How China’s military play in disputed waters could torpedo Rodrigo Duterte’s foreign policy shift Richard Heydarian writes that the fate of the Philippine president’s post-America foreign policy likely is to be decided by what happens in the contested South China Sea
On SCS: Let us help our President Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs (2011-2016) Albert del Rosario humbly suggests that we all ask him to be more proactive and assertive in defending our territory
West Philippine Sea / Part 2 – Search for Options Centrist Democrat Lito Monico Lorenzana endorses the five-point approach of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
1. “File a strong formal protest against China’s building activity. This is the least that the President can do. This is what the Vietnamese did recently when China sent cruise tours to the disputed Paracels.
2. “Send the Philippine Navy to patrol Scarborough Shoal. If the Chinese attack Philippine navy vessels, then the President can invoke the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which covers any armed attack on Philippine navy vessels operating in the South China Sea.
3. “Ask the United States to declare that Scarborough Shoal is part of Philippine territory for purposes of the Mutual Defense Treaty since the shoal has been part of Philippine territory even during the American colonial period. The US has declared the Senkakus as part of Japanese territory for purposes of the US-Japan mutual defense treaty.
4. “Accept the standing US offer to hold joint naval patrols in the South China Sea, which includes Scarborough Shoal. This will demonstrate joint Philippine and US determination to prevent China from building on Scarborough Shoal.
5. “Avoid any act, statement or declaration that expressly or impliedly waives Philippine sovereignty to any Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea. This will preserve for future generations of Filipinos their national patrimony in the West Philippine Sea.” [Rappler, March 20 ,2017]
The first point could be tweaked, like what Vietnam did, to signal the Chinese that we are opting “…for a policy of cooperation… we all look forward to a ‘Code of Conduct’ to guide the various nations on the South China Sea (SCS). Vietnam’s statement was made in the form of a request to China, appealing to its sense of responsibility as a large country. It was just an expression of concern over militarization activities which are supposed to be avoided in the proposed Code of Conduct.”
“Sometime ago President Duterte said that before his term ends in 2022 – four years from now – he will have to assert the Philippine victory in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague in 2016”. [Manila Bulletin, May 16, 2018]
But why wait four years? This is simply passing the ball to the next administration and postpone the pain and responsibility. Some quarters, even among the ranks of Duterte allies, see this as downplaying our victory in exchange for economic benefits from China. Laying aside our sovereignty may not exactly be rape. But for lucre, we might as well call it for what it is. An apt word perhaps would be prostitution.
MANOLO QUEZON: “The China card played 13 years ago”
http://opinion.inquirer.net/113386/china-card-played-13-years-ago
May I post this link here:
http://www.manilatimes.net/why-china-is-risking-war-with-the-us-in-scs/399254/
thanks, ricelander. worth a copy n paste:
VICTOR CORPUZ: “Why China is risking war with the US in SCS”
WHY is China risking a major war, even a nuclear one, by deploying cruise missiles on South China Sea outposts? The US has warned that there will be consequences with this move by China. If the US launches a pre-emptive strike on these island outposts using its stealth bombers with JASSMs, China will surely retaliate against US air bases harboring said bombers in Japan, South Korea, Australia, and even Guam. China has the capability of obliterating these US air bases in a matter of 15 minutes or less with their DF26 and DF17 ballistic missiles with hypersonic glide vehicle warheads. And this could easily lead into a nuclear war between the US and China and the extinction of the planet.
Here are the reasons why:
1. Since 2005, the US had been conducting biennial naval exercises with Australia which they call “Talisman Saber”; primarily involving the naval blockade of the Malacca Strait and other vital choke points in the area (i.e., Lombok, Sunda, Makassar, etc.). Basically, this is in line with Alfred Thayer Mahan’s doctrine of controlling the vital choke points to control the oceans. The straits mentioned are where most of China’s oil and foreign trade pass through; a naval blockade of these straits can force the entire Chinese economy to grind to a halt. Hence, China’s very own survival as a nation depends on preventing any foreign power from conducting such a naval blockade (and Japan and New Zealand have joined some of those past exercises). That was their reason for building those artificial islands – to prevent such a naval blockade. Now, the US and its allies will think twice before conducting such blockade because those islands can accommodate more combat aircraft (J-20s, Su-35s, J-31s), ballistic missiles (DF17s, DF26s, DF21Ds), and air defense systems (S-400s, HQ-9s) than all of the US aircraft carrier strike groups combined, and counter such planned blockade.
