A crowded senatorial field

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

Just like past midterm elections, the political exercises halfway through the six-year presidential term is a harbinger of how the next presidential football is shaped. Who are the quarterbacks? Who are the players? Who are the coaches? And who will be traded?

It is a game where the opposing teams give no quarter and take no prisoners. The stakes are high… very high, indeed. Whoever wins will control the nation’s politics for a long time to come. And the losers will be thrown – sad to say -- into oblivion, never to resurface again for a long, long time. Such is the life of a loser in Philippine politics.

The political football began on July 23, 2018 when former President and Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo staged a coup d’état against the Speaker right in front of the President who was about to deliver his State of the Nation Address (SONA), members of Congress and their wives and mistresses dressed and ready for any surprises that would spring out. Poor Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, reputedly President Rodrigo Duterte’s right-hand man in the House of Thieves -- short for Representathieves -- who suffered the ignominy of being thrown out of his own House.

Musical chair

How did Gloria do it? Known for seizing an opportunity before anyone else can, Gloria reportedly used the rift between Speaker Alvarez and Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio, the president’s daughter, to pursue her Machiavellian goal. It was said that the rift was fueled when Alvarez allegedly called Duterte-Carpio a part of the opposition when she formed a separate regional political party, Hugpong ng Pagbabago (HNP).

That was the season-opener for the 2019 midterms. Sara told reporters that HNP was willing to forge alliances with other political parties. It encouraged some lawmakers from the ruling PDP-Laban to consider jumping ship to Lakas-CMD, which was Arroyo’s political party during her presidency.

What we’re seeing now is the start of the game played by turncoats, popularly known as the “balimbings,” whose loyalty is not to their party or their candidate but to themselves. To a lot of them, it’s a matter of self-preservation… or survival. It’s like a musical chair; if you’re not fast enough to switch, you’re out of the game.

Sara makes a move

On August 13, 2018, Mayor Duterte-Carpio announced the formation of a super-coalition of three national parties and six local or regional parties. The three national parties are the Nacionalista Party (NP), Nationalist People’s Party (NPC), and National Unity Party (NUP). The six local parties are: Hugpong ng Pagbabago (HNP), a regional party founded by Duterte-Carpio not too long ago; Ilocano Timpuyog; Alyansa Bol-anon Alang sa Kausaban (Abaka); Aggrupation of Party for Progress (APP); Kambilan; PaDayon Pilipino (PP); and Serbisyo sa Bayan Party.

Joining forces with Duterte-Carpio are big political quarterbacks Sen. Cynthia Villar of the NP, former President and now Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and tycoon Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr.., founder the NPC when he ran for President in 1992.

Duterte-Carpio told the media that it was her father, President Duterte, who gave her and her supporters the go-ahead to form HNP. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what President Duterte had in mind. He sees in Sara someone who is a natural heir to his expanding political domain that has the prospect of becoming the country’s next preeminent political dynasty, if not already. Actually, Sara is the only one among Duterte’s three children by his first marriage who is ready to step up to the plate and carry out her father’s political agenda.

In a calculated move last September, Sara denied that she would be running for Senator this year. “I am not running for senator. We are just really trying to unite everybody who wants to help the administration of President Duterte until 2022,” she said. She should have added, “…and beyond.”

Sara’s game plan

In my article, “How high would Sara go?” (September 7, 2018), I wrote: “She [Sara Duterte-Carpio] would be Duterte’s political heir in 2022 when his presidential term expires. The question is: Is she prepared and ready to take over from her father?

“She might not be as prepared to run for president but she is ready. She has the gumption to fight an intense and contentious presidential campaign. She got that from her dad. But she should also be aware that some of her rivals in the presidential derby might be her allies today. As we all know, political turncoats or ‘balimbings’ would emerge from the murky shadows of political expedience.

“But if Sara plays her cards right, and with her father’s strong political influence, she just might end up with an unbeatable Royal Flush hand. But there is a caveat when you’re playing high-stake politics. If you fall, it would be with a big thud in which you’re unlikely to recover.”

The Senatoriables

The senatorial field is crowded. There are 62 candidates vying for 12 Senate seats. There are 51 male candidates and 11 female candidates. Among them are seven reelectionists and seven who are seeking a comeback, including 95-years-old Juan Ponce Enrile.

Interestingly, Sara’s HNP is supporting two Senate slates. The first one consists of the eight bets it will endorse nationwide, while the second HNP list contains the 14 senatorial candidates it will endorse in the Davao Region, her bailiwick.

There are a lot of wannabes in the senatorial field but eventually it would be a battle between the administration and the opposition candidates. Grace Poe tops the senatoriables with 67.4% but it is doubtful if she’d run this time around. Rep. Pia Cayetano who placed second with 55.7% might be tempted to run for president and fall back to vice president if she fails. Sen. Cynthia Villar who placed third with 50.1% might throw her name for president but would quickly settle for vice president. Sara Duterte-Carpio, although a non-candidate, is fourth place with 46.2%. And Imee Marcos placed 14th with 29.9% but she vowed that she’d win.. But right now, it’s a no-brainer; the bets are on Duterte-Carpio and Robredo running as administration and opposition candidates, respectively.

