Is Big Brother Xi watching us?

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

Recently, a news report said that the Philippines and state-owned China International Telecommunications and Construction Corp. (CITCC) entered into a loan agreement to fund the installation of a vast network of security cameras. The P20-billion deal would initially install the security cameras in Metro Manila and Davao.

This agreement was one of the 29 agreements that were signed during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit last November 2018. Reportedly, an initial 12,000 closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras – also known as video surveillance — will be installed in 30 months. They’ll be located at crossings, roads, public squares, business districts, science and technology parks, residential areas and stadiums, among others. Chinese nationals will install and maintain the CCTV cameras.

According to a CITCC briefer, the project’s ultimate outcome is a “Safe Philippines” that would guarantee the citizens’ good living and social economic stability for growth. It also said, “It aims to reduce crime by at least 15 percent and improve response time by 24 percent.” The system includes a national command center with backup data center to be located in Clark, Pampanga with facial and vehicle recognition software. It will also be linked to disaster response agencies in all regions once the entire project is in place.

Big Brother

A surveillance camera installed in a street intersection.

This reminds me of “Big Brother,” a fictional character in George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” He is ostensibly the leader of Oceania, a totalitarian state wherein the ruling party Ingsoc wields total power “for its own sake” over the inhabitants. In the society that Orwell described, every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, mainly by “telescreens” (devices that operate as television, security camera, and microphones). It keeps its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania. The people are constantly reminded of this by the slogan “Big Brother is watching you”: a maxim that is ubiquitously on display. In modern culture, the term “Big Brother” has entered the lexicon as a synonym for abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties, often specifically related to mass surveillance. [Source: Wikipedia]

Orwell published the Nineteen Eighty -Four novel in 1949 as a warning against totalitarianism. It was at a time when communism and dictators used surveillance methods to keep the people under control. The Soviet Union and her satellite states were in a constant state paranoia. Fearful of conspiracies against the dictators, they used “secret police” to monitor their citizens’ activities. In the Soviet Union, Stalin put to death 20 million people. In China, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward killed 45 million in four years – from 1958 to 1962.

The earliest video surveillance systems involved constant monitoring because there was no way to record and store information. VCR technology became available in the 1970s, making it easier to record and erase information. Use of video surveillance became more common then. In the 1990s, digital multiplexing digital was developed, allowing several cameras to record at once, which led to an increase in the use of CCTV.

Today, CCTVs are now in use in many large cities, such as Washington DC, New York, London, Moscow, and Beijing. There are more than 350 million CCTV cameras worldwide of which about 65% are installed in Asia. With facial and vehicle recognition technology, it makes the system a very powerful method of tracking movements of people and vehicles.

CCTV disadvantages

A traffic policewoman in Beijing wears sunglasses with surveillance camera.

While there are advantages in the use of CCTV, there are disadvantages as well. It can be abused. CCTV can be used to monitor political activities, anti-government activities, and “people of interest.”

And it is for this reason that Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto had raised alarm over the contract and pushed that it be removed from the budget or at least put on hold until it is thoroughly reviewed. “Don’t you think there is a security threat when China telecoms and Huawei will do surveillance system in Metro Manila?” Recto reportedly asked officials of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) during the agency’s recent budget hearing at the Senate.

It’s interesting to note that the project was bidded out, with two other state-owned Chinese firms participating: China Machinery Engineering Corp. and a consortium of Huawei Technologies and some local firms. China Machinery Engineering Corp. did not qualify and the consortium failed to submit documents.

Blacklisted

Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, daughter of Smartphone giant Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, was detained by Canadian authorities at the request of the U.S. government for violating sanctions against Iran.

Since CITCC is state-owned, the contract is between the Philippine and Chinese governments. This is also true with Huawei and ZTE. Recently, Australia banned them from providing 5G technologies. The reasons given were national security concerns. The U.S. and U.K. intelligence communities have both raised fears about doing business with Huawei and ZTE.

It was also reported in the news last December 2018 that Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, daughter of Smartphone giant Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, was detained by Canadian authorities at the request of the U.S. government for violating sanctions against Iran.

