China Watch 28, Duterte sailing to PH Rise in the east when dispute is in the west

My friend from UP Diliman days in the 80s, Jose Antonio Custodio posted this in his fb wall yesterday:

Dear Armed Forces of the Philippines,

As your naval units steam eastward at Benham Rise covered by your air assets and away from the main operational area of the West Philippine Sea towards the general direction of the United States of America, while led by your deranged commander in chief, let me just say that is the best example of an advance in the opposite direction.

Rest assured this masterful operation will result in hordes of Chinese dying....

...of laughter at the irony of it all.

The AFP is following the DDS -- Duterte Dishonesty in the Sea? There is no territorial dispute at the Benham/PH Rise, why should the President go there? The big territorial and political dispute is in the WPS/SCS, why not go there?

I think one answer is what Jose pointed out -- Du30 wants many Chinese communist leaders to die... of laughing.

See these news reports:

Palace: Duterte’s Benham Rise visit set for May 15-16

Published May 8, 2018 12:18pm

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/652609/palace-duterte-s-benham-rise-visit-set-for-may-15-16/story/

In the two reports below, another friend from UP in the 80s, Prof. Jay Batongbacal of UP College of Law is quoted.

Duterte's PH rise visit 'unfortunate' - maritime expert

ABS-CBN News, Posted at May 09 2018 11:00 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/video/news/05/09/18/dutertes-ph-rise-visit-unfortunate-maritime-expert

From PH Rise, Duterte urged to proceed to Panatag, WPS

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:04 AM May 12, 2018

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/166859/ph-rise-duterte-urged-proceed-panatag-wps?

Some background reports:

China installs cruise missiles on South China Sea outposts: CNBC

Reuters Staff MAY 3, 2018 / 7:48 AM /

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-missiles/china-installs-cruise-missiles-on-south-china-sea-outposts-cnbc-idUSKBN1I336G

China deploys military aircraft, 15 warships in Spratlys

Jaime Laude (The Philippine Star) - May 11, 2018 - 12:00am

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/05/11/1814178/china-deploys-military-aircraft-15-warships-spratlys

Now this pronouncement is weird. It should come from the AFP commander in chief (CIC), the President, not from the AFP chief of staff (COS).

AFP vows to protect PH claims in Spratlys amid China buildup

By: Frances G. Mangosing - @inquirerdotnet INQUIRER.net / 04:46 PM May 14, 2018

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/166909/afp-vows-protect-spratlys-claims-amid-china-buildup?

The AFP cannot even patrol at the WPS/SCS because the CIC does not want them to go there, then the COS pronounces like that. Pang dyaryo/media epek lang. Ayaw ni CIC, ano magagawa ni COS? eh di mag press release na lang.

Classic case of a state not doing its function of protecting its own territory from a bully neighbor. In this case, the China communist dictatorial government. See this developed artificial island at Zamora Reef in the Spratlys, now fully controlled by China. Photo from the Inquirer.

Additional story,

China’s missiles in the South China Sea mean girding for war

By ROBERT E. MCCOY MAY 14, 2018 12:55 PM (UTC+8)

http://www.atimes.com/article/chinas-missiles-in-the-south-china-sea-mean-girding-for-war/

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

See also:

China Watch 25, Benham Rise/ Philippine Rise and Chinese exploration, January 31, 2018 

China Watch 26, PDP-LABAN loves the China Communist Party, March 20, 2018 

China Watch 27, How many islands the PH has? May 09, 2018

China Watch 24, PH Defense Secretary's visit at Pagasa island

On April 21, 2017, PH Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and top officials of the AFP went to Pagasa island, near Subi Reef that CN has illegally occupied. I say "illegal" because the UN PCA (The Hague, Netherlands) ruling says that CN's claims at the SCS/WPS have no international legal basis.

Good move, Defense Secretary. Please do this more often. If CN will shoot down your plane and kill you, you will be a new hero.

The CN communist government remains arrogant. And any PH government official who will placate China despite its continued belligerence and arrogance should be exposed. Including the President if he continues his lick-a__ attitude to the commie government in Beijing.

The report says, "The plane, during such incidents, is told it is entering Chinese territory." Pagasa island is "Chinese territory" haha. And PDu30 is silent, not slam-dunking with his usual "PI nyo/Pakyu" China.