As for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, nobody knows what she’s vying for. But right now, we’ll just have to take her word that she’d be writing her memoirs, which I surmise will be titled, “Why I failed to become Prime Minister?” I understand it’s going to make it to the “Best Selling Fictional Stories.”

And how about President Duterte and Bongbong Marcos? Bongbong was once Duterte’s “manok” for President. Well, from what’s going around in the rumor mill today, Duterte promised Bongbong that they’d still be “Best Friends Forever.” Bongbong should know better, “Blood is thicker than politics.” And besides, whoever believes that there are permanent friends? Not even permanent enemies. The only thing that’s permanent is self-interest..

And to the “balimbings” who didn’t make it, all I can say is, “Hey, better luck next time. Never give up.” Someday, you’d be running for President. Most of those who became President were “balimbings.”

And remember, in Philippine elections, there are no losers, only the winners and those who were cheated.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Is the Philippines the next Djibouti?

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

Chinese troops march in Djibouti in celebration of Djibouti’s Independence Day.

A tiny impoverished but strategically located country by the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in the Horn of Africa, Djibouti has become a much-coveted property among powerful nations.

In 2001, Djibouti leased Camp Lemonnier, a former French Foreign Legion garrison, to the U.S., along with the right to use the neighboring airport and port facilities. Next to Camp Lemonnier are four other military bases: a French airbase, a Japanese Self-Defense Force Base, an Italian base, and a Saudi Arabian base. In 2015, China began negotiations to create a logistical support base in Djibouti to support China’s anti-piracy operations in the region.

China’s military base shows tanks and troops.

But little did Djiboutian President Ismael Omar Guelleh know that China’s use of the Djibouti base is to increase her power projection capabilities in the Horn of Africa and the Indian Ocean. As soon as the base became operational in 2017, China started deploying troops, tanks, and warships to the base. China did not disclose how many troops would be stationed at the base. But previous reports have put the size at 10,000.

Infrastructure

The new Ethiopia-Djibouti electric railway.

In January 2017, the Chinese-built 728-km Ethiopia-Djibouti electric train was completed. The joint venture between China and Djibouti cost $4 billion, which was financed by China. Djibouti also partnered with China’s state-owned China Merchants Ports Holdings Company or CMPort to build the Doraleh Multipurpose Port. CMPort was the same state-owned corporation that built and financed the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. Recently, Guelleh announced the new Djibouti International Free Trade Zone, a $3.5-billion venture with China, as a “hope for thousands of young jobseekers.” But while it might provide jobs for the 800,000 Djiboutians, the costs add up to the skyrocketing public debt, which accounts for 88% of the country’s $1.72 billion GDP, of which China owns a large portion. And the question is: How will Djibouti repay the humongous loans from China?

Debt trap

Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port that was leased to China for 99 years after defaulting on $13 billion loans on various projects.

Djibouti’s unfortunate debt trap could result in giving control of these projects to China just like what happened to Sri Lanka who was forced to turn over control of the Hambantota port to the Chinese. Sri Lanka racked up a debt of more than $13 billion to Chinese state-owned banks. These banks charged predatory interest rates as high as 7%, which is too high to service. Eight out of the 68 countries involved in China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) Initiative are facing unsustainable debt levels.

Some 10,000 miles east is another country that is at risk of falling into China’s debt trap – the Philippines. During his state visit to the Philippines last November 2018, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Philippine counterpart Rodrigo Duterte signed 29 agreements that include the following: Cooperation on the OBOR Initiative; Joint Oil and Gas Exploration and Development; and Infrastructure cooperation program between the Philippines and China.

With China’s high interest rates, the Philippine government’s debt of approximately $123 billion could rise to over $1 trillion in 10 years. Given the humongous loans that the country gets from China, what’s the likelihood of China taking possession of Philippine assets if she defaults on her loans? There are lucrative assets that China could take over such as the oil-rich Recto Bank, Benham Rise, Malampaya gas field, Clark and Subic Bay Freeport Zones, Port of Manila, Port of Cebu, mining companies, and others.

It’s interesting to note that infrastructure projects are usually debt traps if the debtors don’t have the ability to service the loans due to inadequate revenues. Take the case of the Marcos administration where it embarked on a rapid infrastructure program in the 1980s. I remember going to a trade show at the Philippine Trade Training Center in 1985 and was shocked to see the place virtually empty except for a few cottage industries and processed food products for local consumption. There were no exportable products except for rattan furniture. The Philippines at that time was strapped for dollars due to poor export market and lack of revenue-generating manufacturing industries.

It is evident that China’s playbook is to liberally lend loans to underdeveloped countries at high interest rates. When the countries default on their loans, China would then foreclose the collaterals, which usually translate to 99-year lease agreements as in the case with Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Montenegro, and the Maldives.

