Herman Tiu Laurel / DieHard III / The Daily Tribune / 09-04-2013 WED
The failure of BS Aquino III to develop good relations with the rising economic power in the region--and the world--will cost the Philippines billions of dollars in lost economic opportunities. Still, all that BS Aquino, his government, Pinoy "social media" operators, and their mainstream media cohorts are focused on is the Napoles scandal. If they were truly intent on doing better for this country, they would have promptly focused on the message sent by China to the Philippines--that the present attitude displayed by the leader of this country toward its Asian neighbor is unacceptable.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is alleging that China's snub of BS Aquino's trip to the 10th China and Asean Expo is due to unofficial conditions it imposed on the Philippines. These conditions were supposedly not to be publicized, namely, the Philippines' withdrawal of its case against China before the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal and the pull-out of its military presence in Ayungin Shoal.
Analysts have noted that the Chinese conditions and the subsequent cancellation were made when the Philippines and the United States started talks on a new framework agreement and when Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin offered all Philippine military bases for US troops' "rotational" presence.
Vietnam, which has similar territorial disputes with China and had experienced more physical encounters with Chinese maritime and naval elements, did not receive such a snub. That should be a dead giveaway that the territorial dispute alone is no major reason for China's tiff with BS Aquino--neither should negotiations for increased presence of US troops in the Philippines be as the US has also had similar talks with Vietnam since 2009 (when former US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lauded the "tremendous potential" of US ships again becoming a common sight at the deep-water port of Cam Ranh Bay).
In the months leading up to the September trade meet, BS Aquino had already publicly enthused about attending the expo in Nanning, capital of southern China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. And so, the unwelcome mat that China sprung late last month had a shock effect on almost all observers such as this writer, who could recognize the primordial significance of this act emanating from the Chinese side. For China to do so is indeed earthshaking, as it has not even acted this way with another Asean country with which it had drawn blood in the past. Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, in fact, attended with over 100 Vietnamese businessmen.
To wit, three other prime ministers from the Asean (i.e. Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand) attended while Myanmar and Singapore sent their Vice President and Deputy Prime Minister, respectively. Although others such as Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia merely sent cabinet-level representatives, the Philippines' embarrassment emanated from its president announcing enthusiastically his attendance last August 28 and the DFA reversing this the day after on the 29th.
Ellen Tordesillas gives a good account of the timeline of the fiasco:
July 24: DFA Undersecretary Evan Garcia informed Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing that Aquino wants to visit China; subsequently Garcia and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin met to discuss Aquino's possible visit at the Nanning expo on September 3 and for Garcia to "feedback" the Chinese side on their talks. Reportedly, Garcia never communicated to Liu or to the Chinese Embassy in Manila.
August 23: Just a week before the event, the Chinese Foreign Ministry informed the Philippine Embassy in Beijing that since no formal preliminary meetings on the President's trip to Nanning transpired, China "can't guarantee that it would be fruitful," which apparently in diplomatese means "you're not welcome."
Tordesillas' account points to a failure of the DFA to coordinate the affairs on the Philippine side that could have resulted in the embarrassing situation. China expert Chito Sta. Romana also referred to this when we corresponded with one another about this incident. He, however, additionally pointed to the alleged Chinese conditions, wondering if these would be indicative of a "hardening in China's position and diplomatic tactics."
If true, I agreed that it may be an overreaction. But, at the same time, it sends a "crystal clear message," which should lead one to ask: Does this mean a "shut out" of Philippine trade efforts with China for as long as BS Aquino and his Cabinet's policies prevail?
Chinese tourists visiting the Asean region increased from 3.9 million in 2007 to 7.3 million in 2011. The Philippines got only around 150,000 of that.
Over the past 10 years, China-Asean two-way trade reached $400 billion, a six-fold increase, which now makes China the largest trading partner of the Asean bloc. Mutual investment is over $100 billion.
In the next five years, China's overseas direct investments will increase by $500 billion, while its imports will reach $10 trillion, with its outbound tourists jumping to over 400 million.
