China Watch 23, Bernard Ong on Du30 defeatism with the China communist govt

I am reposting two good posts from a friend, Bernard Ong, posted yesterday and today. The news titles I just added here. Communists are communists, they are bullies, they hardly respect the rule of law, only the rule of men, the rule of dictatorship.
--------------

DU30 MUST DO HIS JOB

March 22, 2017

Justice Antonio Carpio listed 5 things Duterte can do "fulfill his constitutional duty" even if "the Philippines is no match to China militarily".

1) File a strong formal protest against the Chinese building activity

2) Send the Philippine Navy to patrol Scarborough Shoal. Should the Chinese attack, 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 Phil-US Mutual Defense Treaty.

4) Accept the standing U.S. offer to hold joint naval patrols in the South China Sea to demonstrate joint Philippine and U.S. 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.

And we should add Duterte's own campaign promise:

6) Ask the Navy to drop him on the nearest safe point to Spratlys. Ride a jet-ski, plant our flag & challenge the Chinses to suntukan-o-barilan.

Giving up Spratlys, Panatag and soon Benham Rise to China; doing nothing; saying "we can't do anything"; all the while begging for Chinese loans & trains for Mindanao is not only dereliction of duty. It is treason.

-------------

WILL CHINA WALK ITS TALK?

March 23, 2017

China's reported plan to set up a permanent structure at Panatag Shoal met loud opposition from Philippine netizens. This was in stark contrast to Duterte's "can't-do-anything-about-it" defeatism.

Apparently feeling the heat (ok all ye noisy patriots give yourself a pat in the back now), China has since backtracked & said it is not building a monitoring station on Panatag. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said "That does not exist at all".

So will China do what it says? Let us look at the evidence.

1. CHINA LIED ABOUT PANATAG BEFORE

In 2012, there was a standoff on Panatag involving the Philippine Navy's BRP Gregorio Del Pilar (whose crew tried to arrest Chinese fishermen who had illegally caught giant clams, corals & live sharks) and 2 Chinese Marine Surveillance ships (who blocked the Navy ship).

Ex-Philippine Ambassador to US Jose Cuisia Jr told a news conference that US State Dept brokered a deal for both sides to withdraw simultaneously from Panatag to avoid conflict. The Philippines complied. China reneged on the deal & did not withdraw its ships. "We were short-changed" Cuisia said.

2. CHINA LIED ABOUT KAGITINGAN BEFORE

Kagitingan - Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys - has been occupied by China since 1988.

It started with a marine station. Then the Chinese started reclaiming in 2014 - building one of seven artificial islands in South China Sea. Official excuse was to provide shelter for fishermen. They added a runway for an air base in 2015. Then anti-aircraft guns & weapons systems in 2016.

This pattern of reclaiming reefs, building artificial islands & militarizing fits the Chinese template in South China Sea.

3. CHINA TALKS ON ONE HAND. MILITARIZES WITH THE OTHER

Asean and China agreed on a 2002 Code of Conduct Declaration on South China Sea covering the usual motherhood statements – commitment to UNCLOS, freedom of navigation & overflight, peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law (including UNCLOS), refrain from action of inhabiting uninhabited reefs & shoals.

What did China do? Ignore UNCLOS & Arbitration Tribunal ruling. Impose 12-mile territorial claim & infringe on freedom of navigation & overflight. Blockaded Panatag. Reclaimed & populated reefs. Built military facilities & installed weapons systems.

Asean and China began discussing a new, tighter Code of Conduct in 2010. China has been delaying negotiations to buy time to expand & consolidate its military position in South China Sea.

4. CULTURE OF FAKES & SUBTERFUGE

In 2015, the global trade in faked goods was valued at $1.77 trillion. 63% came from China. Taobao - the online shopping platform of Alibaba - is in U.S. government's blacklist of "world’s most notorious markets for counterfeit goods."

Domestically, the Chinese have faked practically everything - counterfeit goods, fake milk, fake rice, even a fake lion in a zoo that used a Tibetan mastiff to dupe visitors.

On the diplomatic front, other countries are wary of China.

An good pulse-check can be found in The Straits Times op-ed "Asean contends with gap between China's words and deeds" which is quoted here:

"On the South China Sea, Premier Li expressed the hope that "specific disputes be resolved through dialogue by the parties directly concerned and all countries in the region work together for peace, stability and development.”

“Almost on cue, Mr Li's reassuring words to Asean were put to the test when the Hainan Daily, a state-owned newspaper, quoted Sansha City mayor Xiao Jie as saying that the local government would build an environment- monitoring station on Scarborough Shoal, rattling the Philippines."

“But the Sansha City mayor's statement should not be brushed away. Sansha City was established by the Chinese government in 2012 as a prefecture-level city to administer China's maritime interests in the South China Sea, making Mr Xiao the most senior Chinese official on the ground privy to Chinese plans for the contested shoal.

