Gazmin, Chinese envoy hold talks to ease tensions over Ayungin boat sightings

Jaime Sinapit, Interaksyon.com

MANILA, Philippines – Amid rising tension caused by more boat sightings by either side in past days in the West Philippine Sea (WPS), Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and Chinese Ambassador Ma Que King met at Camp Aguinaldo Wednesday, vowing to step up “cooperation” and “exchanges” this year.

In an ambush interview, Gazmin said the Chinese side appeared alarmed that Philippine military boats near Ayungin Reef, where Chinese vessels have been sighted the past three weeks, might have been there because Manila is building new structures on the site, one of three reefs and seven islets that compose the municipality of Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) in Palawan.

Gazmin said he assured Ambassador Ma no structures were being built, and that the boats were there to re-supply the Filipino soldiers assigned in the area.

For his part, the Navy Flag Officer in Command, Vice Admiral Jose Luis Alano said they will not pull out the Marines from Ayungin.

“As far as we are concerned the re-provision will be going on to be able to sustain our people who are deployed in western Philippines,” he said.

“[We have] to ensure that we will be able to provide the necessary facilities for the safety and habitation of our personnel, particularly [those] deployed in hazardous and difficult areas, and this is one of the things that we are trying to do.”

Referring to the Navy’s regular sovereignty patrols in the West Philippine Sea, Alano stressed,“The ship is always an extension of the territory of a nation. It flies the national flag from sunrise to sunset.”

In an ambush interview after meeting Gazmin, Beijing’s ambassador said her government is also looking for solutions to ease tensions over the Spratlys (South China Sea) dispute.

Ambassador Ma said, “We also talked about the balanced relations. I think China is ready to develop cooperation and very good exchanges between the two sides because this year is the year of friendly exchanges between our two countries. So we are ready to promote the cooperation and exchanges between the two countries.”

The Chinese official did not elaborate as she was in a rush to leave.

Besides the Philippines and China, others that claim parts or all of the Spratlys are Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.

New structures at Ayungin?

In a separate ambush interview, Gazmin said that in the dialogue, China expressed worry about new structures being constructed by Philippine forces on Ayungin Reef.

"They were concerned [we will be] coming up with structures, additional structures in the Ayungin Reef and I told her that the ship moving towards Ayungin is only for provisions of food and water for soldiers who are there,” he said.

For three weeks now, Chinese frigates, marine chips and fishing vessels have intruded into Ayungin and reportedly hauled marine resources, including corals from the area.

Gazmin explained that the “cooperation” that the Chinese ambassador was talking about pertains to Ayungin.

“[The] cooperation is in terms of not violating the verbal agreement to build new structures and we told them that our vessels that come to Ayungin are resupply of food and water provisions for our troops stationed there. We also told them we need to rotate our troops there from time to time,” he said.

Gazmin said China was in the area to “monitor our ships.” Beijing had suspected these to be delivering construction materials.

He said the dialogue could be the start of a new beginning between the Asian neighbors in order to peacefully resolve the territorial dispute, even as the country has already raised the issue to the international arbitral court of the United Nations, a move which China strongly protested.  


Gazmin acknowledged, “Threat is always there but we do follow some protocols like avoidance of dangerous maneuvers, avoidance of confrontational moves. So right now, it’s holding and we make sure that when go there like we do regularly and routinely in moving our logistics, we are unarmed.”

Who cares about the hungry?

GLIMPSES
By Jose Ma. Montelibano

I have been monitoring the hunger incidence statistics of the Philippines as reported quarterly by SWS for over ten years, as long as I have been involved with the Gawad Kalinga movement. Because I was a late-comer in anti-poverty work at that time, I remained observant but quiet. I thought I could not speak up when I was just like most people I knew then – uninterested, uninvolved, and concerned with a million other things.

Along the way, I grew more intimate with poverty from consistent presence in areas where the poor were, getting to know them better, deeper involvement with community organizing, working with volunteers and partners, and helping design community programs. All the time, I always remained watchful about hunger. And when I knew the terrain much better, I began to write about it.

Wanting to understand why the Philippines, a country so rich in almost everything, was inexplicably mired in massive poverty, I was forced to turn to history. In my whole lifetime, poverty was already a reality in the Philippines. And since governance by Filipinos began only in 1946 despite claims of independence earlier, I could not blame any government administration of causing poverty. Of course, government may be very guilty in perpetuating in what it could have substantially mitigated in the last 67 years, but not in causing the massive poverty we have.