Subic Bay

Subic Bay

Recently, a news report said that a former chief of the Philippine Navy warned over two Chinese firms’ possible takeover of the Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction (HHIC) shipyard in Subic, Zambales. “Let’s be aware that this Hanjin shipyard issue is not just about business, financial and other economic issues. This is a very significant national issue!” former Navy chief Vice Admiral Alexander Pama said in his Facebook post. He warned that China’s ownership of Hanjin’s shipyard would give unlimited access to one of the Philippines most strategic geographic naval and maritime asset. He then urged both government and private sector to go against China’s possible ownership of the shipyard.

Subic Bay was once the home to one of the largest US naval bases. It served as a repair and supply depot due to its strategic location. It was around 260 kilometers from the Scarborough Shoal, the subject of territorial dispute between the Philippine and China. When the Military Bases Agreement (MBA) between the US and the Philippines expired in 1991, attempts to extend the life of MBA failed in the Philippine Senate. The following year all US forces and bases in the country left. However, part of the base remained as a locally operated logistical supply facility for American warships and submarines.

The former American naval base was converted into commercial and industrial use, administered by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). One of the biggest tenants was the HHIC shipyard. Recently, HHIC filed for rehabilitation due to slowdowns in the global shipping industry. Subsequently, two major Chinese shipbuilders indicated their interest in taking over the HHIC operations.

If a Chinese company’s bid is successful, it would be a major victory for China, who had been trying to establish a solid foothold in the Philippines, not only commercial and industrial, but military as well. And considering the close personal relationship between Duterte and Xi, there is a strong likelihood that the facility would be awarded to a China state-owned firm.

Power projection

China’s Strategic Triangle that would control passage from South China to the Western Pacific through the Bashi Channel.

The main purpose of the Chinese logistical support base is to replenish their supplies for her military bases in the Spratlys that are closer than Mainland China. As such, it would then be proper to say that a Chinese presence in Subic Bay is just like the Chinese military base in Djibouti, which would play a crucial role in projecting China’s power in the South China Sea and beyond. It would provide China with the capability to connect Subic Bay to Scarborough Shoal to the Paracel Islands; thus, denying the US free and unimpeded passage in the South China Sea to the Western Pacific through the Bashi Channel between Northern Philippines and Taiwan. Later on, China could also take control of the Bashi Channel to take complete control of the First Island Chain, a 30-year Chinese dream.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana told a Senate hearing that Duterte was “very receptive” to the idea of the state being a minority investor in a private sector-led rescue of HHIC. Sounds like a great idea. But there is a caveat to this: Would the Chinese companies be allowed to take substantial stock holdings in the takeover of HHIC? Or could it be that President Duterte was in one of his “dyok only” moments?

At the end of the day, one doesn’t fail to notice: Is the Philippines the next Djibouti?

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

A referendum on democracy

ON DISTANT SHORE
By Val G. Abelgas

Just like all mid-term elections, the coming May elections should be treated as a referendum on whether the people approve of the performance and policies of the present administration and whether they want the same policies to continue in the next three years.

With the death of the two-party system and the emergence of patronage-based political coalitions since the supposed re-birth of democracy in the country in 1986, the once-every-three-years elections have become a political circus rather than a political exercise. Unlike when the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party fought hard to gain control of Malacanang or Congress, elections are now being contested by fleeting coalitions, ones that are based more on patronage and personality, rather than on platforms.

So don’t expect a full slate of the dominant parties, such as LP, NP or PDP-Laban. Instead, you’ll see coalitions, whose names sound more like showbiz slogans rather than political parties. For example, there is the Otso Deretso, whose Senate line-up includes four LP members and four other oppositionists; the Hugpong ng Pagbabago, a coalition led by presidential daughter and Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte which is endorsing 13 senatorial candidates (one more than the 12 slots being contested) mostly pro-Duterte and pro-Arroyo politicians; Tapang at Malasakit Alliance, also composed mostly of pro-Duterte politicians from the PDP-Laban and Nacionalista Party; Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, composed of unknown politicians supporting Duterte, Arroyo and and their proposal to shift to a federal system; and Cojuangco-led Nationalist People’s Coalition, also composed of pro-Duterte politicians.

Based on the composition of the above coalitions, there are eight opposition senatorial candidates and the rest of the 76 official candidates are mostly supporters of President Duterte, potentially ensuring that Congress will continue to be controlled by Duterte and his new partner, former President and now House Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Thus, unless the Filipino voters fully support the eight Otso Deretso candidates and four of the more independent bets, we can almost be certain that the balance of power will be heavily tilted in favor of the Executive Branch, which will the have full control of the Senate, the House of Representatives and consequently, the Supreme Court.

The coming May political exercise, just like all mid-term elections, should thus be treated by Filipinos as a referendum both on Duterte and democracy. Should we let President Duterte continue to with his affront on human rights and the rule of law, and lead with iron fists, unchecked by both Congress and the Judiciary? Should we vote for senatorial and congressional candidates who turn a blind eye on Duterte’s strongman tactics? Or should we vote to start realigning our ship back to the democratic path?
The just concluded mid-term elections in the United States have proven that democracy is well and alive in the country. With the Democrats having wrested control of the House of Representatives with plenty of room to spare, the tantrums of President Donald Trump have been put under check as in the case of the battle over the border wall, in which the Donald would have built that stupid wall if not checked by the Speaker Nancy Pelosi-led and Democrat-controlled House.