In the final analysis, the fact that CITCC is state-owned – and state-controlled – is it fair to presume that China’s government or the Communist Party apparatus could or would use the CCTV to monitor the political situation in the Philippines? Which reminds me when Xi Jinping promised to protect Duterte from any plan to remove him from office.

In particular, China could use the CCTV to gather information to exert political, military, and economic pressure to protect China’s interests in the Philippines, particularly the West Philippine Sea territorial disputes. What does it take to link the CCTV’s in Metro Manila and Davao to the China’s intelligence agencies?

At the end of the day, the question that eerily lingers in most people’s mind is: “Is Big Brother Xi watching us?”

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

The influx of Chinese workers

ON DISTANT SHORE
By Val G. Abelgas

It’s simply incomprehensible why a country that’s exporting workers in the millions would open its doors to foreign workers in jobs that Filipinos could easily fill. It’s like importing mangos when you are one of the world’s biggest producers of that fruit.

So we ask: Why is the Philippines opening up its labor market to foreign workers, in particular Chinese workers, when it cannot provide enough jobs for its own people?

The presence of thousands of Chinese workers – both legal and illegal – came to the fore last month following the arrest of 87 Chinese and 16 Filipinos suspected of running unauthorized online gambling platforms in the country.

Figures from the Department of Labor and Employment show that since 2015, close to 116,000 foreigners have been issued an alien employment permit (AEP), which allows them to work legally in the Philippines. An AEP will only be issued if there is no Filipino willing or competent enough to do the job being offered to a foreigner.

Chinese nationals accounted for the biggest bulk of foreign workers holding AEPs, numbering some 52,000, or about 45 percent of the total. This number does not include those who are working without permits.

They are said to be working in manufacturing, information and communications, construction, and administrative and support services. These are fields that local workers can easily fit in and yet many of qualified Filipinos have to look for jobs overseas to gain employment.

An analysis of the economic benefits of the Philippines’ pro-China policy by Ateneo economic professors Ronald Mendoza and Miann Banaag showed that the number of Chinese workers with work permits grew by about 108 percent between 2015 and 2016 in comparison to a mere 7 percent growth for Japanese and Korean workers combined. The number of Chinese workers then grew by 27 percent in 2017.

“But while the share of Japanese and Korean investments grew by 18.25 percentage points during this period, Chinese investments share expanded by a mere 0.38 percentage points. Clearly, for a smaller share of investments, the Chinese have been sending more workers into the Philippines,” Mendoza and Banaag wrote.

During a Senate hearing on the influx of Chinese workers, Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon and Sen. Joel Villanueva expressed alarm over the situation, which Drilon said deprives thousands of Filipinos to be gainfully employed.

Villanueva expressed frustration that government agencies could not tell exactly how many Chinese workers are in the country.

Villanueva, who is leading a Senate probe on the influx of Chinese workers in the country, rattled off the names of high-rise residential towers around Manila and its suburbs that are now crammed with newly arrived Chinese workers, and added that an offer to lease 400 condo units to house 3,000 Chinese workers in Muntinlupa City had recently gone viral on Facebook.

Condominium residents have noticed that there are so many Chinese families living in their buildings and many have also noticed that Chinese are everywhere – in malls, restaurants, and other public places.

Villanueva wanted to know if Chinese nationals were taking away jobs from Filipinos, some 3.8 million of whom were unemployed as of July 2018, according to estimates from the National Economic Development Authority.

“We strongly believe there is a dire need to strengthen legislation and enforcement to stop illegal online gambling and proliferation of illegal Chinese workers that shamelessly robbed our own people of jobs,” Villanueva said.

And yet when asked about the influx of illegal Chinese workers, President Duterte – a self-described friend of China – instead of just categorically saying that he would order their immediate arrest and deportation cautioned authorities against such crackdown because there are several Filipinos getting lenient treatment abroad. He said thousands of Filipinos are working legally and illegally in China.