There is no doubt in my mind that poverty was a direct consequence of Spanish colonization, specifically in taking control of land that belonged to the people. Land in the 16th century was more meaningful that what it is today. When everything was agricultural then, land meant everything that man needed aside from his own skills and administration. Land meant home, land meant food, land meant security. land meant opportunity, land meant the past, the present and the future.

When Spain engineered the largest land-grab in our history, the people’s slide to poverty began. Only a few were spared from it, mostly local leaders who allowed themselves to be used by the foreign masters to control the rest of the natives. Only a few, then, were spared from the massive poverty that ensued in the centuries to come. These included the peninsulares and the insulares who, together with cooperative local leaders, became the first elite.

The landlessness of native Filipinos led to poverty, led to homelessness, led to hunger. There was just no other explanation for poverty, not at the national scale it reached. That there are always poor people around may be understandable, but not when it reaches 90%, as in the D & E classes of the Philippines. The saving grace is that livelihood is now not anymore totally dependent on land. Landless OFWs are earning enough to buy home lots and build sturdy homes. They are also lifting themselves out of poverty without help from the government and the elite.

But the point is not only about poverty but one of its most horrible faces – hunger. I have written many times that hunger shames us as a people. It shames government. It shames the Church. It shames all the non-poor among us. Beyond being a shame, it places a curse on us, not just the administration in power, not just the cardinals and bishops still active in their service, but all of us who can feed someone who is hungry but does not.

It is extremely difficult at this time not to be angry about 20 million Filipinos experiencing hunger. There is something that is inhuman about it, not that there are hungry people, but that there are people in strategic positions who end up doing nothing. It is not as though it is only now that millions have experienced hunger, it has been reported by SWS for at least 15 years.

We have a Catholic Church that expended great effort to wage war against the RH Bill, to create Team Patay during the campaign. My God, if my God is the same God they believe in, the same Bible we read has Jesus Christ asking on Judgment Day, “When I was hungry, did you feed me?” Is that kind of message so hard to understand or have the priorities of religion been flushed in the toilet bowl?

We have a spokesperson for the President of the Republic who, when asked about the latest hunger incidence report, says that “they do not take the survey results alone as the sole benchmark used by the government for its poverty-alleviation priorities.” Well, Ms. Valte, if you speak for our President, please take the hunger incidence report every quarter with the utmost interest, priority and sympathy. Do not make people believe that the President is simply more interested in defending his policies than getting more hungry people fed.

In truth, who cares about poverty-alleviation priorities when people are hungry? The success of anti-poverty programs can be appreciated only when hunger is effectively and substantially reduced. In other words, if the CCT claims that it has helped millions of families, it is like saying the SWS surveys are terribly understated, that the two or more million families that the CCT says it has reached used to be part of the hungry. Either the CCT is completely inutile against hunger and dishonest about its failures, or there used to be more than thirty million Filipinos experiencing hunger.

I thought that an Einstein saying was most relevant only to elections. But it seems even more relevant to poverty and hunger. Einstein said, “Insanity: to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In attempts to ease poverty and hunger, what I used to think was only stupidity is actually insanity according to Einstein.

But what may be the unkindest cut of all for our millions who experience hunger is not government, not the Church, but the rest of the Filipino people who are not hungry and who make no effort to feed the hungry. It is Philippine society as a whole, its perversion from a culture of bayanihan to one that cannot think beyond oneself and one’s family. How sad to realize that, by how we have treated them, nobody really cares about the hungry.

Intelligent Pinoys and insecure colonizers

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” — BERTRAND RUSSELL

By Alex P. Vidal

Lapu-Lapu

Søren Kierkegaard was right when he cautioned that we must understand life backward and live it forward.

Before we die, we must be able to to know the truth and understand the roots of our sufferings, what precipitated our ignorance and why many of us are ashamed of our culture and why we are wallowing in insecurity and lack of pride as a nation.

The murder of Ferdinand Magellan by Lapu-Lapu sealed our fate.

Although Magellan’s death delayed the Spanish colonization of the Philippines by more than 40 years, what happened next became a horror which had unleashed irreparable damage and wrought unimaginable havoc on our psyche until today in the computer age.

Ferdinand Magellan

Desperate to enslave the Filipinos after efforts to conquer them by force had failed, the Spaniards shifted to Plan B: they instituted an organization which would disable the development of our critical thinking, an IQ reducation program aimed at making the natives dumb.