Taiwan, Vietnam, other countries also claim some of those islands and atolls at the SCS, but they are silent, did not make any challenged to the visit of the PH Defense Secretary. In the case of CN, their claim to the area is wholesale -- political, legal, military, etc. See other news -- "CN protests PH defense chief's Pagasa island visit", but we don't hear or read a similar "VN or TW protests..."

China will soon swallow its own pill. VN, US, others will not recognize CN claim on those artificial islands. That is why Defense Sec. Lorenzana's move is good, something that PDu30 never did. He recently ordered the AFP to occupy PH islands in the disputed territories, palusot after his many kowtow statements to China. After a series of public defeatism with the commies across the sea, he needs to shake his "joke only" image with respect to China. 

About the PH fishermen who were driven away by CN boats, I bet Du30 will reprimand instead the Pinoy fishermen, something like "sinabi ko nang wag lumapit sa isla ng China eh. Atin yan dati, ngayon sa kanila na". 

PNoy was right in asserting the international rule of law on the seas, PDut is wrong to ignore it, and FVR sides with PNoy.

News headlines below were published April 21-24, 2017.

Meanwhile, I am reposting comments from a friend, Bernard Ong. He posted these April 21 and 23.

(1) WHAT WOULD DU30 DO...

If the Chinese shoot down the plane carrying the Filipino Defense Secretary to our own territory in Pagasa Island...

I bet he sends his deepest apologies to China, checks with them if the deal for trains + loans + banana exports is still on, goes on an angry incoherent speech about how we should not have tested China's resolve, tells the military they should focus on Jolo instead, then bans future voyages on sea & air by Filipinos to that area to avoid 'provoking' the squatters.

Don't give me that "but he's sincere, will stake his life and honor" bullshit. Look at me in the eye & tell me I'm wrong. Kumander Topak is a traitor.

(2) WAITING FOR THAT RANT

China hits PH over Defense Chief visit to Kalayaan Island. Chinese fires at PH fishermen.

Now would be a good time for Kumander Topak to launch ito a "Put@ng ina. Amin yan. Sisipain ko sila" rant.

C'mon if you can do it to the US - the #1 military superpower in the world - launching your curses & insults at China should be easy.

Show us some of that "I am willing to die" and "I will stake my life, my honor, my presidency" drama. Don't forget the flag-draping & fist bump for added effect.

Sayang naman yung TIME Most Influential kung tiklop ka pala agad. Huwag ka matakot. China lang yan. Hindi yan UP Diliman.

Magparamdam ka naman. Ok ka lang ba dyan?

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

See also:
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 

China Watch 23, Bernard Ong on Du30 defeatism with the China communist govt, March 23, 2017 

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

China Watch 21, Is a War Between US and China "Inevitable"?

"War is inevitable" between the US and China. That is one headline used by a China government-owned newspaper, which was used and quoted by other national  and foreign media.

This exclusive report by the CNN has fanned such story. 

I do not believe such  probability of course. It is s vintage 1960s headline that persists until today. US vs Russia, East vs West Europe, North vs. South Korea, China mainland vs. Taiwan, etc.

The more alarmism and panic created over the SCS/WPS territorial disputes, the easier for the public to say "Yes to more borrowings, more taxes to buy multi-billion dollars armaments, battle ships, jet fighters, etc." The point is to keep scaring the people,

"If you don't buy these armaments, your national territory will be diminished, your mainland will soon be grabbed. So give us your money and we will send you armaments to stop this from happening."

No different from climate alarmism. The UN, Al Gore, governments, WWF, etc. say, "Send us more money and we will save you and the planet from alarming, worrying, panicking, burning, submerging destructions." And that is how huge annual global climate junkets, multi-trillion dollars climate money, multi-billion dollars climate loans, thousands of climate bureaucracies, renewable energy cronyism, etc. were created.

Keep the panic button alive, scare the public everyday, tell them that reason and diplomacy is inferior, only armaments and war mongering is superior. This works well for a commie government confronted with so many domestic problems, rebel regions (Tibet, HK, Taiwan, Uigur and other predominantly Muslim regions). By creating external enemies, real or imaginary, the commie government hopes to somehow sideline those internal problems and achieve national unity. 

People are rational, they respond to incentives. If there is much to gain from absence of war, then war is NOT "inevitable". Despite sooo many war mongering and panicking stories since the 60s, there was NO global or regional war in the planet after WW2. Only invasions by militarist governments, like Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq invasion of Kuwait, US invasion of Vietnam then Iraq, etc.