If this is so, why not just bring back the Filipinos working illegally in China to fill up the jobs that the Chinese now occupies in the Philippines – most of them illegally anyway.

Chinese businessmen are taking advantage of the administration’s cozying up with the Chinese government. Chinese contractors have been heading to the Philippines to get a piece of the country’s infrastructure boom under Duterte’s “Build, Build, Build” program that he hopes would be funded by loans and grants from China.

The Chinese are also coming to take advantage of Manila’s booming casino industry, including online gaming. These contractors and gambling operators come with their own managers and workers, and thus, does not really contribute much to the country’s employment numbers. In 2016, Duterte’s first year in office, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCor) gave permits to operate to more than 50 offshore gaming firms.

The Senate hearings should not just focus on the rising number of Chinese workers in terms of its effects on employment but should also consider its effect on the country’s national security. These workers are mostly posted in Metro Manila and in the various economic zones, which by any measure are strategic points in terms of national security.

The Chinese are also poised to enter in a big way the country’s telecommunications industry and the installation of closed circuit TVs in various local government units throughout the country, two vital sectors that could affect national security.

China has continued its aggressive stance in the South China Sea and national leaders should always be concerned about national security issues vis-à-vis its relations with China.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Trump is like a frog on a lily pad

Kaleidoscope
By Perry Diaz

President Donald Trump shows map outlining his “wall.”

During the 2016 campaign, then presidential candidate Donald Trump made a lot of promises to his voter base. One promise that excited his rightwing supporters was to build a wall along the US-Mexico border and Mexico will pay for it. Indeed, it had become a standard red meat in his campaign. He’d say, “I’ll build a wall on the border and who will pay for it?” The crowd roared, “Mexico!” He’d repeat this at least three times at every rally. All told, he rode to victory on the back of Mexicans, whom he accused of sending criminals, rapists, terrorists, and drug traffickers across the border.

One of the first things he did upon ascending to the presidency was to call the newly elected President of Mexico and asked him to pay for the wall. The Mexican president said, “No.” Not used to being rejected, Trump told his base he’d make Mexico pay for it, one way or another. They roared! They loved him! He’s their hero!

With the enthusiastic support of his base, he was ebulliently confident that the Republican candidates for Congress would win in the midterm elections. In fact, he told his supporters that the midterms would be a referendum on him. He ran on an anti-immigrant rhetoric… and the wall. He would build his wall to keep the undesirables away. There would be a “red wave” and the Republicans would continue to control Congress.

He was wrong! While he retained control of the Senate, he lost 40 congressional seats to the Democrats! He couldn’t believe it. Suddenly his world turned upside down. What the heck happened?

Rudely awakened by his huge loss in the midterms, he tried to sell the notion that the midterms ended in a “tie” — the Republicans won the Senate and the Democrats won the House of Representatives. He was wrong again! The Republicans lost the House of Representatives.

Absolute authority

“Absolute authority” is what dictators use.

He had a plan. He’ll force the Democrats to give him $5.7 billion to build his wall. If they don’t go along with his plan, he’d close the government for whatever it takes — one month or even years. He then invited the congressional leaders to a meeting at the White House Situation Room. At the meeting, Trump offered to open the government provided that the Democrats would fund his wall within 30 days. Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a “No.” Trump threw a tantrum, pounded the table and stormed out of the room. In a press briefing after Trump walked out, Pelosi accused Trump of holding the federal employees hostage to get his wall.

Trump then played what he thought was his Ace card. He said that he has “absolute authority” to declare a national emergency and use military funds to build the wall. Whatever he meant by “absolute authority” reminds me that dictators only use “absolute authority.” He said that if his plan is challenged in the courts, he might lose in the lower and appellate courts, but he’d win in the Supreme Court because the majority is comprised of conservative justices who he believes would support his conservative agenda. If he’s correct that the Supreme Court justices would rule strictly on their affinity to Trump’s conservative agenda, then Trump is on his way to being the first American dictator and the American people might as well kiss democracy good-bye. But the justices are independent and highly principled. They know their obligation to America, which is to protect the constitution and uphold the rule of law. The American people are resilient and they love their freedom. They know how to deal with leaders who abuse their power. The recent midterm elections proved it.