5. CHINA PLAYS THE LONG GAME

The Chinese Foreign Ministry statement “That (monitoring station) does not exist at all” is correct. It does not exist now.

This statement also does not conflict with the Sansha City Mayor’s statement that China plans to build one. It does not exist yet, but will happen in the future.

China can even claim to be truthful if it went ahead & built a military airbase – instead of a civilian monitoring station – on Panatag. They said “No monitoring station.” They never said “No air base.”

Bottom line, should we trust China? Will China be better than Duterte at keeping promises? Or is this another moro-moro by a couple of proven hardened liars.

-------------

See also:
China Watch 20: Fortify PH Garrison? March 20, 2015
China Watch 21, Is a War Between US and China "Inevitable"? May 30, 2015 

China Watch 22, On many rich Chinese leaving their country, January 17, 2016 

BWorld 46, China's debt, central planning and central crashes, February 27, 2016 

BWorld 99, China insecurity and belligerence, December 30, 2016

China Watch 17: Using Drones Over Scarborough, SCS

Last Friday, I posted this in my facebook wall. See the exchanges after that, until today:
----------

I support this suggestion from Stephen P. Cutlerr: "The Philippines may find a better "return on investment" for its military money by buying fleets of drones, instead of 48 F-16s at millions each, with millions for maintenance, and even more millions for pilots."

Shadow Hawk Munition portends a new era of warfare

www.gizmag.com

Lockheed Martin's new Shadow Hawk weapon is deceptively small considering the influence it will have on warfare

Ian  Thanks Noy... Im sharing this one!

Nonoy On Steve's wall where he posted the above link, I wrote,
" I support this Steve. We need more information as we go to internationalize the Scarborough/Spratlys issue. Only rent-seekers in the government and their armament suppliers want those expensive military hardware. The cheapest, and peaceful way to expose and shame China, is more information, more international discussion and negotiation, never, never, never, military confrontation."

To Mr. Nic O who wrote, "Make that armed drones with all sorts of missiles and guns, plus information warfare capability." I replied to him,
"Hi Nic, you want more money from us taxpayers, for more missiles, more guns, more warfare capability? Come on, what do you want to achieve aside from impoverishing us further, win a war with China?"

There is a possibility though, that the "more missiles, more jet fighters, more war" camp will win the debate, If that is the case, I propose that we get money from privatizing Camp Aguinaldo + the PMA campus in Baguio. DND and AFP HQ be moved to a cheaper place in Cavite perhaps. Get the money quick and modernize the AFP. They should never, never, get it from taxpayers' pockets.

1. Philippine government via the DFA should pursue international diplomacy and multilateral negotiations, endlessly.
2. Civil society and private citizens can launch various activities, no central plan, no central bureaucracy, to expose and shame not only the China government bullying but also the local military rent-seekers.
3. Do not entertain the military and war option. It is simply an idiotic path,.. http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/05/china-watch-16-scarborough-shoal.html

Doods i'm in favor of building nuclear capability as a deterrent and to provide cheap nuclear energy to the country

Patrick Nonoy, the only downside here is if our military will buy drones then it is likely that daily surveillance sorties around Boracay: spying on all those nude sunbathers and beach sex :)

Nonoy Doods, me too, I'm pro nuke energy. Modern nuke tech even use nuke wastes as fuel itself, so it becomes perpetual power.
Patrick, highly possible :-)

Josef  Noy I think the debate on drones v. jet fighters has reached such a level in the US air force, but not to the degree of sacrificing one for the other. Its always a matter of functionality, and defense experts of course recognize that there are certain things drones cant do, like intercept and outmaneuver a modern Chinese J10 fighter jet piloted by one of China's best. I dont think defense experts have ever forwarded the idea that drones can soon take over the interceptor fighter role of direct-piloted jets. They have performed quite well in surveillance and air to ground attack roles, but only in environments where the other side lacks countervailing air assets. I have never heard of a drone intercepting and engaging a fighter jet in a dog fight.

Nonoy  But I don't support using drones for real war Jo. What do we want to achieve if we really want war with China, win it? That's day dreaming. China communist govt, being a communist and totalitarian govt, wants war, war, and more war. They bully and kill their own citizens, they bully Tibet, China. We deprive them of such option. So I support using drones to have possibly 24/7 monitoring of SCS/Scarborough, take photos, lots of evidence, for prolonged legal and international debates. Shame China via international debates, never in mil confrontation.

Eugene  Ahhh governments, they are real pain in the neck. Take them away and you'll see Filipino, Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Malaysian fishermen going to the shoal with no conflict.