The American people, through the ballots, made it known that they’ve had enough of Trump’s capricious and whimsical leadership. Thus, the constitutionally mandated check and balance among the three branches of government – the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary – remains in force.

For three years since the former Davao mayor was elected president in 2016, with an overwhelming lead over LP bet Manuel Roxas, but a minority president nevertheless, having won only 39 percent of the total number of votes, Duterte has had absolute control over the House of Representatives.

The usual political butterflies quickly joined forces with the winning presidential candidate even before they could all be sworn in as congressmen, ensuring Duterte complete control of the House of Representatives. For three years, they have toed the line, either afraid of suffering the same fate as opposition Sen. Leila de Lima, losing out in the distribution of the spoils, or losing crucial Malacanang support in these coming elections, or all of the above.

But the Senate, which is the upper and far more superior chamber, has remained somehow independent and has been doing its best to keep Duterte under check. Senators like Ping Lacson, Antonio Trillanes, Franklin Drilon, Grace Poe, Risa Hontiveros, Francis Pangilinan, Sonny Angara, Bam Aquino and even PDP-Laban’s Koko Pimentel, independent Francis Escudero and NP’s Francis Eescudero, have stood many times to criticize Duterte’s policies and reckless remarks, and to keep Duterte’s dictatorial tendencies in check.

Political pundits have given up on the House of Representatives, especially now that it’s led by Arroyo. But hopes remain high for the Senate. And it is the race for the 12 senators – half of the Senate composition – that will be the most crucial if democracy were to remain alive and well in the country that once boasted as the only democracy in Asia.

A Duterte-controlled Senate could mean the entire Congress would just be a rubber stamp of a Chief Executive that once threatened to declare a revolutionary government and who has shown little respect for the rule of law or for democracy. He could ram down unreasonable legislations like lowering the age of criminal liability to nine years as he had originally proposed; force the shift to federal system through a constituent assembly; and force other unpopular or unreasonable measures without the necessary debates.

He can do as he pleases without fear of congressional oversight or impeachment. He can name anybody to the Supreme Court who is willing to do his bidding and clamp down on dissent with even more force.

Should we vote to keep Duterte on check or should we just let democracy die an ignoble death? You decide.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Chinese ‘invasion’ of the Philippines

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

Typically, when a foreign power invades another country, they’re met with resistance that could lead to war. But something unusual is happening in the Philippines — thousands of Chinese workers are invading the country and taking jobs away from Filipinos. However, Malacañang is not worried about it. In fact, they welcome it.

Recently, the Senate Labor, Employment, and Human Resources Committee conducted an inquiry on the influx of foreign workers in the Philippines. It was revealed that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued almost 52,000 alien employment permits for Chinese workers. According to DOLE officials, more than 150,000 Chinese enter the country using tourist visas before getting short-term permits to work for online gaming firms. The Senate committee also found out that more than 119,000 tourists — mostly Chinese — were able to avoid Philippine labor regulations. Current estimates place 200,000 to 400,000 Chinese are working in Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGOs), which were established after President Rodrigo Duterte took over the government in 2016. Currently, there are around 50 POGOs in operation today, mostly operated by Chinese nationals.

But what’s causing the ease for foreigners to acquire work permits is a glaring loophole in the DOLE system where any of the 3.12 million Chinese “tourists” registered at the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) can convert their tourist visas into working visas as long as they obtain an Alien Employment Permit (AEP). And while waiting for their AEP, they are issued a Provisional Work Permit (PWP). So, in a practical sense, any tourist admitted to the country can stay and work without too much of a hassle.

As one resident in Metro Manila had observed: “The Chinese have invaded our islands in the West Philippine Sea and now they’re in my condo! It’s a home invasion!”

“Build, Build, Build”

Well, POGOs are just one industry that is employing a large number of Chinese nationals. The bigger industry, which is growing fast, is the “Build, Build, Build” infrastructure project of President Duterte, which is estimated at US$180 billion. What we’re talking about here are construction workers — tens of thousands — employed by Chinese state-owned contractors.

All the contracts that the Philippines had agreed to undertake with Chinese bank loan financing, the following conditions are included: No bidding process, project to be done by one of China’s state-owned companies, the workers to be Chinese nationals, cost overruns to be renegotiated (that usually ends in higher interest rates), and others including asset-based lending practices.

What is interesting to note is that the Chinese contractors who got the no-bid contracts, hire Chinese nationals, transport them to construction sites, provide housing and meals, and pay them according to China’s pay standards, which are much higher than Philippine pay standards. I n essence, Duterte’s infrastructure project does not increase the country’s construction employment opportunities.