The “wall” is neither a conservative, liberal nor moderate issue. It’s all about whether it’s the best solution to sealing our border from illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, human traffickers, terrorists, and criminals whom Trump wants to prevent from crossing the US-Mexico border. Recently, the Border Patrol discovered three tunnels at the Texas border that would be way below Trump’s wall. Accordingly, there are more than a hundred tunnels in existence today. At an estimated cost of at least $66 billion for the 1,600-mile long US-Mexico border, there is no guarantee that Trump’s “wall” would seal the border. The $5 billion that Trump is asking Congress would only be for a 250-mile section of the wall. But most illegal entrant and drug traffickers pass through legal ports of entry — by land, air or sea – in plain sight. And how about the US-Canada border and the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards?

Collateral damage

“Stop holding America hostage”

It is evident that the reason why Trump has persistently demanded to build his wall is that his base, particularly the rightwing media – Rush Limbaugh, Fox News – have been telling him that if he doesn’t build the wall he promised his supporters, he could lose in the 2020 presidential elections. In other words, there is no way out of his self-inflicted dilemma. He has dug in too deep that there is no “face saving” way to break his promise and get out of his dilemma.

The only way out was to declare national emergency and let the Supreme Court rule on its constitutionality. If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, then he wins. If the Court rules against him, he can then tell his base, “Sorry folks, I tried,” and he’d feel vindicated. He’d even declare “victory.” Not too fast, fella.

For his misadventure, Trump will pay a very high price. The collateral damage is the plight of 800,000 federal workers who were furloughed when Trump shut down the government. The ripple effect goes beyond the walls of the federal buildings where they work. It’s like a “tsunami” that rumbles through the prairies in the Midwest, through the Rockies all the way to the western seaboard. The damage is irreparable to families and businesses. Reports show that for each day the government is partially shut down, it cost the government $1 billion. Now on its 22nd day (the longest in U.S. history)… and counting, there is no end in sight when the meltdown would end.

Frog on a lily pad.

As in the past, the people held the administration responsible for the fiasco. And this translates to a loss of political capital. With Trump already taking a lot of flaks from all sides, he has nowhere else to hide.

Trump reminds me of a frog on a lily pad. Every time you throw a stone at the frog, it would jump to the next lily pad. The frog keeps on jumping from one lily pad to another until there is nowhere else to go. With all the issues being thrown at Trump, he has nowhere else to go just like a frog on a lily pad.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

China eyes Palawan

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

Just as the year 2018 was coming to end, several events happened that put into question the future of Philippine-US relations, particularly defense relations that is the linchpin of the Philippines’ military strategy.

On December 21, 2018, Philippine Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin met with U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in Washington DC. In a statement release by a State Department spokesperson, “Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Locsin also explored opportunities to increase people-to-people ties between our two countries, our longstanding commitment to human rights, and our cooperation to strengthen the Philippines’ energy security.” The two top diplomats discussed “ongoing efforts to address regional issues such as the South China Sea, North Korea, and counterterrorism,” he said.

On the same day, Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, in his yearend briefing, “stressed the need to review the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) given the ambivalent stand of the US on the country’s maritime domain and territorial issue in the West Philippine Sea.” He wanted the US to give a definitive stand on whether it would support the Philippines in the event of a confrontation with other claimants. He said that the MDT should cover certain areas of the South China Sea that the Philippines has sovereign rights.

Lorenzana said that it’s about time that both countries review the provisions of the 67-year-old MDT, particularly the mounting security concerns in the South China Sea, to see if it is still relevant to the Philippines’ “national interest.” He said the review is needed in order to make the alliance with the US stronger. “It is the only country we have an alliance with,” he said.

Mutual Defense Treaty

Opening ceremony of the Balikatan joint US-Philippines military exercise.