We have entered a period of global peace and rising prosperity for many decades now. Some people don't like it, so they invent war mongering, to create panic and alarmism. If people will not buy their alarmism, then like the well-headlined "US vs Russia", "West vs East Europe" etc , war is avoidable. War is stupid,

If we count the volume of investments and trade alone between US and China, that amount should be several times larger than any "projected gains after a war" scenarios. So many Chinese students, investors and visitors in the US, so many US investments, visitors to China and HK. But then again, I think some people derive pleasure and happiness that they can cause panic and alarm to the public and other governments.

This Bloomberg report, China Inc. is coming to America, May 22, 2015, said that

Between 2000 and 2014, Chinese firms spent almost $46 billion on acquisitions and new establishments across America, much of it in the past five years alone. By the end of last year there were 1,583 establishments by Chinese firms across the U.S., according to the report. 

The U.S. could receive between $100 billion and $200 billion of investment by 2020, creating between 200,000 and 400,000 jobs, the report found....

Those pieces of info imply the following:

1. Many super-rich Chinese either have already left China, or one foot is still there but one foot is already in the US.

2. These rich Chinese still have voices and influence in the CCP leadership. I bet that many of them have relatives or family members in the party high echelon. Hence, they can influence the CCP via back channel.

3. And these rich Chinese in the US will also have some voices and influence in the US, through their US clients, suppliers and workers. Rationality will prevail.

The US will send an aircraft carrier, fly some recon planes, China makes some stern warnings, even some "near shooting" incidents, many media reports, repeat the cycle several times for several years, 

At the end of the day, China will be forced to abandon those artificial islands as the gains for keeping them via real war are too small compared to what China currently enjoy in global trade, investments and tourism (both inflows and outflows) with zero war.

Another recent example -- the so much headlined "Russia invasion of Ukraine" many months ago. Thousands of headlines from many mainstream media outlets per month were coming out. ALL were false alarmism. There are so many avenues to pressure Russia and even Ukraine, from not going to war. The EU and US economic pressures were working. Russia lost a lot from "threats of war" alone, and it would lose more if it becomes "real war".

People know that there is much to gain from zero war.

I think that ultimately, China will abandon claiming territorial ownership of those shoals and artificial islands. The same way that Russia abandoned all those nukes and missiles stationed in Cuba, in Poland and East Germany, etc. China knows that it is creating more enemies than friends now, and since people are rational, they will soon realize their irrationality.

Comments from some friends:

1. Patrick: War is the health of the state.

2. Stephen:  For all the talk, the money people know they will lose billions if real war breaks out. Loud voices and even a few shots, perhaps a few lives, is not war. a precedent is the China/India relationship. Artillery fire. Gun shots. Taking of territory...testing then retreat. None is leading to war.

3. Malou: Ok lng kumita sa atin US if they can get China to abandon the territories under dispute.

4. Bogie: yup. the war industry just need some excuses test their weaponry etc. Its just a play.

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

See also:
China Watch 17: Using Drones Over Scarborough, SCS, May 14, 2012
China Watch 18: Martin Jacques' Manila Lecture, November 20, 2012
China Watch 19: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), October 25, 2014
China Watch 20: Fortify PH Garrison? March 20, 2015

China Watch 20: Fortify PH Garrison?

A friend, Dr. Bong Mendoza of the UP Political Science Department, posted yesterday in fb and tagged me with this note,

I agree with Sen. Sonny Trillanes that we should fortify our garrisons on the islands we actually hold or control in the West Philippine Sea (sometimes known in China as the smaller South China Sea). However, that will take a lot of money and quite some time before we can build and deploy minimum credible deterrence systems on these same real estate.

I commented that I approve of that proposal. More military spending if necessary -- but money should NOT come from additional taxes or additional borrowings. Our public debt stock is rising by about P350-400 bilion a year, with or without a crisis, with or without China territorial issue. Additional money should come from privatization of certain government assets and properties. Like the huge and prime Camp Aguinaldo property in Edsa.

Another option is that we call on Batman, Spiderman, Superman, the X-Men. Not to fight the Chinese territory grabbers, but to produce and magic money from nowhere. Then we can have those squadrons of jet fighters, missiles and bombs, battle ships and submarines. By tomorrow or next week. :-)

(This photo is from Breaking Defense, March 19, 2015.