It is often said that geography is immutable; in this case, China has modified its geographical disadvantage and turned it into an advantage with the building of those artificial islands. And China seems determined to defend them at all costs, even if it means engaging in a nuclear exchange with the US and its allies. China had prepared itself for the coming of this kind of event a long time ago, when Mao enjoined the entire Chinese nation: “Dig tunnels deep; store grains everywhere; and never seek hegemony.”
China has created more than 5,000 kilometers of strategic tunnels and an underground metro system in almost all major Chinese cities. No other country in the world possesses such massive passive defense or “new great wall” against nuclear attack.
2. The second reason is the Scarborough Shoal, with the nearby Manila Trench passes. The trench is the only portion of the South China Sea that is deep enough where US nuclear attack submarines can approach surreptitiously and launch a first strike against China’s east coast where China’s population and industry are concentrated. Because of its proximity, China will have no time to react against such first strike. In a matter of minutes, the entire Chinese nation and civilization can be driven to extinction!
So, what is the best strategy for Philippines given such circumstances? I believe that a neutral stance and a “win-win” approach are still to the Philippines’ best interest.
A neutral stance means the removal of the EDCA bases in the Philippines, because US forces using those EDCA bases such as nuclear submarines, destroyers, and aircraft carrier strike groups can carry nuclear weapons. If the US uses the EDCA bases as launching pads to attack those islands or the Chinese mainland itself, and nuclear weapons are used, the retaliation from China would also be nuclear in nature. Have our leaders thought about this?
A “win-win” approach, on the other hand, would involve the approach that the Philippines uses in negotiations with China in resolving our sea dispute. Insisting on our so-called victory at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague will get us nowhere. It will only agitate and anger our negotiating partner and we will surely end up with nothing but headache and war.
If war is what we really want, then we pursue what Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario are strongly advocating by insisting on the PCA ruling. This is the “win-lose” approach. But if we want peace and joint prosperity with our neighbor, we support President Duterte’s position of a “win-win” approach.
JEMY GATDULA: “It’s China, not the Philippines, that has problems”
http://bworldonline.com/its-china-not-the-philippines-that-has-problems/
The big news last week was China showing off its ability to drop bombs over the Philippines, what with a reported H-6K bomber making use of a runway over one of China’s artificially constructed “islands” in the Paracel area.
According to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative: “The base H-6 aircraft’s combat radius of nearly 1000 nautical miles means even China’s basic bombers taking off from Woody Island could cover the entire South China Sea. Nearly all of the Philippines falls within the radius of the bombers, including Manila and all five Philippine military bases earmarked for development under the US-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.”
This is not the first time though that the H-6K has made an appearance in the region.
Shortly after the Philippine victory in its Hague case against China, the latter made a conscious effort to “demonstrate its military strength in the region.” Thus, by early May 2016, Chinese “state-run media have released photos and videos of H-6Ks flying over Fiery Cross Reef, Scarborough Shoal, Mischief Reef and Livock Reef in the southern Spratly Islands, as well as Woody Island in the northern Paracel Islands (Beauchamp-Mustafaga, Garafola, Cevallos, and Chan; 2016).”
On the other side of the world, the US seems to have put its trade war with China “on hold,” that is according to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. This was seemingly contradicted shortly thereafter by US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.
The media, of course, pounced on this possible confusion within the Trump administration; portraying it as uncertainty on how to proceed tactically or how to “sell” the trade war to the public. Personally, I think it’s deliberate.
Because as far as China is concerned, the US has time on its side.
Consider, after all, that China is not as invincible as it makes itself out to be. That recent well-publicized H-6K stunt is a possible indicator. No secure power does that.
Whether intended for a domestic audience or international one or both, it smacks of possible weakness, albeit the nature of which remains undetermined for now.