There were reports that the Chinese workers are paid on the average P3,000 a day while Filipino construction workers are paid on the average P600 a day, which would definitely cause resentment and outrage.

One has to remember that the Chinese construction companies will only hire Chinese construction workers as per contract condition. The pay is already built-in to the cost of construction. But here’s the sad part: The Philippine government is paying for the cost of construction plus whatever profit, overhead, housing allowances for the Chinese workers, and other costs are added to the total contract amount. The question is: Would it cost less to hire Filipino construction workers? Absolutely. But then these are the conditions the Chinese government imposed on the countries that were enticed into infrastructure projects with high-interest predatory loans from Chinese banks chosen by the Chinese government.

To entice Chinese workers to work in the Philippines, they have to be paid comparably or more than what they earn in China. After all, it didn’t matter to the Chinese construction companies because the extra cost of labor would be added to the total construction cost, which is paid by the host country, the Philippines.

But what’s happening to Chinese construction projects in the Philippines is also happening in all the countries where China is building infrastructure projects, including 35 seaports around the world. To date, 16 countries are vulnerable to China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” and economic coercion, including Vanuatu, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tonga and Micronesia.

Ghost cities

Three decades ago when China’s export market increased in volume, China embarked on a massive project; building high rise housing projects in newly created cities in anticipation of the growing middle class. Well, they over-built hundreds of them in what are now called “ghost cities.” Some say that they were built on purpose knowing that the growing middle would buy the hundreds of thousands of units built. Economic experts said that by expanding the construction industry, millions of construction jobs were created in the 1990s and 2000. It also caused China’s GDP to grow year after year. But like anything else, good things come to an end sooner or later. When the construction bubble finally burst, China had to find ways to put her construction and infrastructure workers in new projects. And with not enough domestic projects to work on, well…. where else would they go?

One Belt, One Road

Chinese ports around the world.

When Chinese President Xi Jinping came to power, he dreamed of China becoming a superpower. But he couldn’t dislodge America from her perch as the world’s sole superpower. His “China Dream” took shape with his “Soft power diplomacy,” which is to gain economic power as a first step to becoming a superpower.

Xi then embarked on a “soft-power diplomacy” to sell China’s infrastructure projects to other countries. That’s when his “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) Initiative came to fruition. He envisioned OBOR as the new Silk Road connecting Asia and the Western World by land and by sea. To date, China has built 35 seaports around the world creating sea routes — called “String of Pearls” — from the East and South China Seas to the Indian Ocean to Africa and Western Europe. Recently, China was trying to take over the Hanjin Philippines operations at Subic Bay, the former U.S. naval base.

Last November 2018, Xi visited the Philippines for the first time and sealed 29 infrastructure projects with Duterte. It opened to doors for Chinese workers to come to the Philippines, since the “Build, Build, Build” projects were designed to be funded by Chinese banks and utilize Chinese contractors and workers only.

But things don’t seem to be what they should be. And the biggest problem that’s looming in the horizon is China’s OBOR Initiative itself. After pouring trillions of dollars into these grandiose infrastructure projects, participants are beginning to worry that OBOR is China’s thinly disguised strategy to expand her influence over countries from Asia to Western Europe. Instead of signing up to make deals with China, many countries are now beginning to stay away from doing business with her. But how about the 16 countries that have already been entrapped in China’s debt-trap diplomacy? Do they have a way out? Or would they suffer the fate of Sri Lanka, shackled in debt and her patrimony collateralized?

Which begs the question: Could China’s miscalculation of her OBOR Initiative would cause her construction industry to crash and open the floodgates to Chinese “invasion” of the Philippines and other countries?

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

A Russian mole in the White House?

Kaleidoscope
By Perry Diaz

On January 24, 2019, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s star talk show host, mentioned Carl Kline as a former career Pentagon employee who was appointed by President Donald Trump as Director of Personnel Security at the White House in May 2017. He’s in charge of reviewing applications for security clearances of people appointed to high administration positions. The reasons for denying a clearance can include debts, a criminal past or questions about foreign entanglements, and anything in a person’s background that could make them vulnerable to blackmail.

According to Maddow, an adjudicator reviewed Kushner’s application for security clearance. It was deemed “unfavorable” and handed it to a supervisor. The supervisor agreed that it was “unfavorable” and sent it to Kline who then overruled the “unfavorable” determination and approved a “Top Secret” security clearance for Kushner.

As it turned out, in the short time that Kline was on the job, he had ignored national security risks more than 30 times to approve clearances for White House personnel. “Thirty times, at least, this one supervisor whom Trump put in there … handed out a clearance to an incoming Trump White House person who was otherwise flagged as too risky to get a clearance approved,” Maddow said. “Thirty of them. At minimum. Christ.” Sources said the number of rejections that Kline overturned had happened only once in the three years preceding Kline’s appointment, which makes one wonder: Was there someone higher up who directed Kline to overrule his subordinates?

During the FBI background investigation of White House Special Adviser Jared Kushner, there were “questions about his family’s business, his foreign contacts, his foreign travel, and meetings he had during the campaign.”