One of Bong's friends commented that a "Purely diplomatic initiatives aka triple approach of the lethargic DFA are hollow and ineffectual."

Wrong. China being a communist government bullies everyone that it can. First in line are its own citizens; no freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, no political opposition. Ordinary citizens are even deprived of access to fb, youtube, gmail, etc. Second, China Communist Party (CCP) bullies its smaller, weaker neighbors like the PH, Vietnam and Malaysia. Third, it bullies its richer neighbors like Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan.

(This photo is from Medium,com, March 16, 2015)

China commie government is creating more enemies than friends with its bullying in the territorial disputes. This alone makes that government weak and susceptible diplomatically. At the UN, APEC, ASEAN + 6, other international fora and arena.

Continued, endless diplomatic offensive at the international community terrifies bullies and dictators. Belligerence at the South China Sea (SCS) or West PH Sea (WPS) shows one faction of the CCP while another faction wants more trade, more investments, more capitalism with its neighbors, not more disputes. The creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) shows this faction.

But the noise of armaments suppliers to the PH government -- they want billions of $ from us, not just a few million $ -- is being echoed in mainstream media. The populism of war mongering is trying to be as noisy and deceptive as possible.

Another asked, "Do we have the funds?"

The direct, explicit and categorical answer is NO. Even without a crisis, even without buying a single new battleship, the PH government does not have enough money so it is borrowing yearly, around P300 B a year, just to finance various expenditures (salaries and allowances alone + maintenance/MOOE constitutes maybe 80% of the annual budget).

Any huge defense spending like "invest more in fighter planes,missiles and effective ships" as Romeo suggested above, would mean annual borrowings of possibly P400+ billion a year. And that means more taxes, more regulatory fees, more fines and penalties, to pay a fast-rising public debt.

Large scale privatization of certain government properties, assets, corporations, etc. is the least painful measure for PH taxpayers. But painful for pampered bureaucrats and politicians. PAGCOR privatization would give the government at least P200 B, from a paper I read about two years ago. Huge prime land of the AFP at Camp Aguinaldo alone including the golf course, should fetch tens of billions more.

Bong supported my suggestion of more government privatization to  raise funds. He even suggested to "sell UP Diliman property and transfer to UP Quezon Province property fronting the Pacific ocean to build a new growth center fronting the Pacific ocean (or at least map out a 20-30 year transfer to UP Quezon plan."

This is a diversion from the issue of territorial dispute with China, but I like this proposal as it is related to privatization and military modernization. A fast train connecting Quezon province with Metro Manila would make UP Quezon Province a very exotic campus to teach, study and reside. Tunnels will definitely be built in some parts of Sierra Madre, the excavated soil and rocks will be used for land reclamation and expand the land area of that province for more ports and real estate development.

Such train route and operation won't need public spending, private sector and modern capitalism will be more than happy to finance that, and make good profit in the future.

Meanwhile, UP should get tens of billions of money and proudly declare, "Malacanang and Congress, we will NOT be asking money from you for the next 20 years or more. Use that savings for whatever social or military spending you wish."

Building tunnels under Sierra Madre mt range I think is relatively easy now with more modern engineering, provided the government won't extort too much from private developers. I remember when MWSS built a tunnel in Sierra Madre to divert portion of waters from (Umiray?) river in Aurora or Gen. Nakar, Quezon (water just go to the ocean) to Angat River. That was more than 10 years ago.

My friend who conducted mountaineering training for the tunnel workers said that the tunneling machines were high tech and fast. As they excavate soil and rocks, they also plaster the cleared area with cement and steel.

Land reclamation and land banking + train operation, that should be big money for private investors. The volume of trade in Quezon as alternative port should significantly raise PH trade with Japan, Korea, US and Canada. Cargo ships won't go around the tip of Luzon and go to Manila bay. They can dock straight at the ports of Quezon.

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

See also:
China Watch 16: Scarborough Shoal, Spratlys and Citizens Action, May 01, 2012
China Watch 17: Using Drones Over Scarborough, SCS, May 14, 2012
China Watch 18: Martin Jacques' Manila Lecture, November 20, 2012
China Watch 19: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), October 25, 2014

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

China Watch 14: More on the SCS/WPS Noise

Last week, I wrote this:

The "war dance" rhetorics over the Spratlys, and the huge lobbying for more tax money to buy more fighter planes, more battle ships, more missiles, and possibly, getting a submarine, is alive and kicking. Just observe these news and opinion titles and the word "war" is clearly emblazoned.