The MDT was signed in 1951 and has remained in effect even after the 1947 Military Bases Agreement (MBA) expired in 1991 and its extension rejected by the Senate. In 1994, the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) took effect, which allowed a small presence of US Special Forces in Mindanao to help in the Philippines’ counterterrorism campaign. In 2014 the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was signed. However, it has yet to be implemented other that than identifying eight bases for its use.

Article IV of the MDT states that an attack on either party will be acted upon in accordance with their constitutional processes and that any armed attack on either party will be brought to the attention of the United Nations for immediate action. Once the United Nations issues the orders, all hostile actions between the signatories of this treaty and opposing parties will be terminated.

But here’s the rub: The Security Council has 15 members, five of which are permanent members with veto power. Russia and China are veto-wielding permanent members. The other three are the US, UK, and France. Therefore, in the event that China attacks the Philippines, China could veto any measure to restore peace, which would leave the Philippines at the mercy of the Chinese invaders.

The problem is — unlike the NATO’s automatic retaliation in the event a member is attacked — the MDT doesn’t have an “automatic provision.” It merely provides for consultations according to its constitutional process after one of the parties is attacked. But had the US forces been allowed to stay in 1991, the US forces stationed in the Philippines would have to respond immediately to an attack. All it would take is for the US President to say, “Go.” Sitting idly by wouldn’t be an option. But without US forces on Philippine soil, authorization has to come from the US Congress. By then, China would have firmly occupied the country.

With MDT rendered inutile for now, the EDCA’s eight bases around the country would allow interoperability, capacity building towards AFP modernization, strengthening AFP for external defense, maritime security, maritime domain awareness, and humanitarian assistance and disaster response. In other words, EDCA would have been more effective than MDT in defending the Philippines’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. But the problem is: It has been politicized; thus, making it a “paper tiger.”

Lorenzana’s candid and blunt assessment of the US vis-à-vis Philippines’ security situation must have alarmed Malacanang and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Secretary Locsin immediately went to Washington DC to meet with US National Security Adviser John Bolton. The Philippine Embassy in the US capital issued a statement saying the two officials recognized the role of the two nations’ alliance in maintaining regional peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.

Price of sovereignty

In my article, “What price sovereignty?” (January 20, 2014), I wrote: “The question of Philippine sovereignty has been debated over and over again since 1991 when the Philippine Senate voted to reject the retention of American bases. The nationalists were convinced that the Philippines didn’t need the protection of the U.S. against foreign invasion. They asserted that continued presence of American bases was an affront to Philippine sovereignty. However, they didn’t demand for the rescission of the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), which obligated the U.S. to defend Philippine territory in the event of foreign invasion. It’s like them saying, ‘We don’t want you around but we expect you to defend us if we were invaded.’ Indeed, it’s a love-hate relationship that is nurtured to this day.

“But two years after the U.S. bases were closed in 1992, China seized the Panganiban Reef (Mischief Reef) in the middle of the night. And the Philippine Armed Forces couldn’t do anything to take it back.”

Now that the MDT’s effectiveness is put to question, is the Philippines ready to defend itself? Probably not. But MDT would not suffice, simply because it is weak. On the other hand, EDCA would provide an almost “automatic response” mechanism to an attack on Philippine territory. What fails me to understand is what’s taking it so long to make EDCA operational?

Chinese interest on Palawan

Map of the Philippines shows island of Palawan on the left.

It is interesting to note that last November, President Duterte told the Palawan provincial government that he would be compelled to expropriate the franchise of independent power producers in Palawan and sell them to “big players” to end the power outages in the province. “China is itching just to get a hold of development here,” he said. Duterte also decided not to allow any country to stockpile arms and ammunition in Palawan.

In my opinion, this would be the first step for China to get a strong foothold on Palawan, especially so that there is a plan to break Palawan into three provinces. Anders Corrs, a European-based international risk analyst said, “If China wants a military base on Palawan, mining rights, or fishing rights, after breakup it would have multiple officials with whom it can negotiate or bribe, playing one against the other.”