Kushner is married to Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter. He holds the role of Special Adviser to the President in the White House with responsibility over the Middle East, Mexico, criminal justice reform, and innovation in government. He was one of those whom Kline overruled two career security experts who determine Kushner as too risky, and approved Kushner’s “top-secret clearance.” The two security clearance specialists are concerned that Kushner was potentially susceptible to foreign influence.

Security breach
The scandal surfaced as Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, had characterized approval of Kushner’s clearance as “unprecedented.”

“My request letter to the White House explicitly covers Mr. Kushner, and we expect the White House to produce all of the documents and interviews we requested to determine if tonight’s breaking story is accurate,” Cummings (D-Md.) said. “The system is supposed to be a nonpartisan determination of an individual’s fitness to hold a clearance, not an ad hoc approach that overrules career experts to give the President’s family members access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets.”

Not content with his White House “top-secret clearance,” Kushner sought to get higher security clearance so he would have access to the government’s most highly guarded information, known as “Sensitive Compartmented Information” (SCI). But only the CIA can approve SCI clearances. The agency rejected the request and returned the application to the White House, questioning how Kushner even obtained a “top-secret clearance” to begin with. Had the CIA granted Kushner an SCI clearance, he would have access to information that could cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security if it were leaked out.

The problem is: Trump can override CIA’s determination and make any information available to his son-in-law at any time. Reportedly, Kushner had regular access to Trump’s highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) during Trump’s first year in office. Presumably, Kushner still have access to it simply by reading the PDB, which he can get at will. Call it part of “family privileges.”

It is now up to Cummings who wields the power of the Oversight Committee to investigate how Kushner and other Trump officials managed to get their security clearance, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia during the transition; Rob Porter, a former White House staff secretary who resigned after multiple allegations of domestic abuse; and former deputy assistant to the president Sebastian Gorka.

Red flags
Those who previously operated on Top Secret or SCI interim clearances saw their access changed to “Secret,” a classification for less sensitive material. A Secret clearance only allows access to fewer and lesser government secrets. It prevented Kushner from accessing the PDB. But because of Kushner’s affinity to Trump by marriage, it’s doubtful if Trump didn’t share the PDB with Kushner. However, Kushner accepted the decision about his security clearance and “will not ask for special permission” from Trump. But it makes one wonder: How can Kushner perform his function without access to Top Secret or SCI clearances?It’s interesting to note that this is not the first time that Kushner have a problem with his security clearance. A year ago, he was stripped of his access to the nation’s top secrets after his security clearance was downgraded. Along with several White House officials who had been operating on interim clearances, their access was altered after chief of staff John Kelly stipulated new changes to the security clearance system.

Kushner’s use of security clearance is now the subject of the Democrats’ inquiry. After Trump won the presidential election Kushner had private discussions with the Russian ambassador about opening a secret “back channel” with Moscow to discuss policy. This was a red flag that immediately put Kushner under the FBI’s scrutiny.

Wthin a short time after Trump was inaugurated as president, the Washington Post reported that Kushner had been the subject of at least four countries – United Arab Emirates, China, Israel, and Mexico – as possible target of manipulation. Concerns were raised about Kushner’s “irregular” way of accessing very sensitive intelligence. Indeed, the powerful Democrat-led House Oversight Committee had opened an in-depth investigation into what it said were “grave breaches of national security at the highest levels of the Trump administration.”

Trump-Putin Chabad connection
When Kushner was a student at Harvard, he was affiliated with the Chabad house. Since settling in Washington DC, Jared and Ivanka (who converted to Judaism prior to marrying Jared) have been attending services at a Chabad synagogue. Meanwhile, Ivanka was very close friends with Abramovich’s wife, Dasha Zhukova, who attended the Trump inauguration as Ivanka’s personal guest. [Ibid]In 1999, Putin enlisted two of his closest confidants, the oligarchs Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich — who would go on to become the Chabad-Lubavitch movement’s biggest patrons worldwide — to create the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be known as “Putin’s rabbi.” [Source: The Odd Chabad Connection Between Putin and Trump]

In May 2015, a month before Trump officially entered the Republican presidential primary, Kushner bought a majority stake in the old New York Times building on West 43rd Street from Leviev for $295 million. The transaction first came up due to the $285 million Kushner borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the transaction. Deutsche Bank and two companies tied to Leviev, Africa Israel Investments, and Prevezon have all recently been the subject of money laundering investigations. A laundering case against Prevezon led by then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara abruptly ended in May 2017, two months after Trump fired Bharara, with a $6-million settlement that raised eyebrows. [Ibid]

Could it be that the financial transactions involving Kushner and the Russian oligarchs close to Putin one of the reasons why Kushner’s application for security clearance was red flagged? Was this just the tip of the iceberg, which begs the question: Would the Mueller investigation into the Trump-Putin Chabad connection lead to indictments?

At the end of the day, with more than 30 security clearances, including Kushner’s, that were approved over the rejection by career security clearance experts, what is the likelihood that there is a Russian mole in the White House?