Picture above, Risk of war in the Spratlys by Rommel Banlaoi, Newsbreak, June 29, 2011. 

I told Rommel who is a friend, my observation that his article title is rather shrewd. It was not him who said that "risk of war in the Spratlys", that he simply quoted an analysis by the Lowy Institute in Australia. But he made it as the title of his article, and it was not even in the probing angle asking "Risk of war in the Spratlys?" Rather, it was a sort of affirmative assertion that there IS indeed "risk of war in the spratlys".

Picture below, East Sea disputes could lead to Asian war, Vietnamnet, July 4, 2011. "Asian war", tsk tsk. I have not seen any news report yet from other claimant countries like Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. Do they also call it as possible "Asian war"?

In this news report from the Inquirer, another "Asian war" mongering. Do the local media people really want a war, or at least prolonging the "word war" so they can sell more?

The lower picture is more alarmist, 
Global War on the Spratly Reef, Ground Report, June 23, 2011. Not just Asian war but it's "global war". Really? To involve possibly the Americans, Russians, Asians and Australians? wow.

These are all "war dance" rhetorics, and possibly, some government policies. BIG governments like the communist states of China and Vietnam, are not satisfied pointing guns on the heads of their citizens ("support the single party communist party or else"), they want to extend the guns to their neighboring countries. 

Now many sectors want the Philippine government to join the war dance, through what? MORE TAXES, more government fees, what else. Where will government get the money to buy more fighter planes, battle ships, ammos and missiles? Government is a penniless institution that becomes big and wealthy through endless confiscation of the citizens' money. For what purpose, to "fight poverty" by "developing" some islands and atolls in the Spratlys"?

We will soon spend less for the private education of our children, for the private healthcare of our families, for our simple joys in local or foreign travel, so that the government will have more money, more money to buy jet fighters and if possible, a submarine, to "develop portions of the Spratlys."

BIG government sucks. They fool and steal big time. From the man-made warming scam to the Spratlys war scam.

Meanwhile, here's a good article written by another friend who teaches at the UP College of Law, and specialization is international maritime law, Jay Batongbacal, PH correctly stands its (maritime) ground, Inquirer, June 29, 2011. Jay wrote, 

China posits its claim to sovereignty and jurisdiction over the entire South China Sea, enclosed within the so-called “nine-dashed lines” map, based on ancient Chinese voyages and maps made 2000 years ago.

But claims to sovereignty and jurisdiction merely on the basis of ancient explorations have no credence in modern times. They are inconsistent with the historical record demonstrating that such voyages were never for conquest or territorial acquisition. Instead, they were for trade with the diverse pre-colonial peoples who inhabited the lands around the South China Sea, some of whom later became the first Filipinos.

About a century before Magellan’s arrival, China stopped all its maritime activities and abandoned all its foreign interests. The Chinese lived in Southeast Asia’s coastal communities as traders, not administrators. Local sultans and datus controlled the waters, some even demanding tributes for passage. So if anyone actually controlled any portion of the South China Seas in the past, they were more likely our Southeast Asian ancestors, not the Chinese.

We need more legal research, more diplomacy work, zero additional military spending for the Spratlys. We better get 10 or 50 or more Jay Batongbacal type of legal experts and researchers and wage a strong diplomatic "war" at the UN, various international venue (APEC, ASEAN + 6, etc.). The communist government of China will be ashamed internationally if their claims are exposed as a scam. And we will not need even a single additional fighter jet to achieve that. Do not listen to the AFP-DND-allied bureaucracies' lobbying for more tax money for their spratlys adventure. The corporate military suppliers and their hosts in the war dance noise are salivating at another large scale robbery of Filipino taxpayers' money.

We're in the 21st century already and governments are still in the "let's go to war" mentality. Private enterprises like google, facebook, yahoo, youtube, wordpress, etc. are creating endless connections, friendly connections, among people from all countries, except those countries dominated by notorious communists like the China government.
------

Today, I got engaged in a twitter debate this morning with Ruffy Biazon, a former Congressman. After I replied to him and Ces Drilon, a broadcaster from ABS-CBN News, our debate started. Below.

cesdrilon Cecilia Orena-Drilon
Pag asa Island in the West Philippine Sea as seen from the air. http://lockerz.com/s/119051391

ruffybiazon Ruffy Biazon
@cesdrilon That airstrip should be installed w/ anti-aricraft defense -- SAM, AA guns and radar.