And they succeeded!

COMMISSION
According to Dr. Carlos Alfonso Santos, this program was called the National IQ Reduction Commission (NIQRC) founded in 1521 “by a bunch of starving Spanish conquistadores in Limasawa.”

“The conquest was not doing well,” wrote Santos. “They were hopelessly lost (they were really looking for Malacca) and Lapu-Lapu had just killed Magellan. The Spaniards realized that if they wanted to claim the land, they would have to make the natives dumber. So they began a number of IQ reduction programs, all coordinated by the NIQRC.”

The most successful initiative at the time, according to Santos, was taken by the Catholic Church. “The fraile (Spanish word for “horny cretin”) pretended to preach the Gospel, but actually aimed to impose blind obedience and servitude.”

“Every Sunday, homilies throughout the archipelago essentially revolved around one them: You are dirty, uneducated, learning impaired idiots who need white men to manage your affairs.”
Santos revealed that when the Americans bought the Philippines three centuries later, they asked the Spaniards what the secret was to holding on to a colony for so long. A former governor general reportedly answered: “It’s simple: keep them stupid.”

“The Americans took this advice to heart and did their utmost in keeping our IQs low. Instead of using the Church, however, they established the public school system,” Santos narrated.

EDUCATION
“Practically every government ministry was eventually turned over to a Filipino–except the Department of Education. With a condescending smile and a great deal of false charm, the Americans taught English and Math and the Boogie, but left critical thinking out on purpose.”
The Americans reportedly were afraid that if anyone actually started thinking, “we would realize that it was just a little bit weird that the United States, itself a former colony that had to wage a bloody revolution to win its freedom, was now taking the rights to self-determination away from another people.”

After World War II, the Americans left when they reportedly realized it was too expensive to fix a war-torn country and kept Guam for posterity sake.

In the history of Western thought, according to Dr. Mortimer Adler, freedom has a number of distinct meanings:

A man is said to be free when external circumstances permit him to act as he wishes for his own good.

A man is said to be free when he has acquired enough virtue or wisdom to be able willingly to do as he ought, to comply with the moral law, or to live in accordance with an ideal befitting human nature.

All men are said to be free because they are endowed by nature with power of free choice–the power to decide for themselves what they shall do or become.

‘INVISIBLE FORCE’
Meanwhile, Santos said the Philippines’ new leaders retained the NIQRC and is now “a major albeit invisible force.”

“They had to find another way of keeping us stupid though. Sunday Mass was no longer effective since no one went to church anymore and those who did invariably fell asleep after the entrance hymn.

“The public school system, on the other hand, was too expensive. If the government had to build schools, pay teachers and buy books, there would be hardly enough funds to set aside for graft and corruption which eats up 50 percent of the budget.

“So under the auspices of the elected officials of the newly independent Philippine Republic, the folks over at the NIQRC received a new mandate: set up a cost-effective IQ reduction program. They, of course, outdid themselves and cooked up the best scheme yet: the soap opera.”

Santos said, “it is a scientifically proven fact that soap opera decrease an average human’s IQ by half a point per episode. The characters and story lines are so flat and utterly lacking in depth that the viewer’s IQ almost invariably drops.”

It’s never too late actually to unshackle our minds from the bondage of this age-old system. We all watch TV and today’s sophisticated cable network offers a smorgasbord of programs. The choice is ours.

Singapore Forum Seeks Spratlys Options

By Khanh Vu Duc Asia Sentinel 

To resolve the South China Sea disputes, claimant states must look beyond international law

The Philippines’ first line of defense in the Spratlys. (Photo by Abigail Kwok)

On May 31, delegates primarily from the Asia-Pacific states will gather again in Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue. The three-day security forum, held annually by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) since 2002, addresses a wide array of regional and non-regional security issues. It should then surprise no one that on the agenda will be a discussion on avoiding conflict at sea.

Suffice it say, maritime and territorial disputes present a threat to the peace and security of the Asia-Pacific region. Front and center of these disputes is the fluid and volatile situation in the South China Sea, particularly in the area of the Spratly Islands, which are being contested by several nations. Far from a recent development, these disputes have been long-running. 

However, as Asia-Pacific increases in prominence on the world stage in economic development, the need to resolve these disputes is becoming urgent.

