Aquino's two strategic errors

DIE HARD III / Herman Tiu Laurel / June 9, 2014 / Daily Tribune


BS Aquino assumed the presidency in 2010 without anybody, including himself, having any clue about his program of governance, much less his foreign policy direction.

This void in his domestic agenda, summed up in his “No wang-wang” State of the Nation Address, was made much more glaring when his early foreign relations crises betrayed his ignorance of even basic diplomacy — disappearing from sight and failing to communicate with Hong Kong’s chief executive at the height of the Luneta hostage massacre (followed by more fumbles four years on), as well as shooting-from-the-hip against Taiwan’s allegations in the 2013 killing of its fisherman, only to embarrassingly admit the culpability of Philippine Coast Guard personnel later on.

Considering the enormous significance the Philippines has played in global geopolitical relations, the cases of the HK Tourist Association and Taiwanese fisherman’s killing should really be very minor issues for a competent government; but, for a government such as Aquino’s, these become tsunamis of bad international publicity and a testy test of wills between the Philippines and the two smaller Chinese territories with tragi-comedic consequences, resulting in net losses to the country’s credibility and economic opportunities.

Even so, the deleterious effects from those two diplomatic debacles cannot compare to the disastrous handling by the current regime of its strategic relations with the leading nation of the 21st Century, China.

While BS Aquino fiddles with puerile theories of good governance through his vapid “no wang-wang” and “matuwid na daan” pronouncements, the rest of the world had already begun studying and responding to historic shifts in world history.

The global political landscape has changed so much that even the most powerful of the powerful on the world stage has had to read and catch the winds in order to steer the course of their nation’s voyage.

The world’s superpower, the US of A, waited for the opportune time to announce its “pivot” (later named “rebalancing”) to Asia, veering its power in the Asian Century toward the China Sea — in much the same way that it had captured the Philippines as its geopolitical base in Asia at the turn of the 20th Century.
A year after BS Aquino’s “election” into the presidency via Hocus-PCOS, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the US’ pivot to Asia as a return to its markets, primarily through the programmed transfer of 60 per cent of US military assets to the region by 2020.

China, of course, did not miss any of this nor any of the scathing lessons in its history with Western powers. China saw through the US prodding for the “nationalization” by the Japanese government of the Diaoyu (or Senkaku) Islands in 2012, and was not blind to Philippine officialdom’s appointment of a US green card-holding Foreign Affairs secretary, its elimination of credible China expert, Chito Sta. Romana, for the ambassadorial post to China, and its clandestine development with the US of the so-called Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (Edca), among many other developments.

The current deterioration in Sino-Philippine relations cannot be more markedly different to how it was in years past. Since the late 1980s, Deng Xiaoping had already discussed with Corazon Aquino the need for mutual respect and bilateral dialog, and of shelving disputes in favor of joint development of resources in the disputed waters of the China Sea. Even 50/50 arrangements were proposed. Cory Aquino had no objections throughout her term while Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada continued with the cooperative spirit. Gloria Arroyo even signed a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking with China (that was unfortunately shelved).
But the tone soon changed under BS Aquino, who presided over the arrest of Chinese fishermen at the Scarborough Shoal in 2012 (leading to a “standoff”), before allowing his subalterns to hurl false allegations against China, such as the “concrete blocks” for construction in 2013, the “invasion of Pagasa in 2014,” and other anti-Chinese black propaganda.

Despite persistent appeals for bilateral dialog, top Philippine officials continued the anti-China harangue and reveled in “insulting” it by filing the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Itlos) case.

All these, coupled with Barack Obama’s April 2014 Manila visit, where he uttered his disingenuous “non-containment of China” speech, timed with the signing of the Edca between the US and the Philippines, undoubtedly set the tone for China’s latest assertions.

Since dialog is now off the table, and with the Edca signaling advanced US military deployment to this part of the world, China’s answer has been its reclamation activity at the Mabini Reef. Now, the Philippine press reports a “worried” BS Aquino, telling the nation of more Chinese ships at the disputed Spratlys, with more reclamation being undertaken.

Will the US come to save the reefs and islets that its purported ally is claiming? The Web site Real Clear Defense answers that through Harry Kazianis’ article, “Would Americans give their lives for Asia? No.” Well, at least not before 2020, that’s for sure. So why should China wait until the US has 60 per cent of its military forces in Asia?