Noysky Nonoy Oplas
@ruffybiazon @cesdrilon "airstrip should be installed w/ anti-aricraft defense" Really, u want more & higher taxes to finance war in Sprat?

@Noysky It's not financing a war. It is investing in defense.

@ruffybiazon "investing in defense" or investing in offense, the same. We cant even develop Sulu, Tawi-tawi, we want war to develop Sprat?

@Noysky Assertion over SPratlys in not just about owning real estate. It's about harnessing the natural resources there.

@Noysky Pagasa could serve as a forward defense post for our Malampaya fields, presently generating revenue for the Philippines

@ruffybiazon Palawan, Sulu, have nat resources too, we cant develop them even if we dont buy new jetfighters. Now we "develop" Sprat.

@Noysky Spratlys is within our claimed Exclusive Economic Zone. It will not become exclusive if we are unable to defend it.

@ruffybiazon agree that certain islands in the Sprat are w/in our EEZ. Let's hire 50, 100 top notch marItime lawyers, expose China at the UN

@Noysky NO we don't need jet fighters to develop SUlu and Tawi2. Problems there are local peace and order, not foreign intrusion.

@Noysky And I also dont agree that we need jet fighters now. We might afford to buy them, but we cannot afford to operate dem. AT dis time.

cesdrilon Cecilia Orena-Drilon
@Noysky @ruffybiazon there are anti aircraft weapons. Some are rusting, others are said to be working, though no test firing has been done.

@ruffybiazon Spend on top notch maritime lawyers & diplomats, not jetfighters. China can demolish all mil def but not legal battle at d UN.

@Noysky Diplomacy shouldn't be abandoned. But neither will it work by itself. We must be able to maintain our present hold in KIG.

@Noysky Our advantage is proximity and present occupation. We need to defend that advantage.

@ruffybiazon Atty Jay Batongbacal of UP Law wrote a good piece that can shame China over KIG, other islands. We need more minds like him.

@Noysky NO debate about diplomatic track in addressing Spratlys issue. But I stick to backing it up with an improved defense capability.

@ruffybiazon I like your Dad's position. The "battlefield" over Spratlys is at the UN, other intl. fora, not at the WPS or SCS.

@Noysky Then your understanding of his position is incomplete. Because we have the same position---use diplomacy, defend your property.

@ruffybiazon Basilan has 2x land area than Sing, but Sing GDP is larger than entire RP GDP. Devt has little to do with more EEZ, more mil.

@Noysky Basilan cannot be compared with Singapore. Apples and Oranges.

@ruffybiazon It's comparing RP & Sing. Use of Basilan only to highlight how small Sing's land area. Sulu archip abt 5x Sing land area too

@Noysky Even if its SG vs. PH. I have always been averse to comparing the two. Different factors contribute to situation of the two...

@Noysky .....Geographic location, strategic importance to neighboring countries, history, population...

@ruffybiazon By avoiding comparison, we refuse to learn what makes Sing, HK, etc. richer. Rule of law, dynamic capitalism, things we lack

@Noysky It's not a refusal to learn. But we should always pick the best, not swallow the rest. There's no fixed template.

@ruffybiazon Ok, cheers Ruffy. But I won't agree to more taxes to buy more jetfighters for Spratlys.

@ruffybiazon My pilot friend thinks air def over Sprat is almost useless, bit.ly/l5Iwmb. My last paper over Sprat, bit.ly/mhjdtC

@Noysky The PH Air Force /AFP/DND thinks its necessary to defend it. That's why they're planning to get jets. I agree w/ defense, not jets

@ruffybiazon I think AFP/DND just want more racket. They can't even eradicate NPAs, Abu bandits, rogue MIs, they want to take on China?

@Noysky I wouldn't resort to such cynicism abt AFP/DN.D Their mandate is to defend the country. We must give them the wherewithal to d

@ruffybiazon AFP/DND are instns with lots of corruption baggage, like Congress. NPAs since '69 despite tens of billions/year for AFP+PNP

@Noysky The entire government suffers from instances of corruption. But our fear of corruption shouldn't hinder govt from functioning.