Ian Bremmer (for Time magazine) pointed out that, compared to the US, “China’s vulnerabilities are far greater. The crudest measure of this is the $300 billion — plus trade deficit that Trump has complained so much about. xxx Although it is less important to the economy than it was, trade accounts for almost 40% of Chinese GDP vs. less than 30% in the US.”
Another problem is debt. China’s “economy has been slowing down for several years, and its government has tried to manage the pace of deceleration by providing large amounts of credit. Heavy spending by the government and state-owned companies have pushed debt levels to dangerous new heights.”
This column’s longtime readers know it subscribes to the China collapse (or implosion) view. Many, of course, have criticized this line of argument. There are a few who do think it’s possible, pointing to the economic factors mentioned above.
We believe the flaw lies in China’s world view, something that even Stanford University’s Gordon H. Chang (not Gordon G. Chang, more on him later) inadvertently alludes to:
“Despite the talk of the decline of American power, Chang doesn’t see the US being eclipsed by China any time soon — certainly not in his lifetime. He cites the advantages of American English (“the language of the world, international intercourse, is no longer British English, it’s American English”), military power (“the US military budget is equivalent to the rest of the world’s put together”), and soft power (“movies, cultural values, sports, leisure activities, fashion”) as the key drivers keeping America ahead in the power stakes. And then there’s the tricky issue of China learning how to operate on a world stage (South China Morning Post, 2016).”
Of Gordon G. Chan, he of the much-reviled China collapse predictions, certain factors admittedly did get in the way from such coming true. As China commentator Peter Navarro points out:
Gordon G. Chang “could not have anticipated the colossal blunder of president Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress in paving China’s ruthlessly mercantilist way into the World Trade Organization just five months after his book was published. That mother of all unfair trade deals — a well-deserved target of both the Sanders and Trump presidential campaigns — kept China’s Great Walls of Protectionism largely intact. However, it also opened US markets to a flood of illegally subsidized Chinese imports — and catalyzed the offshoring of millions of American manufacturing jobs.”
But if Donald Trump manages to correct that situation, where does that leave China? Particularly in the context of China’s “poisoned food, water, and air,” “huge capital flight,” huge “national debt,” and “horrible” construction and education that Professor Navarro mentions?
And if China is indeed vulnerable to “imploding,” what could its government do to secure itself from a critical citizenry?
Create an external distraction perhaps, by way of international conflict.
Like in the West Philippine Sea.
RENE SAGUISAG: “Digong as China’s protectee”
http://www.manilatimes.net/digong-as-chinas-protectee/400918/
BUSINESS MIRROR EDITORIAL – “China-Philippines: It’s complicated”
https://businessmirror.com.ph/china-philippines-its-complicated/
You have to start with the firm assumption that the other guy—whether a person or a nation—is going to operate and act on its own self-interest. To believe that anyone except maybe your mother would put your welfare before theirs is naïve and foolish—and often dangerous.
You also have to try and understand whether action is being taken for short-term or long-term gains, or both. The current panic over China’s invasions, incursions and exploits in the South China Sea ignores the fact that this has been going on for decades.
Woody Island, the largest of the Paracel Islands, where all the controversy over the landing of Chinese bombers is focused, is claimed by Vietnam, Taiwan and China. But China has occupied the island since 1956. In 1946, the Nationalist Chinese government established a permanent presence on Woody Island.
In having effective control over much of the South China Sea, is this a matter of China wanting to protect itself from foreign naval forces in the event of an armed conflict? Or does China want to have a military platform to start a war? Does China want to protect its shipping interests of the Port of Shanghai, the biggest port in the world based on cargo? Or does China want to control shipping to South Korea and Japan? Good luck trying to figure all that out.
However, the reality is that motive may never be known, and the actions are all that we can give attention to. Nonetheless, the Philippines must act in its own self-interest. To this end the government pursued the arbitration case, which was ruled in our favor.
Yet, what was our own end game with the arbitration ruling? Was it expected that China would give in to the legal ruling? If so, whose brilliant idea was that, and why did they think so? More likely was the belief that the United States would take action that would, in some way, push China to be cooperative. Perhaps at some point the US government gave some assurances to the Aquino administration. Here again, if so, what happened? Further, why didn’t the United States take a much stronger stand with the Philippines even before the arbitration ruling came down?