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Thankful to China

ON DISTANT SHORE
By Val G. Abelgas

On Saturday, Foreign Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin said the Philippines must protest China’s establishment of a maritime rescue center on the contested Kagitingan Reef in the Spratly Islands. Locsin, just recently the country’s ambassador to the United Nations, said he agreed with the position of Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio that the country must lodge a protest as not doing so could mean consent to China’s recent aggressive action in the disputed waters.Finally, a different tone is emerging from the Department of Foreign Affairs on China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea.

“This means we are recognizing that China has a right to occupy and use Fiery Cross Reef. Occupation and use are acts of sovereignty. This contradicts our claim that we have sovereignty over Fiery Cross Reef,” Carpio said.

Locsin, however, was vague about filing a formal protest, which the government should have done immediately upon China’s pronouncement that it has built the structure. In a tweet — hardly the proper way for the country’s top diplomat to state his objection — Locsin said he would rather voice his protest on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly.

Still, Locsin’s tweet – statement, if you may – was an improvement over his previous position that he was not keen on filing protests against China. “Every time you send a note verbale and no one responds to it, what does that look like? When you keep sending those notes – I know some people say, you just keep on sending them – what I keep calling it is banging your head against the wall,” he said then.

Also, his promise to bring the protest to the UN floor was completely different from the official reaction from Malacanang on reports that China has constructed a maritime rescue center in the South China Sea, or what our government wants to call the West Philippine Sea.

Instead of protesting, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said in his usual light tone that we should even be thankful to China. “Maybe we should be thankful,” Panelo said. “That could help seamen in distress, it can help everybody.”

Even Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, the man tasked to defend the country’s national security and sovereignty, thinks along the same line as Panelo, saying that the defense department would “do nothing” because “it would help seamen in distress.”

So, will the Philippines file a formal protest or not? From the looks of it and based on the policy of appeasement President Duterte has followed on China, there will be no formal protest. It is even doubtful that beyond his tweets, Locsin would even pursue his promise of protesting China’s actions before the world’s delegates in the world body.

And this non-action is precisely what worries Carpio and other foreign policy experts.

In the usual propaganda line of the Chinese government, China’s Ministry of Transport announced it has opened the new facility on Kagitingan Reef (Fiery Cross Reef). “The center will offer better support to maritime rescue operations in the southern part of the South China Sea,” the ministry said.

“We should protest because Fiery Cross Reef is part of the geologic features we claim in the Kalayaan Island Group. If we do not protest, then we impliedly consent to China’s act of putting up a maritime rescue center there,” Carpio said. “This means we are recognizing that China has a right to occupy and use Fiery Cross Reef. Occupation and use are acts of sovereignty. This contradicts our claim that we have sovereignty over Fiery Cross Reef.”

Maritime expert Dr. Jay Batongbacal, who along with Carpio has been warning the Philippines and whoever cares to listen about China’s true intent in the South China Sea, calls the propaganda line China’s gray zone tactics that aim to put a “soft face” to its aggressive behavior in the disputed waters to downplay or maybe even hide their military activities in the area.

The Chinese are making it appear that they are, in fact, helping, and not restricting, maritime navigation in the area by providing assistance to vessels operating in the area. The ministry said that, in fact, two rescue ships that it had sent to Zamora Reef have rescued 16 people and two ships in eight rescue operations.

We all know, of course, that these installations that China has built on reclaimed islands are not for civilian purposes, as China claims, but to project China’s military power over the region. Independent agencies have released photos of missile launchers and radar-jamming equipment in these structures. There is also no doubt that the missile shelters, runways, ports, and aircraft hangars built in recent years are military installations and not for civilian use.

Batongbacal said China will continue to give the islands a “soft face” in “an attempt to look good to create a more benign image in the region especially in light of the ongoing competition with the United States.”

Both Batongbacal and Carpio warned that the building of the supposed maritime rescue center, the weather stations and the implementation of alleged ecological protection programs in the area are all designed to create a sense of civilian administration and control of the contested area, which are essential in establishing sovereignty over the islands.

Either Panelo and Lorenzana have fallen prey to China’s propaganda line or they are part of the whole shebang as part of the Duterte administration’s policy of appeasement with China.

While the Duterte administration continues to profess trust for China, Filipinos have repeatedly shown overwhelming distrust for China in surveys after surveys. But did it ever matter to Duterte and his friends?

In the meantime, China continues to creep into the country’s sovereignty without a nary a word from our government except to thank its benefactor.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

How dangerous is the Philippines?

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

A global study conducted by Global Finance Magazine (GFM) placed the Philippines as the world’s “Most Dangerous Country.”  GFM’s explanation why the Philippines is more dangerous than Yemen and 126 other countries is: “The safety score for countries equally weighs each of the three factors: (1) War and Peace, (2) Crime Risk, and (3) Natural Disaster Risk. The safety score aggregates the indices from these three risks, thus presenting a comprehensive view of safety for each country.”