@ruffybiazon Govt keeps expanding spending, doesnt mind huge public debt approaching almost P5T, int payment alone in 2011 P357 B already.

@ruffybiazon Endless corruption baggage, high int payment baggage, Govt shd slow down spending, live w/in its means, esp the military.
-------

See also:
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 13: More on the Spratlys/SCS Conflict

These days, there are lots of media and political noise in the country about the Spratlys and "China bullying" issue. Two of my friends in facebook posted the Inquirer report today, China to neighbors: Keep out of Spratlys; Stop search for oil, sans permission, says envoy in their wall. I made this quick comment in their respective walls:

China is now the world's biggest lender country, the US now the world's most indebted country. China reserves of US treasury notes (ie, public debt) alone is at least $1 trillion. Who wants war in this country, because of those far away islands and islets? HK and Singapore are laughing at the Philippines, possibly at other claimant countries aside from China. Singapore land area is almost 1/2 that of Basilan island, and Singapore GDP size is larger than the Philippines, and possibly 100x that of Basilan provincial GDP. And here is a poor country Pinas who cannot even develop Basilan, much less other islands and provinces in its own undisputed territory, singing some war dance (aka more taxes for the military), wanting to extend its "power" over far away, very small islands, in disputed territories. Who are the spin doctors behind this idiocy?

A friend made a quick reaction to my post above: "US wants to get in. China wants US out. PH wants US in."

I think that China will laugh at the US when it comes in. The US cannot even engage for long a small enemy with oil, Gadhafi of Libya. The US cannot even exit gracefully in Iraq now; it cannot even defeat the Talibans in the caves and mountains of Afghanistan after it entered that country in 2001. And it cannot even find a way to cut its $1 trillion a year budget deficit (Federal government deficit alone). And we expect that it will want to adventure for long in the South China Sea? What for, oil? They already invaded Iraq for oil. What else, for tuna and blue marlin?

There were three comments in a friend's wall that I like.

1. This administration I understand, is tinkering with the idea of buying second hand goods to beef up the military. Laughable. The way the AFP is performing, it is better to abolish them altogether. Better to act helpless than pretend we have strength which nobody will believe. Better to channel he scarce resources in improving public education. -- Luwi

2. Bright idea Luwi. Gunless AFP is better. You win the psy thing. China will go nuts. -- Butch

3. We should forge a military alliance with China. With most of Filipinos having Chinese lineage even with the most mestizo looking once, China can be our protector, and we can develop. -- Ceferino

(China Ambassador to the Philippines, Liu Jian Chao, and Philippine Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda, photo from the Inquirer) 

I tried these very rough conspiracy theories:

1. Is there any brewing scandal at the Office of the President or other big agencies in the Philippine government, and people's attention are diverted now to the Spratlys issue?

2. Are the few but powerful thieves in the government, so hungry with more tax money, they ramp up the Spratlys and China issue? Note that the 2012 budget will be submitted to Congress in late July or early August this year.

3. Is China so angry at the planned debt default of the US government, even temporarily, where China is the biggest lender government to the US? 

I am wondering if the spin doctors from all sides can give us ordinary mortals, some hints of what's going on.

As I noted above, the island-province of Basilan, clearly within the Philippine territory, zero dispute about it, we cannot even develop. It used to be the scene of kidnapping for ransom by the Abu Sayyaf, and fighting between bandits and some Muslim rebels with the AFP. Basilan land area is 2x that of Singapore. The AFP, the police, the national and local governments, cannot even ensure peace and order and attract more businesses and job creation in that island province. So why spend billions of pesos more for the Spratlys adventure? From Manila, those islands are even farther than Batanes in the north and Basilan in the south. By ramping up the Spratlys "war dance", it is clear that there are certain sectors and vested interests who intend to steal big time from us taxpayers.

Every year, the country's budget deficit is about P300 billion. Is this not enough? They want more military spending, more borrowings, and more taxes to pay those borrowings. Personally, I even plan the trips for my kids well as there are lots of taxes in gasoline and diesel products. Out of the P53/liter gasoline prices, at least P13 of it are government taxes alone (import tax + excise tax + VAT). What do they want now, more taxes in gasoline and other products to finance their planned robbery in the Spratlys spending? This is silly, if not crude robbery.