Assuming that we expected the US to take concrete steps to help the Philippines, what was the short- or long-term benefit to the United States that kept them at double-arms length from helping the Philippines enforce the claim?
Theoretically with some foundation is that the area holds an immense amount of wealth in natural gas and crude oil. It would seem that the US would be interested in helping to keep at least some of that natural resource from being under the complete control of China, which, while not a military adversary at this point, is definitely economic competition. Do we assume that the United States was simply incompetent at protecting its own interests? Or was it in the interest of the US to back away?
There are those that applaud Vietnam for being strong with China. But the reality is that Vietnam just caved in on oil exploration in its exclusive economic zone when China threatened it. Furthermore, China’s direct investment in Vietnam ($11.2 billion in 2017) is greater than the total Foreign direct investment from all sources to the Philippines.
There are those that say Filipinos should boycott Chinese products. You can start today by throwing away your multivitamins and never using vitamin C or powdered juice mix again. China produces 90 percent of the global supply of vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Things are never as simple as we want them to be.
JOHN MANGUN: “Beware the man from China”
https://businessmirror.com.ph/beware-the-man-from-china/
Speaking at a locally held economic forum in 1990, I was asked by a retired high-ranking military official—retired because he was on the “wrong” side of Edsa—“What about China?”
My answer was that when China’s GDP per capita, then at $730—rose to the same level as the Philippines, then at $1,525—China would begin to be unstoppable. A per-capita GDP of $1,500 would still qualify a “basket” case, but with the size of China’s population, it would add billions in wealth.
At the end of 1998, the per-capita GDP of China was at $1,542.
The hysteria about the Chinese military landing its H-6K bombers on Woody Island goes far beyond “Chicken Little” screaming “the sky is falling!” Even the Office of the Vice President was not able to figure out that the Chinese have controlled Woody Island since 1958 and that the only dispute in that area is with Vietnam and Taiwan.
The older version—the H-6—has been in use by the PLA Air Force since 1958, based at Jialaishi Airbase on Hainan Island. Jialaishi is 1,295 kilometers from Manila, and the H-6 has a combat range of 1,800 km, loading out 9,000 kilograms of bombs. So the Philippines has been within bombing range of the Chinese for 60 years; but we shouldn’t let that fact ruin a great political agenda narrative.
If any one bothered to think further back than last Tuesday’s “Miss Q and A” segment on It’s Showtime!, the rise of China and its current foreign policy was fully predicted. British philosopher and one of the foremost “thinkers” of the 20th century—Bertrand
Russell—wrote a book in 1922 titled The Problem with China.
Russell wrote: “China, by her resources and her population, is capable of being the greatest Power in the world after the United States. It is much to be feared that, in the process of becoming strong enough to preserve their independence, the Chinese may become strong enough to embark upon a career of imperialism.”
“All the Great Powers, without exception, have interests which are incompatible, in the long run, with China’s welfare and with the best development of Chinese civilization. Therefore the Chinese must seek salvation in their own energy, not in the benevolence of any outside power.” That perfectly describes China in 2018.
How would China get to this point? “The three chief requisites, I should say, are: (1) the establishment of an orderly government; (2) industrial development under Chinese control; and (3) the spread of education.” That is the history of China since Mao Zedong destroyed the feudal system with his brand of communism, the economic development under Deng Xiaoping and the educational policies of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. The proportion of the overall budget allocated to education has been increased by one percentage point every year since 1998.
Russell goes on to write, and this is important for the future. “In order to understand the international position of China, some facts concerning its 19th-century history are indispensable. China was, for many ages, the supreme empire of the Far East, embracing a vast and fertile area, inhabited by an industrious and civilized people.”
In 1820 China accounted for 35 percent of the global economy far surpassing second-place India (27) and Europe (25). The US was a distant fourth at 5 percent. Today the percentages are China (18), Europe (16), the US (15) and India (9).
In 1922 “The position of China among the nations of the world is quite peculiar, because in population and potential strength China is the greatest nation in the world, while in actual strength at the moment, it is one of the least.” What a difference 100 years can make.
ROD KAPUNAN: “Our misunderstood position in the South China Sea”
http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/backbencher-by-rod-kapunan/266546/our-misunderstood-position-in-the-south-china-sea.html