GFM further explained: “This also means that a high level of risk in one factor will have limited effect on the country’s overall ranking.  For example, the Philippines is ranked least safe while Yemen is ranked second least safe. This can be attributed to the fact that the Philippines has poor scores in peace, security, and prevalence of natural disasters.  Yemen’s terrible score is due to war and famine but the country has a very low risk of natural disaster. Thus, the Philippines ranks lower than Yemen even though Yemen is a war zone.”

GFM said its Safety Index Score (SIS) used data from the World Economic Forum and the Global Institute for Peace to create the list. The SIS study covers 128 countries or over 99.7% of the world’s population and are assessed using 23 indicators.  Countries that hardly have any natural disaster -- such as Iceland -- would be low on the SIS list.  On the other hand, countries that have a high risk of natural disasters – such as the Philippines -- would be high on the SIS list.

Global Peace Index

But another study conducted by the Global Peace Index (GPI), which is produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP), showed the Philippines as “Dangerous” but not the “Most Dangerous.”

GPI measures “global peace” using three broad themes: (1) The level of safety and security in society, (2) The extent of domestic and international conflict, and (3) The degree of militarization.  Unlike the SIS, the GPI doesn’t include “Natural Disaster Risk” as a factor, which made a big difference in the case of the Philippines because of the tropical storms that left in their wake a devastated country.  And this may have made a big difference in weighing the “safety” of the Philippines within the SIS and GPI studies.

The following are the highlights of the 2018 GPI list:

1.  Countries that are engaged in wars or civil wars were high on the GPI list, which placed Syria as the “Most Dangerous Country” for the third consecutive year.

2.  The Philippines is 27th on the GPI list.  She is preceded by more dangerous countries Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mexico, Palestine, and Egypt.  She is followed by less dangerous countries India, Chad, Burundi, Cameroon, and Azerbaijan.

3.  On the other end of the GPI scale, the most peaceful countries were Iceland, New Zealand, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, and Canada.  Iceland has been ranked as the world’s “Most Peaceful” country every year since 2008.

Natural Disasters

When the Global Finance Magazine report came out, Filipinos in social media were outraged.  Many of them claimed that the study was “fake news.”  They said that it was a “hit piece” meant to disparage the Philippines and her leaders.

This writer believes that “War and Peace” and “Crime” can be prevented or controlled by man, while “Natural Disasters” cannot be prevented or controlled by human intervention.  Natural disasters are limited to a smaller number of countries mostly in Asia.  It is unfair to Asian countries while it gives advantage to countries that don’t have high or no occurrences of natural disasters such as Middle Eastern and African countries.  Therefore, “Natural Disaster Risk” shouldn’t be used to measure “safety.”

Take for instance the Pacific Ring of Fire.  According to Wikipedia, it is a major area in the basin of the Pacific Ocean, where many earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur.  It has 452 volcanoes (more than 75% of the world’s active and dormant volcanoes).  All but three of the world's 25 largest volcanic eruptions of the last 11,700 years occurred at volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire.

A volcanic eruption could cause a huge tidal wave called tsunami.  The two tsunamis that occurred in the Aceh region in Indonesia in the past decade caused massive destruction and deaths.  Tsunami occurs frequently in Japan.  Tsunamis and volcanic eruptions cannot be controlled or prevented.

Another type of natural disaster is tropical storm, which originates from the Pacific Ocean and moves westward towards Eastern Philippines and eventually hits East Asia and Southeast Asia.  Tropical storms hit the Philippines at least 20 times a year of which five to eight would wreak havoc to almost all the regions in the country.

To factor Natural Disaster Risk into the Safety Index Score is therefore unfair to countries that are vulnerable to earthquakes, tropical storms, and tsunamis.

If Global Finance Magazine fails to remove “Natural Disaster Risk” from the criteria used in the Safety Index Score, countries around the Pacific Ring of Fire would be at a disadvantage and their Safety Index Score would continually rate them as more dangerous than countries that have lesser Natural Disaster Risk or none at all.

Illegal drugs

In the case of Global Peace Index published by the Institute for Economics & Peace, this writer believes that the factors used in the study were fair and objective.  In the case of the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration could improve the safety of the citizens from criminal elements. 

But as it turned out, extrajudicial killings (EJKs) perpetrated by criminal elements have become the number one threat to the safety of the citizens.  While EJKs were intended to reduce the number of drug pushers and users, recent police data showed that they have increased, which makes one wonder if EJK is effective in stopping drug smuggling and trafficking?

The Duterte administration should go after the drug smugglers and traffickers, not their victims.  Rid the Philippines of predatory drug traffickers and you’d see a rapid decline in the use of illegal drugs, which is the most dangerous threat to the safety of Filipinos.

This writer therefore recommends that “Illegal Drug Risk” replace “Natural Disaster Risk” in the GFM’s Safety Index Score.  We can then say that the Safety Index Score truly reflects a “comprehensive view of safety for each country.”  And at that time, we can then ask: How dangerous is the Philippines?

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)