BS Aquino and his cohorts now see the prospect of China really taking over the disputed islands and waters without any Philippine capability of countering it, and with the Itlos not mattering a hoot as the Chinese have said.

Still, dialog can be put back on the table if BS Aquino can come to his senses and learn some foreign policy and geopolitical history lessons fast.

BS Aquino, however, is a really bad learner. In the Napoles case, for instance, he has also made the strategic error of training his guns only against opposition senators, instead of seeking an honest-to-goodness political resolution that can lead to overall reform of the flawed system, of which he is part.

As a result, BS Aquino and his allies are as damaged today as their intended victims. They may become even more damaged once the Supreme Court brings out its ruling on their infamous Disbursement Acceleration Program.

(Join me and Chito Sta. Romana, Benito Lim, and others on our GNN Talk News TV program on June 14, Destiny Cable Channel 8, SkyCable Channel 213, and www.gnntv-asia.com, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m.; tune in to 1098 AM, dwAD, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m.; search Talk News TV and date of showing on YouTube; and visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com)

Tiananmen after 25 years

DIE HARD III / Herman Tiu Laurel / June 4, 2014 / Daily Tribune


It was June 1989. I was in the US for meetings with refugee program officials in my capacity as administrator of the Philippine Refugee Processing Center, as well as to visit a sister at the University of Pennsylvania. The bloody turmoil in Beijing was all over the media, and a rally was to be held at a university park. I attended and listened to a speech in broken English about liberty, freedom, and China. It seemed that Deng Xiaoping’s crackdown was widely condemned.

Chinese-British writer Han Suyin, however, had a different take. Renowned for her novel A Many Splendored Thing, which was made into a movie that won three Oscars, Han Suyin (who died in 2012 at age 95) defended the crackdown, arguing that China had to keep order and prevent chaos. As a celebrated cultural icon, her words carried weight.

For 25 years now, the Tiananmen events of June 1989 have been invariably described as a “massacre” (specifically, a massacre of “students”). Chinese government reports the number of casualties at around 300 while Western accounts place the casualties between 400 and 800 civilians (Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times) or up to 1,000 (Amnesty International) and 2,600 (Time magazine in 1990 — since retracted). More often than not, the casualties on the government side (soldiers and police) — no matter how important, if one had to have a complete picture — aren’t ever mentioned. There are pictures of rows of Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) burnt out and of police burnt to a crisp in their vehicles.

With 25 years of hindsight and new information available on the Tiananmen or June 4 Incident, we are given a chance to evaluate the events better. One crucial source that is now available (thanks to Julian Assange) is WikiLeaks, which showed secret US cables reported in The Telegraph on June 4, 2011 by Malcolm Moore (“WikiLeaks: No bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square, cables claim”) that said, “Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square... Instead, …Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the center of Beijing, as they fought their way toward the square from the west of the city.”

It added: “Inside the square itself, a Chilean diplomat was on hand to give his US counterparts an eyewitness account of the final hours of the pro-democracy movement… In 2009, James Miles, who was the BBC correspondent in Beijing at the time, admitted that he had ‘conveyed the wrong impression’ and that ‘there was no massacre on Tiananmen Square. Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops…’ Instead, the fiercest fighting took place at Muxidi, around three miles west of the square, where thousands of people had gathered spontaneously on the night of June 3 to halt the advance of the army.”

The Web site nsnbc.me (not MSNBC) by Chritoff Lehmann has a 2,000 word piece by Dr. Long Xinming entitled, “Let’s Talk About Tiananmen Square, 1989: My Hearsay is Better Than Your Hearsay,” which says, “There were two events that occurred in Beijing on June 4, 1989. They were not related. One was a student protest that involved a sit-in in Tiananmen Square… The other was a worker protest… (where) a group of workers had barricaded streets in several locations leading to Central Beijing, several kilometers… from the Square… (And) there was a third group present… which consisted of neither students nor workers. ‘Thugs’ or ‘anarchists’ might be an appropriate adjective… The violence began when this third group decided to attack the soldiers… with Molotov cocktails, and torched several dozen buses —with the soldiers still inside.”

The Voice of America (VoA) played its role broadcasting 24/7 its version of the events at Tiananmen: “And all university students of that day… tell of listening to the VoA in their dorms, late into the night, building in their imaginations a happy world of freedom and light… offering comfort and encouragement, provoking, giving advice on strategy and tactics.” And what about the US government? “There were five or six primary leaders of the Tiananmen Square sit-in… They were spirited out of China, first to Hong Kong, then to Taiwan. And very shortly thereafter were in the US.”