Some people insist that higher defense budget, "strong external defense is an obligation of the state, supported by a strong economy." At the current fiscal condition of the Philippine government, it is impossible to have a "strong economy" if 20% of the entire tax collections of the government every year is spent on interest payment alone, because of the huge public debt. From the remaining 80 percent of total tax collection, all sectors will fight it out for a shrank pie -- education, healthcare, housing, agriculture, environment, police, military, local governments, social work, public works, CCT, etc. That is why more borrowings have become the rule rather than the exception.

It is therefore impossible to increase defense or military spending without increasing public borrowings. Unless we privatize Camp Aguinaldo, the AFP and the Department of National Defense (DND) can use tens of billions of pesos of privatization proceeds for AFP modernization, and the the AFP, DND and their golf course will move somewhere else for their headquarters.

There is indeed a big challenge to "put the house in order." Government should learn to live within its means. Do not over-spend, do not over-borrow, do not over-tax, do not over-adventure militarily. Corruption, wastes and robbery in government can immediately be minimized by applying this simple philosophy. Just to have a zero budget deficit even for one year has become an "impossible dream" now. How come?
-------

A good friend, Sam A, aka "Abu Samy", made this reaction about the proposed "Spratlys adventure" by certain sectors in the Philippines. He used to be a plane pilot, so he knows a number of things about jet planes and fighter planes.

Ahhhh, national sovereignty and pride, what have you wrought? Challenging China? Seriously? With what? A couple of rickety PT-like boats, some tora-tora vintage planes, and a howitzer or two perhaps? Ok, ok, so that's why they're asking for more moolah to supplant our paleolithic fleet of combat material. Do they have a wishlist, i.e., offensive or defensive type of equipment, quantity, supply and maintenance, training, simulators, etc.?

To effectively defend the disparate and lilliputian Spratlys against a full-scale invasion (aircraft and destroyers) by the Chinese, we'd need at least two squadrons (~28 aircraft) of at the very least, Harrier V/STOL fighters to fend them off. The Harriers were roughly $40 million each WITHOUT ammo, armamaents (missiles & bombs), spare parts and fuel in the year 2000. That's roughly P2 billion each. You'd also need an air tanker or two of KC-135 Stratotankers ($40 million each w/o spare parts, etc.) to sustain the Harriers in flight.

And yes, the missiles (air-to-air and air-to-ground). We'd need a lot of Sidewinders (air-to-air) and Mavericks (air-to-ground) to fend them off. The Sidewinders are $100k a pop. The more sophisticated beyond visual range (BVR-AAM) air-to-air missiles cost $300K each. Maverick missiles are about $150K each.

Total bill? Roughly P350 billion for a 3-day war. And that mind you is IF the Chinese just send their MIG-21's to dogfight with the Harriers. If they send their new stealth fighter the J-20, well the AFP might want to purchase some F-22 Raptors ($339 Million each) and/or F-18 Hornets ($60 Million each) to mix it up well and win.

So much for wishful thinking...

I thanked Abu Samy for giving me permission to post his ideas here. We fondly call him "Abu Samy" because several years ago, while vacationing with his wife and 3 kids in a beautiful island-resort in Palawan, the Abu Sayyaf bandits struck and kidnapped more than 20 guests from that resort. Luckily, Sam and his entire family stayed in a far away cottage that the bandits did not bother to get as they prioritized the guests staying in cottages on the shore. In memory of their near brush with such traumatic kidnapping (the negotiations to end the kidnapping by the bandits lasted for many months), he and his friends adopted the "Aby Samy" monicker :-)

I told Abu Samy that perhaps the potential (or resident) big time thieves in the government are not that ambitious to "beat" the Chinese military as suggested by him. I have not heard or read from the "war dance" singers and lobbyists any amount closer to "P350 billion" for a 3-days, or even a 3 months war.

Me also thinks that the potential thieves would be contented with P10 B a year for 4 years as additional funding on top of regularly appropriated for "AFP modernization", as suggested or ordered by President Noynoy Aquino. Why? Because having a really "strong" air force and navy to match the Chinese firepower is not their goal. Their main goal is to get or steal X percent from P10 B per year.
---------

See Also:
China Watch 6: China-India Blog, Eco-Protectionism, August 30, 2009
China Watch 7: Rising Yuan, Economic Bubbles, April 07, 2010
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