On Duterte’s decision to keep Palawan free from foreign arms stockpiles, Corrs said, “It would leave Palawan militarily vulnerable to the advantage of China.” Indeed, China has been eyeing Palawan for at least three decades now, which makes one wonder: Without MDT and EDCA what do you think China would do next?

Geographically speaking, Palawan is only 100 miles away from China’s militarized artificial islands in the Spratlys while there is the large Sulu Sea that separates it from the rest of the Philippines. And without MDT and EDCA, Duterte might just as well kiss Palawan goodbye.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

PROPHECY OF CHINA’S INVASION NOW HAPPENING

Both Military and Economic Invasions

eastwind journals
By Bernie V. Lopez
eastwindreplyctr@gmail.com

Share via link – http://www.sisterraquel.com/2018/12/prophecy-of

Lady of Fatima

As you read this article, the Marian prophecy is actually being fulfilled by many ongoing events, both military and economic invasions.

God-given prophecies, especially of future disasters, are not absolute. They may or may not be fulfilled, depending on how we pray and atone for sins. The Lord can reverse or ‘cancel’ a prophecy of doom. He can change His mind when He sees us repent. Our prayers can thus avert future disasters.

Our Lady Mediatrix of All Grace told the prophecy to visionary Sister Teresing Castillo, a postulant in the Carmelite Order in Lipa City, of a looming ‘invasion’ of the Philippines by China, announced by Cardinal Vidal, former Archbishop of Lipa.. The message to Sr. Teresing was given on the 33rd year anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima, October 17, 1949, establishing the link between Fatima and the Mediatrix. The message read –

In October 17, 1949, Our Lady Mediatrix said, quoting Sister Teresing, “Pray hard, for China’s dream is to invade the whole world. The Philippines is one of its favorites.” (Source – Inquirer, July 13, 2014).

The economic invasion became visible with the infamous ZTE controversy in 2007. The government’s Philippine National Broadband Network forged the US$330 million (Php16.5 billion) NBN-ZTE deal. ZTE is a Chinese multinational telecom equipment giant. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) was forced to suspend the deal due to the bribery scandal.

The bigger global issue with ZTE and Huawei, another giant, was not over corruption but over cyber attacks and espionage. In 2012, the US banned trade with ZTE and Huawei due to violations of trade sanctions against Iran. (Source – huawei-zte-incur-wrath-washington). Australia, New Zealand, and Britain also banned the use of Huawai equipment in its 5G, 4G, and 3G programs. In December 2018, Japan announced the ban on government purchase contracts with ZTE and Huawei, due to “fears of intelligence leaks and cyber attacks” (Source – japan-tipped-to-ban-huawei-zte).

The State Grid Corporation of China is the majority stockholder of our National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), which funds, manages and distribute power nationwide. This private firm may affect national security if controlled by foreigners.

There is now a move to bring a third Telco provider is to break the Smart-Globe duopoly. The ongoing (December 2018) billion-peso bid for the third Telco is feared by many as another potential Chinese ‘invasion’. China Telecom, reputed to have the blessings of Duterte, has partnered with local corporations as one of six bidders, a wrestling match among giants. China Telecom is part of the State-owned China Telecommunications Corp., which has a staggering 153 million internet customers. The third Telco is viewed by many as a giant that can easily overshadow Smart and Globe combined, who are accused of having one of the slowest broadband speed in Asia.

The third Telco has both advantages and disadvantages. It can dramatically improve broadband speed and quality and bring down prices. It may also be a venue for cyber attacks and espionage from the outside. The Telcos are strategic areas of political and national security importance.

It must be clarified that the US and other rich nations have been invading the Philippines economically in the last 5 decades. China the new player can, however, trigger an economic tsunami never before seen.

On the aspect of a military ‘invasion’, this is actually an ongoing affair in the South China Sea, with China’s occupation of islets and shoals claimed by the Philippine, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan. These occupations are military in nature because they involve the building of airports and seaports capable of hosting warplanes, warships, missile siloes and rapid troop movements. These facilities are a form of military invasion because they are unilateral and confiscatory, without dialogues or agreements with the other claimant nations.