Having pursued diplomatic and political alternatives to no avail, the Philippines has ultimately taken its case against China to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), seeking arbitration to settle the South China Sea disputes. In response, China has refused to participate in or even acknowledge the legal proceedings, surrendering its chance to appoint one of the five arbitrators who will hear the case.

Despite China’s absence, however, a legal victory for the Philippines is far from certain; and as this case will likely highlight, to be observed by other claimant states with similar stakes in the South China Sea, international law is far from perfect.

International law shortcomings
To resolve the disputes via international law will require overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The first hurdle facing the Philippines is ITLOS’ authority to settle those matters brought before it.

The next hurdle then becomes enforcing the tribunal’s ruling. Even if the Philippines achieves a successful legal outcome, who and what will prevent China or any other country from violating ITLOS’s decision? Whereas within countries the police the enforce laws of the land, no such police exist at the international level.

Regardless of the legal outcome of the Philippine appeal for arbitration, assuming China ignores ITLOS’ ruling, other claimant states are unlikely to seek settlement via international law given the lack of enforcement mechanisms.

Should international law fail to resolve these disputes, their peaceful settlement will fall upon the shoulders of claimant states and the international community. Given how little progress has been made in resolving these disputes, however, it is difficult to imagine how much will be accomplished. Nevertheless, it is worth hypothesizing and examining what choices face claimant states and the international community.

Searching for alternative solutions
The international community could, as a matter of emergency, establish a maritime police force to monitor naval activities in the South China Sea. Such a force should omit those claimant states involved in the disputes, relying instead on third parties. However, the difficulty then becomes finding states not only capable of fielding such a force but also willing to volunteer resources. In addition, claimant states must have confidence in the impartiality and reliability of this force so as to provide it (the maritime police force) with the required credibility to carry out its mission. Given the indefinite nature of the South China Sea disputes, it is questionable if an international maritime police force could remain active until the disputes are resolved.

Another option for claimant states, if the option of a maritime police force is unpalatable, is to set aside all questions of sovereignty and resolve to partake in a joint exploration of resources in the disputed region (specifically with regards to the Spratlys). The challenge then becomes one of power sharing — that is, not all claimant states stand equal with China, holding the most influence in terms of economic and military might, and therefore the country most likely to benefit from such an arrangement. As a result, the power to negotiate and leverage goes to the strongest state, leaving a country like Brunei at a disadvantage.

If the question of sovereignty remains insurmountable, claimant states should at least seek a temporary Modus Vivendi (an agreement between the parties that they agree to disagree), to set aside differences and focus on resolving those matters that can be agreed upon. In dealing with the lowest common denominator, it is hoped that at least some progress can be made. 

Failure to achieve even this, however, and it is unlikely that the South China Sea disputes can be resolved peacefully.

No silver bullet
Although it is unlikely that a solution to these disputes will be found at the Shangri-La Dialogue, the forum does provide an opportunity for those contesting states to discuss the matter at length behind closed doors, free from political grandstanding and rhetoric.

Delivering the keynote address at the forum will be Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung of Vietnam, whose country is also in conflict with China over the Paracel Islands, in addition to the Spratlys. It is likely that he will share his thoughts on the regional disputes and urge fellow contesting states and the international community to assist in bringing these matters to a peaceful resolution.

While there is no single, easy solution to the South China Sea disputes, to do nothing is most certainly not the answer. The Shangri-La Dialogue might not provide an answer to the maritime and territorial disputes; but it will allow countries to share their concerns, talk, and perhaps pave a path towards a peaceful settlement.

(Khanh Vu Duc is a lawyer and part-time law professor at the University of Ottawa who researches on Vietnamese politics, international relations and international law. He is a frequent contributor to Asia Sentinel.)

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5442&Itemid=164

Confronting Big China and Little China

Telltale Signs 
  By Rodel Rodis
 

Philippine special envoy Amadeo Perez (Center) AFP FILE PHOTO

The Scarborough Shoal conflict which began on April 9, 2012 when Chinese fishing vessels were caught poaching in Philippine waters by the Philippine Navy has taken a back seat to a new, potentially graver conflict in the West Philippine Sea, this time with Taiwan, a conflict which began on May 9, 2013 when the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spotted a Taiwanese fishing boat poaching in Philippine waters off Balintang Island.