Therefore, we ask: Is the combination of increased US troop presence, together with BS Aquino and his Cabinet's incompetence, as well as the presence of US gofers in the elite, the bureaucracy, and media meant to sabotage Asean economic collaboration and progress for the Philippines?
(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Destiny Cable Channel 8, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m., this week on "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 09234095739)
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is alleging that China's snub of BS Aquino's trip to the 10th China and Asean Expo is due to unofficial conditions it imposed on the Philippines. These conditions were supposedly not to be publicized, namely, the Philippines' withdrawal of its case against China before the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal and the pull-out of its military presence in Ayungin Shoal.
Analysts have noted that the Chinese conditions and the subsequent cancellation were made when the Philippines and the United States started talks on a new framework agreement and when Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin offered all Philippine military bases for US troops' "rotational" presence.
Vietnam, which has similar territorial disputes with China and had experienced more physical encounters with Chinese maritime and naval elements, did not receive such a snub. That should be a dead giveaway that the territorial dispute alone is no major reason for China's tiff with BS Aquino--neither should negotiations for increased presence of US troops in the Philippines be as the US has also had similar talks with Vietnam since 2009 (when former US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lauded the "tremendous potential" of US ships again becoming a common sight at the deep-water port of Cam Ranh Bay).
In the months leading up to the September trade meet, BS Aquino had already publicly enthused about attending the expo in Nanning, capital of southern China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. And so, the unwelcome mat that China sprung late last month had a shock effect on almost all observers such as this writer, who could recognize the primordial significance of this act emanating from the Chinese side. For China to do so is indeed earthshaking, as it has not even acted this way with another Asean country with which it had drawn blood in the past. Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, in fact, attended with over 100 Vietnamese businessmen.
To wit, three other prime ministers from the Asean (i.e. Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand) attended while Myanmar and Singapore sent their Vice President and Deputy Prime Minister, respectively. Although others such as Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia merely sent cabinet-level representatives, the Philippines' embarrassment emanated from its president announcing enthusiastically his attendance last August 28 and the DFA reversing this the day after on the 29th.
Ellen Tordesillas gives a good account of the timeline of the fiasco:
July 24: DFA Undersecretary Evan Garcia informed Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing that Aquino wants to visit China; subsequently Garcia and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin met to discuss Aquino's possible visit at the Nanning expo on September 3 and for Garcia to "feedback" the Chinese side on their talks. Reportedly, Garcia never communicated to Liu or to the Chinese Embassy in Manila.
August 23: Just a week before the event, the Chinese Foreign Ministry informed the Philippine Embassy in Beijing that since no formal preliminary meetings on the President's trip to Nanning transpired, China "can't guarantee that it would be fruitful," which apparently in diplomatese means "you're not welcome."
Tordesillas' account points to a failure of the DFA to coordinate the affairs on the Philippine side that could have resulted in the embarrassing situation. China expert Chito Sta. Romana also referred to this when we corresponded with one another about this incident. He, however, additionally pointed to the alleged Chinese conditions, wondering if these would be indicative of a "hardening in China's position and diplomatic tactics."
If true, I agreed that it may be an overreaction. But, at the same time, it sends a "crystal clear message," which should lead one to ask: Does this mean a "shut out" of Philippine trade efforts with China for as long as BS Aquino and his Cabinet's policies prevail?
Chinese tourists visiting the Asean region increased from 3.9 million in 2007 to 7.3 million in 2011. The Philippines got only around 150,000 of that.
Over the past 10 years, China-Asean two-way trade reached $400 billion, a six-fold increase, which now makes China the largest trading partner of the Asean bloc. Mutual investment is over $100 billion.
In the next five years, China's overseas direct investments will increase by $500 billion, while its imports will reach $10 trillion, with its outbound tourists jumping to over 400 million.
Therefore, we ask: Is the combination of increased US troop presence, together with BS Aquino and his Cabinet's incompetence, as well as the presence of US gofers in the elite, the bureaucracy, and media meant to sabotage Asean economic collaboration and progress for the Philippines?
(Tune in to 1098 AM, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Destiny Cable Channel 8, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m., this week on "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 09234095739)