Prayer for Peace

The Carmelite Sisters of Lipa have been praying for China ever since that Marian prophecy, for they believe peace can still be attained through prayers. Marian Devotees are asking Pope Francis to consecrate China to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, just as St. John Paul II, the first Fatima Pope, consecrated Russia in 1984, which led to the first-ever visit of a Russian leader (Gorbachev) to the Vatican, to the restoration of religious freedom in Russia, and to the end of the Cold War after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The consecration of China by Pope Francis, the ‘second Fatima Pope’, will hopefully lead to an era of peace in the Asia Pacific Region.

China’s ‘Nine-Dash’ initiative, claiming 80% of South China Sea, hugging the entire western flank of the Philippine coastline, affirms the prophecy’s statement, “the Philippines (as) one of (China’s) favorites”.

Learning lessons from the dialogue of St. John Paul II and Gorbachev, strategic diplomatic moves of the Philippines in dealing with China must be balanced with prayers, spiritual and temporal wisdoms. What the shrewdest diplomatic strategies cannot attain, simple prayers may be able to. For nothing is impossible for the Lord.

(eastwindreplyctr@gmail.com)

MILLION PEOPLE MARCH

By REY O. ARCILLA
MALAYA

(I believe it is time for President Duterte who says he “hates corruption” to rally the people to stage once again another Million People March of 26 August 2013.)

Judging from the exchanges between the members of the executive and the legislative branches of the government, it is pretty obvious that pork barrel is alive and well despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional.

We are fortunate we have Senator Panfilo Lacson who has drawn our attention to the feeble attempts and excuses advanced by members of the House of Representatives (many Filipinos call it House of Representathieves) to continue enjoying pork barrel.

However, Lacson’s valiant efforts to rid the budget of pork barrel will not succeed without the support of the administration and, above all, the Filipino people.

I believe it is time for the people to stage once again the so-called Million People March of 26 August 2013 (I was there with many of my former students in tow) which resulted in the Supreme Court declaration that pork barrel is illegal. The high court should endeavor this time to plug the loopholes that our lawmakers (lawbreakers?) are now using to circumvent its ruling.

To refresh their memory about the Million People March, readers may wish to click on this weblink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_People_March.

Who could rally the people to stage another Million People March?

Who else but President Rodrigo Roa Duterte aka Digong himself? One of his three main battle cries is “My God, I hate corruption!”, the other two being his campaign against illegal drugs/criminality and getting rid of foreign troops in the country.

THE BALANGIGA BELLS

At first, his spokesman said Digong will attend the turnover rites of the Balangiga bells at Villamor Air Base. Then Digong changed his mind.

Subsequently, the spokesman said Digong will go to Balangiga when the bells are delivered there – only to change his mind again.

Finally, the spokesman said Digong was persuaded to go to Balangiga due to the townsfolks’ clamor for his presence. (He did go but with the US represented only by the deputy chief of mission of its embassy in Manila.)

It is evident Digong wasn’t really keen on gracing any occasion meant to give the bells’ return more importance than needed. He has done his job. He didn’t have to “bask in glory” for the bells’ long-delayed return.

My own sentiment: “Mabuti naman at isinauli n’yo na! Salamat.”

In contrast, Digong’s spokesman, his foreign secretary and his ambassador to Washington were quite extravagant in their utterances on the bells’ return, e.g., that it shows the US is a “true friend” of the Philippines; that “it marks an important milestone in and gives new meaning to the shared history” between the two countries.

It took a “true friend” seven decades to return what, in the words of Digong, “belong to the Philippines” and “part of our national heritage”?!

Quite expectedly, US Ambassador Sung Kim was no less profuse in his platitudes about the bells’ return.

Still on this matter, a reader wrote: “I understand, before the return of the Balangiga bells, they were first shipped to Philadelphia. Let us make sure we got the genuine ones, not replicas. Those bells can be carbon dated and let us see.”