China Watch 16: Scarborough Shoal, Spratlys and Citizens Action

The territorial conflict in the West Philippine Sea (WPS) or the South China Sea (SCS) was exacerbated last week with the discovery of large-scale poaching of important marine resources by Chinese fishing boats off Scarborough Shoal, a small area just 124 nautical miles off Zambales province in the Philippines, and 500 nautical miles from Hainan island, the southernmost part of China. For a few days, there was a brief stand off between the respective boats of the Philippine Navy and Chinese Navy, then back to diplomatic discussions and negotiations.

The hawks among various sectors in the Philippines would use that incident as another reason to build up a "strong" fighting Philippine Navy and Air Force. Which means you and me must pay more taxes, both in the present and the future, to finance a large-scale modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Last Friday, April 27, 2012, interaksyon.com launched a new project, the "Online Onsite" where some of the news portals' columnists would speak on various issues and the discussions will be tweeted. Twitter followers, as well as some of the network's reporters and walk-in audience can ask questions and the resource speakers will answer them. The event was held at the Enterprise Center, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. I was assigned by the editors to speak on the Scarborough Shoal incident and the rest of the WPS/SCS issue. My powerpoint where I based my informal talk is posted here,
http://interaksyon.com/assets/documents/interaksyon_online_onsite.pdfinteraksyon.com

The first question that was raised was: "What is your main message on this issue?" I like that question because it's direct and point blank so I gave a direct and point blank answer: "Pursue diplomatic talks endlessly, do not take the military/war option." And why?

The maps above show that aside from questionable historical claims and military bullying, the China government really has very little or zero rationale in making its claim that the entire U-shape SCS area is its own territory. China is explicitly violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) and the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of other south-east Asian countries there. The China government therefore, is standing on a very week legal and diplomatic position, thus it shows military might. So the military option is a trap, a diversion, it moves the debate away from international diplomacy and multilateral negotiations into bargaining for US military support, into coercing taxpayers of respective countries to surrender more of their money, resources that they are supposed to spend for themselves and their households, to finance an expensive military adventure with zero or little chance of winning.

Below are two tables I showed, plus an estimate of how costly a military path would cost us. I thank a good friend, plane pilot and debater Sam Aherrera, for his ideas. So the verdict is very clear: a military and war path is an idiotic proposition that will impoverish us taxpayers and will benefit only a very few military and civilian rent seekers and their military suppliers.

But government is coercion, right? Even if the local rent-seekers and war freaks, like the China government, stand on very weak legal and fiscal grounds, it is possible that they might still prevail. So I offer a second option: finance their large-scale armament build up by privatizing the AFP HQ in Camp Aguinaldo right here in Metro Manila. Another is to privatize the sprawling campus of the PMA.

I also outlined the various non-war options, and the various international arena where the Philippine government can pursue endlessly its diplomatic offensive. The China communist government does not like internationalizing the issue and pursuing multilateral talks because it realizes its weak diplomatic position. It wants bilateral negotiations where it can easily divert the issue into military bullying or other rent-seeking schemes that can favor some local political, business and military elites.

My favorite example to say that the China government can be onion-skinned when it comes to international diplomacy, was the Nobel Peace Prize given to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Why should the China government get so upset, so angry, at the awarding of an international NGO like the Nobel Foundation? Nobel is not a government body, not a multilateral institution. What if Rotary International and other big international NGOs will also give various awards to known Chinese dissidents, the China government will do a political tantrum again?

Towards the end of the interview and twitter notes during the Online Onsite,
I said that we pursue the diplomatic, international discussion of the issue. The Philippine government should pursue existing formal avenues like the various UN fora (Security Council, General Assembly, ITLOS, ICJ) and regional bodies like APEC and the ASEAN.

And us private citizens, civil society organizations (CSOs), can initiate some activities like the planned international protest action in front of China Embassies in many countries around the world this coming May 11.

The China one-party, zero opposition communist government, does not know how to effectively deal with ordinary civilians and CSOs. We operate on a different plane. We in CSOs work on purely voluntary exchange and action while governments work on coercion.

So to reiterate my position on this issue:

1. Philippine government via the DFA should pursue international diplomacy and multilateral negotiations, endlessly.

2. Civil society and private citizens can launch various activities, no central plan, no central bureaucracy, to expose and shame not only the China government bullying but also the local military rent-seekers.

3. Do not entertain the military and war option. It is simply an idiotic path.
-----------

See also:
China Watch 8: World's Largest Economies in 2010, August 16, 2010
China Watch 9: Liu Xiaobo, Human Rights and the NPA, December 10, 2010
China Watch 10: Is China Still a Communist Country?, December 21, 2010
China Watch 11: Big Brother and Inflationary Pressure, March 07, 2011
China Watch 12: The Spratlys and SCS Conflict, June 08, 2011
China Watch 13: More on the Spratlys/SCS Conflict, June 25, 2011
China Watch 14: More on the SCS/WPS Noise, July 11, 2011
China Watch 15: FTA, ASEAN and UNCLOS, August 01, 2011