Using the vessel’s public address system, the PCG officers on board a  Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) vessel, the MCS-3001, ordered the trespassing boat to stop and prepare to be boarded. But the Taiwanese vessel, Guang Ta Hsin 28, ignored the order and attempted instead to ram the BFAR vessel to evade capture. After missing its target, the Taiwanese boat fled as the pursuing Coastguards fired a warning shot. Then an ill-advised order was given for the Coastguards to fire on the engine of the Taiwanese boat to force it to stop.

The Coast Guard ship ended its pursuit when it saw eight to 10 Taiwanese fishing boats where the Guang Ta Hsin 28 was headed. As they returned to port, the Coastguards were not aware that Hung Shih-cheng, a 65-year-old Taiwanese fisherman who was hiding in the hull of the Taiwanese boat, had been shot and killed by one of the reported 45 bullets that were fired at the boat’s engine.

The fatal shooting of the Taiwanese fisherman sparked outrage and anger all over Taiwan and led to talk of retaliatory measures against the Philippines by the Taiwan government of Pres. Ma Ying-jeou.

Beijing immediately capitalized on the conflict which it called a “barbaric shooting” as Chinese state media devoted lengthy reports on the killing of the Taiwanese fisherman.

“The Philippines is the most ‘barbaric’ country in the South China Sea,’’ editorialized the Communist Party-run Global Times on May 10.”If it is confirmed the Philippine Navy is behind the shooting, the mainland should show its stance by intensifying navy activities in the disputed water between the mainland and Philippines.”

Taiwan Pres. Ma Ying-jeou issued a 72-hour ultimatum on May 11 demanding a full apology from the Philippine government, financial compensation for Hung’s family, as well as agreement to conduct a joint investigation.

The Aquino government appeared willing to respond positively to Taiwan’s demands because of its concern for the safety and welfare of the 87,000 OFWs in Taiwan especially after receiving reports of at least 4 OFWs being battered and mauled by angry Taiwan mobs.

But the apology would have to be done within the context of the Philippines’ “One China” policy as the Philippines recognizes only Beijing as the government of China and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Aquino dispatched Amadeo Perez, the chair of the Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO) in Taiwan, the de facto Philippine embassy in Taipei, to convey the Filipino people’s apology “to the people of Taiwan.” The hostility against the Philippines was such that Perez could not even book a hotel room when he arrived in Taipei.

Unfortunately, Taiwan rejected the offer of apology, declaring that Manila had not shown “sufficient sincerity” and demanded that the apology occur at the government level.

South China Morning Post commentator J. Michael Cole commented that the Philippines could not give Taiwan what it wanted: “Afraid of angering Beijing by breaking its commitment to a “one China” policy, this was as far as Manila could probably go — something that Taipei knew full well. By accepting this apology, however “unofficial” it may have been, the Ma administration would have shown magnanimity while making it possible for both sides to bow out gracefully.”

After the 72 hour deadline passed, Taiwan froze all hiring applications to Taiwan and commenced provocative naval exercises as a show of force in the disputed waters between Taiwan and the Philippines.

Manila Standard columnist Alejandro del Rosario denounced Taiwan’s overreaction. “Taipei has again played the Filipino workers card, slowing the processing of work visa applications. The ugly part of the backlash to the May 9 Batanes incident is our countrymen are being harassed and beaten by angry mobs in Taiwan… It is a sad commentary that the Philippine government is groveling before Taiwan in the face of economic and labor sanctions.” (The thugs of Taiwan, May 18, 2013).

In his May 19, 2013 column in the South China Morning Post, Philip Bowring accused Taiwan of “nationalistic chauvinism” that will only exacerbate regional tensions.

“For sure, the Philippine coastguard was guilty of the trigger-happy behaviour so common in a country which inherited its gun culture from the US and whose armed services are not known for their discipline. But the reaction by the government in Taipei, with economic and other sanctions, is out of all proportion given that this unfortunate event was clearly the result of local misjudgment rather than the state policy of the sort which sends Chinese warships well within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zones, not to mention several incidents when Chinese vessels have opened fire on Vietnamese fishing boats and killed people.”

“For the Han chauvinists, an apology from the president of the Philippines is not enough. The Filipinos must grovel, be reminded that they, like Malays generally, are the serfs of the region.”

Bowring further noted:  “Taipei’s reaction seems more than just local political pressures on a weak President Ma Ying-jeou but linked to the desire to show that the island’s Kuomintang government is at least as eager to pursue Chinese maritime claims as Beijing.”

It should be noted that China’s assertion of ownership of 3.5 million square kilometers of the South China Sea is based on the “9 dash line” that first appeared in an official map published by the Kuomintang government of Chiang Kai-shek in 1947. It has been included in all subsequent maps issued under the Chinese Communist government.