One of the Tiananmen student leaders, Liu Xiaobo, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize years later despite (or because of) his support for the US attack on Iraq.
There is no question that China in 1989 was a country dealing with many challenges and problems. It had not yet become the Dragon Economy that it now is. Would it have progressed to its present enviable state as the top economy of the world if it had not restored order by some degree of force 25 years ago?

(Join me and Chito Sta. Romana, Benito Lim, and others on our GNN Talk News TV program on June 14, Destiny Cable Channel 8, SkyCable Channel 213, and www.gnntv-asia.com, Saturday, 8:00 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m.; tune in to 1098 AM, dwAD, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m.; search Talk News TV and date of showing on YouTube; and visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com)

'The People's List'

DIE HARD III / Herman Tiu Laurel / June 2, 2014 / Daily Tribune


It’s been 10 months since the manhunt for pork barrel queen Janet Lim-Napoles got underway last August 2013. But instead of the issues getting clearer, almost everything got muddled even more.  The so-called Napoles list has mutated many times with every involved party adding to the muddle.

Mainstream media (MSM) have not helped either.  Others not directly involved in the muddle have also stirred the cesspool. Economic oligarchs engaged in their own plunder of the economy, who exercise extraordinary influence, if not control, of MSM through direct ownership as well as of Internet news and social media through extensive PR operations, are paddle-churning the hullabaloo, too.

There is, however, one “list” that is infinitely more important but is being forgotten in the months that the MSM, particularly the “The People’s List”  as story trailbreaker privileged by feeds from the involved parties (Napoles and Malacañang), have focused on the pork barrel scandal. This list of important issues, which we call “The People’s List,” involves the basic necessities that were once provided at least cost by public utilities and service institutions, namely, water, electricity, fuel, infrastructure, and public transportation.

These basic necessities are the fundamental determinants of the people’s “living standards” and “productivity.” And only based upon these are we able to tell whether we have lived better than in the past—and for our children and their children to do the same later on.

In all the time that the Napoles caper became the burning national issue, items in the People’s List managed to bob up from the undercurrents, but only for a short time. Efforts of various factions in the Napoles scandal steered MSM back to political enemies or away from damage to themselves.  Of course, with the massive loot from the pork barrel scams, one could easily surmise that the factions could well afford to steer the news coverage by emblazoning this or that highlight of one list or version of the Napoles story.  And that meant issues on the People’s List were eventually drowned out, such as the multi-billion disallowances of water utility corporate income tax pass-ons and other privileges that should now be discounted from consumers’ bills but are not.

Meanwhile, public transportation fares are being raised to P8 (basic) without commensurate increases in people’s income or countervailing benefits in other aspects of the cost of living.  The result will be more belt-tightening for people who have added belt holes for decades now to keep their pants from falling off completely. The least the nation could expect now is for the people’s political and legislative representatives, and for media, to raise the issue of reviewing the “oil deregulation law.”  But this is not going to happen as the politicians and the MSM continue to play games, like the Napoles List, for months on end.
What must the people do to get these politicians and MSM practitioners to prioritize our most vital issues?

At the rate the Filipino’s standard of living is deteriorating due to the skewed priorities of our politicians and the Fourth Estate, we can be absolutely certain that our lives, particularly the vast numbers who are already “poor,” will be even worse off in the coming months — again.

We can also say with certainty that if the economic policies and structures that have led to the present inattention to the People’s List and the pathological obsession on futile exorcisms (like Napoles et al.) instead of tearing down the haunted house cursed by evil, or instead of demolishing and rebuilding a new home, our children and grandchildren will not be able to expect livable lives anymore.

The nation must tenaciously focus on the People’s List until the issues are resolved in favor of us having better lives in these lands and seas—with a home for all time for our people, our children, and their children.  Should it take a revolution to bring this about?  If we love our children and their future enough, we must resort to whatever means necessary in order to make it happen.

(Watch GNN Talk News TV with HTL on Destiny Cable Channel 8, SkyCable Channel 213, and www.gnntv-asia.com, Saturday, 8 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m., this week on “Philippines in the Asian Century”; tune in to 1098 AM, dwAD, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m.; search Talk News TV and date of showing on YouTube; and visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com)