope:

ON TURNING 70

“I still chase women, but only downhill.”

ON TURNING 80

“That’s the time of your life when even your birthday suit needs pressing.”

ON TURNING 90

“You know you’re getting old when the candles cost more than the cake.”

ON TURNING 100

“I don’t feel old. In fact, I don’t feel anything until noon. Then it’s time for my nap.”

ON GIVING UP HIS EARLY CAREER, BOXING

“I ruined my hands in the ring. The referee kept stepping on them.”

ON HIS SIX BROTHERS

“That’s how I learned to dance. Waiting for the bathroom.”

***

Email: roacrosshairs@yahoo.com