It should also be noted that in the same year that Chiang Kai-shek published his “9-dash line” map, his Kuomintang forces occupied Taiwan which had liberated itself from the Japanese invaders. On February 28, 1947, a Taiwanese woman was arrested by Chiang’s soldiers for selling cigarettes without a license.

The arrest sparked public protests against the repression and corruption of the occupying Kuomintang government. Chiang sent more troops to Taiwan even as he negotiated with the protest leaders. When sufficient troops arrived, the Kuomintang started rounding up all the protest leaders and executing them one by one -scholars, lawyers, doctors, students and local leaders of the protest movement. Almost 28,000 of them were slaughtered.

—————————–——————————————————————————————

Check out: http://www.taiwandc.org/228-intr.htm

“The date “February 28” is etched into the hearts and minds of the Taiwanese people like the word “Holocaust” is in the history of the Jewish people. On that day, 50 years ago in 1947, an incident took place in Taipei, which led to the massive slaughter of thousands of Taiwanese at the hands of Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese troops.

The event was the beginning of 40 years of repressive martial law on the island, during which Chiang’s Kuomintang mainlanders ruled the Taiwanese with iron fist. This ended only in 1987, when martial law was lifted, and Taiwan started to move towards democratization.”

————————————————————————————————————————

 

It should be further noted that Taiwan Pres. Ma Ying-jeou is also the chairman of the Taiwan Kuomintang Party and, as such, bears responsibility for the slaughter of 28,000 Taiwanese civilians in 1947 and for 40 years of repressive rule in Taiwan.

Just before the May 9 skirmish in Balintang Island, Pres. Ma’s favorability rating had fallen to a record low of 19.1%, while public dissatisfaction had climbed to a record high of 69.9%, according to the China Times. Just as he expected, Ma’s ratings soared when he imposed sanctions on the Philippines and on the Filipino OFWs after the killing of the Taiwan fisherman.

As the Philippine Daily Inquirer noted in its editorial on May 19, 2013 (“Keep them safe”), “The unpopular president of Taiwan (approval ratings below 20 percent) has found a populist cause to die for—or, rather, to unleash baseball bat-wielding mobs for. The shooting of a 65-year-old Taiwanese fisherman by the Philippine Coast Guard last May 9, in waters the Philippines claims as its own but which Taiwan describes as within “overlapping” exclusive economic zones, has provided Ma Ying-jeou with an excuse to break his reputation for indecisive leadership, and to rally the Taiwanese under a nationalist cause not involving mainland China.”

What should be done?

The answer may come from an unlikely source, Teddy Boy Locsin, the infamous author of the affidavit of intent to return amendment in the 2003 Overseas Absentee Voting Act. In his article which appeared on abs-cbnnews.com on May 21, 2013 (“What is to be done with Taiwan?”), Locsin prescribes a solution that he modestly boasts “drips with amazing intelligence and outstanding decency”:

“The president should formally apologize to the government of Taiwan for our military killing of a Taiwanese civilian, regardless of the circumstances. We lose nothing by being polite and lose plenty by being bastos. Only the truly strong and self-confident are polite; the rude are incontinent.

Just say, “On behalf of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, please accept my apology for the unfortunate incident where the life of a Taiwanese fisherman was lost and a fishing vessel destroyed. We shall make the appropriate reparations after a full investigation into the incident, conducted not just by (Justice Secretary Leila De Lima) but by your good selves as well, to arrive at a fair understanding of the circumstances that led to that tragic result. Sincerely, Benigno Aquino III, President.”

After I initially dismissed this suggestion as typical Teddy Boy bravado, I reflected and thought it actually wise because, as the author explains, it puts China in a “quandary”.

“Red China cannot complain that this presidential apology violates the One-China Policy, which is no way altered by this act of civilization...If Red China complained, it can kiss any hope of a peaceful reunification of Taiwan with mainland China; it will be goodbye for good because the Taiwanese will realize that mainland Chinese do not regard them as Chinese enough to be protected from wanton state actions such as our Coast Guard perpetrated.”

“On the other hand, if Red China says nothing, it has just allowed us to take the first olive out of the tight bottle of the One China Policy that has denied us the benefits of fuller relations with one the cash-richest countries on the planet, whose economy is so advanced, it needs to move plenty of its industries offshore to leave the highest technological endeavors on the island.”