Incidentally, why do Digong’s foreign secretary Teodoro “Tweeter” Locsin and his ambassador to the US Jose Romualdez appear so eager to have him visit Washington? Have the Americans been egging them? Just asking.

PURCHASE OF US HELICOPTERS

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said we are buying 16 Black Hawk helicopters for US$240 million from the US instead of the cheaper ones from Russia “due to US sanctions on Russian military exports”.

He added that it would be “very difficult to pay them (Russians) because of the U.S. sanctions”.

We have the US$240 million, don’t we? Won’t the Russians accept dollars as payment? Shouldn’t we ask them first? We’ll be saving a lot of money. And better quality choppers?

Or have we been told US sanctions will definitely be imposed on us if we bought Russian helicopters or other military equipment? I thought she’s a “true friend”, a trusted ally?

Another question is are we assured of US Congress’ approval of the sale?

LORENZANA’S NAIVETE

When asked at a recent forum what his take is on Digong’s statement that we could not go to war with China over the disputed areas in the West Philippine Sea, Lorenzana said we have two “options” that we could bank on, namely, our “alliances with other Asean nations and the Philippines’ mutual defense treaty with the United States.”

Duh?

First, we do not have any sort of military alliance with any ASEAN member. Nor is the Association a military alliance. It is mainly economic in nature although it has inexorably taken on political and security matters that affect the region. But a military alliance it is not and never will be.

Second, the mutual defense treaty with the US already failed miserably its first test, i.e., when the US did not help us stop China from seizing Panatag Shoal, saying she is “neutral” on territorial disputes.

She wouldn’t even defend her own interests when she did not make a serious attempt to stop China from reclaiming isles and reefs in the disputed areas of the South China Sea and constructing military installations on them. She did demand that China put an “immediate and lasting halt” to the reclamation activity, but that was it! That alone should tell us that the US values her relations with China more than her relations with us.

And Lorenzana believes the US will defend us from possible Chinese armed aggression on account of the mutual defense treaty with the US? That is the height of naivete!

To begin with, I do not for one moment believe that China will want to go to war with us over what she already took from us. Nor would we, definitely, for obvious reasons.

It seems Lorenzana chose to forget that the treaty does not call for instant retaliation by the US against any power that attacks us. Such retaliation has to go through the US Congress for approval which conceivably could come too late for us.

We should likewise always bear in mind that in case of an armed conflict between China and the US, we become a primary target of the former (aside from South Korea, Japan and possibly Australia) due to the presence of US troops, bases and prepositioned military arsenal here on account of the VFA and the EDCA.

This, I like to believe, is the principal reason Digong uttered his famous words on the US military presence in the country, to wit: “I really hate it. I don’t want it. We don’t need it. The US should not treat the Philippines like a ‘dog with a leash’.”

The P64-question now is when will Digong give substance and meaning to his unforgettable words?

REMINDERS

This segment is intended to remind the Duterte administration of some of its yet unfulfilled promises and matters that need attention and/or follow-up action. More importantly, the people are entitled to know what’s being done about them.

1. Digong’s promise to rid the country of foreign troops. This, of course,
necessitates abrogating the lopsided and constitutionally infirm VFA and the EDCA.

2. Reciprocal visa arrangements with the US and other countries. (What is the DFA doing about this? Our embassy in Washington?)

3. The return of the Canadian waste. Sources say the DOJ has filed a motion before the proper court for the importer to return the waste to Canada. Apparently no decision yet. In the meantime, I think it is incumbent upon the DFA to issue a statement on the status of this matter.

Also, if Environment Secretary Roy Cimatu could order the return of the South Korean waste to that country, why couldn’t he do the same with respect to the Canadian garbage?

******

Today is the 234th day of the twelfth year of the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos, son of the late press icon and founder of this newspaper, Joe Burgos.

After the acquittal of Major Harry Baliaga, Jr., the only person formally charged with Jonas’ kidnapping, I guess what happens next is now up to Divine Providence.

******

From an internet friend:

Q: Why are politicians proof of reincarnation?

A: You just can’t get that screwed up in one lifetime.

******

https://malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/million-people-march