This is thinking outside the box but sometimes the right thing to do may only be found outside the box.

(Rodel50@gmail.com)

No RP presence in most disputed isles — source

By Paul Atienza The Daily Tribune 

Despite President Aquino’s rhetorics about defending “what is ours” in reference to the territorial dispute with China and other Asian countries, the government had failed to provide presence on most of the islands it is claiming in the South China Sea, a senior Navy official said.

The official who sought anonymity told The Tribune that the country has “no deployment of Marines or Navy personnel on those claimed islands in the Spratlys, that is why China can be able to anchor there.”

“We have our presence in the Kalayaan island. That one is good. But as to other claimed islands, that is a problem. Ask the Commander-in-Chief on how many elements of the Navy do we have in those claimed islands,” the Navy officer said.

He added that “by analogy, if you have a property abandoned, your presence is unseen, then you will invite squatters. This is how simple is our problem in the Spratlys. We have no presence there.”

“China is building their strong presence, no matter how far and dangerous, even if it means exhaustiing their budget, but that is the only way, the military way, to prove they are serious in their claims too,” the senior Navy officer said.

Aquino unveiled Tuesday a $1.8-billion military upgrade to help defend the country’s maritime territory against who he called as bullies, particularly in the Spratlys group of islands.

Presidential deputy spokesman Abigail Valte in a text message to reporters, meanwhile, said the government had issued an official protest with China over its reported building of structures to establish presence in the Ayungin island, which is part of the disputed Spratlys.

“We continue to monitor activities in the area and to assess our options,” Valte said.

Last May 21, during the 115th anniversary celebration of the Philippine Navy in Cavite, Aquino declared that “we have a clear message to the world: The Philippines is for Filipinos, and we have the capability to resist bullies entering our backyard.”

“We continue to call on China to respect what is ours,” Valte added.

Ambassador and veteran journalist Rigoberto Tiglao had said in a column article that the country’s naval capability consisted “essentially two frigates, the World War II vintage BRP Rajah Humabon and the 48-year old US Coast Guard hand-me-down BRP Gregorio del Pilar.”
In comparison, Tiglao said that Taiwan has 48 warships, four destroyers, 22 frigates, two attack submarines.

“Taiwan is actually the 10th largest navy in the world. The People’s Republic of China, the other ‘bully’ Aquino says our navy will resist, has the third largest navy (after the US and Russia) with 282 warships,” Tiglao said.

Aquino also claimed that P75 billion has been allocated for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) modernization and capability upgrade program which includes beefing up the navy fleet.

“The P75 billion Aquino referred to is what the AFP brass asked Congress to allocate from 2013 to 2017. The Congress hasn’t allocated the entire amount yet since such multi-year allocations could be authorized only if the AFP Modernization Act that expired last year were extended. Aquino signed into law, last December, Republic Act 10349 that extended the 1995 law,” according to Tiglao.

“However, contrary to many news reports, it had not allocated a specific amount for the AFP’s modernization but merely identified, as in the old law, sources for it,” he added.

“Aquino managed, to his credit, to get Congress to allocate P15 billion this year for the modernization program. However, his or his officials’ bumbling has made this amount completely useless in terms of fast modernizing the Philippine Navy this year,” Tiglao said.

The only other addition to our naval assets therefore this year will be the Hamilton-class cutter BRP Ramon Alcaraz (USCGC Dallas), another 45-year US Coast Guard hand-me down, which was transferred to our Navy last year.

“Its refitting and repairs in South Carolina had taken longer than expected because, according to a Defense-industry blog, its deterioration had been underestimated,” Tiglao said. Aquino said in his speech that the ship will arrive in the country in August.

http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/14514-no-rp-presence-in-most-disputed-isles-source

Loss of face added to loss of territory

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr.  The Philippine Star
 
BIT BY BIT: Another Philippine area has been taken over by the Chinese. After occupying our Panatag (Scarborough) shoal off Zambales, China has also added Ayungin reef near Palawan to its growing control list of Philippine isles and fishing grounds.
We are losing territory bit by bit to China — and there is not much we can do about it, except to complain to the four winds.

It may sound absurd, but pursuing the logic of occupation and extension, China might even proceed now to measure its 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone eastward from Panatag near Masinloc, Zambales, and be able to claim Luzon!

With the demonstrated absence of effective resistance to Chinese expansionism, this apparent absurdity could become reality.

*      *      *

 BRAVE WORDS: After President Noynoy Aquino served notice to the world in a speech before the Navy’s assembled forces that “what is ours is ours” and that we would fight to keep every inch of territory, the foreign office announced that China had occupied Ayungin.

Located 105.77 nautical miles from Palawan, Ayungin is part of the Philippine continental shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Just days ago, China also dispatched a fleet to the Spratlys group, some of whose isles have thriving Filipino communities. This was after it took control of Panatag shoal, roped off the atoll there and went on to shoo away Filipino fishermen.

*      *      *

PHL PROTEST: Chinese fishing fleets operating with impunity in disputed areas in the West Philippine Sea are often accompanied by naval vessels flying China’s red flag.

After these open and provocative encroachments, all that the Philippine government did was complain. The Department of Foreign Affairs simply handed the Chinese embassy a note of protest, end of story.

A case has been filed also with the United Nations for China’s earlier violations of the UNCLOS. But Beijing has announced it will not be engaged in that forum and presumably will not heed any adverse ruling.

As we have been asking, what else can this weak country with a weak leadership do?

*      *      *

 LOSS OF FACE: Despite the ringing warning of President Aquino to trespassers, the Commander-in-Chief and the armed forces have been unable to deter or repel encroachment. And once an island is occupied, we are unable to drive away the intruders.

Our inability to defend territory despite the bravado and press releases adds loss of face to loss of territory.

We have been waiting for our President to tell us what we shall do as a nation in the face of this continuing external threat.

Mr. President, Sir, since we cannot match our words with action, should we stop issuing warnings that we cannot enforce? Do we just swallow our pride as bits of our Bayang Magiliw are bitten off by the rampaging Chinese dragon?

*      *      *

FORECASTING BUSINESS: On the raging debate over the piecemeal and premature, probably even illegal, proclamation of winners in the May 13 senatorial election, it has to be pointed out that the Commission on Elections is not in the business of political forecasting.

As former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban and several election lawyers have pointed out with convincing clarity, proclamation must be based on a sufficient number of votes canvassed, not on extrapolation of the partial early count.

At the time the Comelec sitting as the national board of canvassers proclaimed the first six senators-elect, only a third of the total votes cast had been canvassed. This small number was clearly not enough to conclude that any of the candidates had won.

*      *      *

 PATTERN NOTED: Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. weakened his position when he said that their proclamation was based on estimates or projections culled from early grouped canvass reports.

Of what use are the casting and counting of votes if winners are to be proclaimed on the basis of mere projections? The Comelec’s unusual action has raised the question: Why are Brillantes & Co. in such a hurry?

This has raised speculations, including the possibility that the commissioners were afraid that the truth (or the true count) might catch up on them before projected or programmed winners are proclaimed.

What if the final tally eventually shows that the 12 senators-elect who had been proclaimed are the true winners? But that assumes that the completed canvassing is an honest reflection of the vote.

There are mathematical calculations based on the stop-and-go canvass showing that at every stage or interval there was a consistent 60:30:10 ratio of votes reported, respectively, for Team PNoy, United Nationalist Alliance and other senatorial candidates.

*      *      *

 PROTEST: Noticing a similar “pre-programmed” pattern of the votes canvassed in his province, Bataan’s Felicito C. Payumo, losing congressional candidate in the first district, said he was filing an electoral protest.

He cited data indicating that “the election results showed a consistent votes share pattern of 55 percent-to-45 percent in three towns and 60 percent-to-40 percent in three other towns in favor of my opponent, Herminia Roman.”

“We find this statistically improbable, if not impossible!,” he said. “On the Bayes Theorem System, the chances it will happen are only .003 percent. But it happened! This was based on the voters’ turnout, a surprising 84 percent when previous elections registered only 60-63 percent!”

*      *      *

 BALITAAN: Members of the Capampangan in Media Inc. (CAMI)  are  invited  to  the  initial  “Balitaan” tomorrow at the Bale Balita (House of News) at Clark Freeport in Pampanga. The informal breakfast forum  will  start  8:30  a.m. and end promptly at 10:30 a.m.  For  more details, contact Dik Pascual, fdp333@yahoo.com.

* * *

 RESEARCH: Access past POSTSCRIPTs at manilamail.com. Follow us via Twitter.com/@FDPascual. Send feedback to fdp333@yahoo.com
http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2013/05/23/945336/loss-face-added-loss-territory