Today the Spratlys, tomorrow Palawan (updated)

Something interesting happened yesterday. Early in the afternoon, the Palace alerted media, saying it should cover the President’s speech in Mindanao, because she would announce the revocation of Executive Order 464. ANC dutifully started covering the speech.

Then it was interrupted by a live press conference at the Palace (see Jove Francisco’s account).

Speaking to reporters were Secretaries See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Say No Evil, otherwise known as Favila, Ermita, and Mendoza. Favila told a touching tale of a befuddled President who left her (potentially dying) husband so that she could honor a request from Fidel V. Ramos to address the Asian equivalent of the Davos gabfest; she got a call, though, from her husband’s doctors and so, rushed home (the Chinese officials couldn’t speak English, Favila said, most undiplomatically, and so he had to converse with them through sign language). Ermita then did his usual folksy uncle schtick about his (not the President’s, mind you) setting up a committee to review E.O. 464. And Mendoza launched into his usual monologue about how utterly above-board the NBN-ZTE deal was. At a certain point, Palace admits Arroyo said ‘anomalya’ in radio interview: but only after the three cabinet members had their bluff called by reporters.

End result? Even if the President had announced she was revoking E.O. 464, it would have been drowned out by the live Palace press conference; but anyway, she didn’t, and the best anyone’s been able to gather is… She changed her mind.

Why?

Who knows. But let me hazard a guess. I think a power play took place, between the time the media was alerted to expect a presidential announcement, and the unscheduled Palace press conference.

I say this, because by some accounts, it’s happened before. The President’s plans to impose martial law were foiled by a rebellion of sorts on the part of her Secretary of National Defense, Avelino Cruz, Jr., with the tacit approval of the generals, in November, 2005 (See Philippine Commentary for details). In February, 2006, the President, never short of clever lawyers, had decided that if she declared a State of Emergency, she could wield martial law powers without defying the United States. This is why, as many people subsequently noticed, the President’s declaration of a State of Emergency was virtually a word-for-word copy of Marcos’s Proclamation of Martial Law in 1972.

And here enters the cabinet rebellion. Soon after the President made her announcement, some of her cabinet then appeared on TV to state that the proclamation authorized the President to wield considerable extraordinary powers; this was followed by Cruz and others appearing on TV to say that no, the President’s proclamation did not confer on her additional powers; at that instant the attempt to wield extraordinary powers was nipped in the bud.

I’m convinced something similar happened yesterday, but unlike Avelino Cruz, Jr. heading off martial law and then an effort for the President to assert extraordinary powers, this time around, Favila, Ermita, and Mendoza engineered the scuttling of the revocation of E.O. 464.

This is part and parcel of their efforts to counteract the President’s efforts to wriggle her way out of the NBN-ZTE mess by claiming that she knew, all along, that the deal was defective (somehow) and that it took her a long time to scrap the deal because she didn’t want to offend China. Had the President pursued that excuse, it would have left members of her cabinet exposed as liars and accomplices to the wrongdoing the President disowned.

So the President’s story was disowned, regardless of the reversal beggaring disbelief. So the President’s effort to pander to the bishops was scuttled, regardless if by doing so, it weakens the ability of the President’s bishop-allies to help her in the future: these cabinet members aren’t about to take a dive any more than they already have, for a President obviously prepared to feed them to the wolves.

Just a hunch. Meanwhile, enjoy this: Palace story on P.5M given to Lozada now on 3rd version.

My column for today is Today the Spratlys, tomorrow Palawan. I have been following the unfolding diplomatic tack taken by this administration for some time now. For a backgrounder, see my Inquirer Current entry titled “The China Card.” It traces my articles on the subject and other relevant readings about the ongoing positioning among the Great Powers in our region as well as ASEAN, collectively, and its member countries.

At a time of American indifference with regards to Southeast Asia, and uncertainty over American attitudes towards the present government, courting China has become a major diplomatic priority of the Palace: on a commercial basis, this is no different from any other country eager to partake of China’s booming economy. But in terms of security and natural resources, American ambivalence about ASEAN has fostered a sense of regional solidarity among member nations, in the hope that acting as a bloc, it can extract better concessions from China as well as resist Chinese pressure better.

Because of her unique political problems, the President has had no qualms about projecting China as a potential -and at times, actual- replacement for the United States as an ally and source of assistance. But the diplomatic gambit has had domestic repercussions, too: NBN-ZTE.

Lately, however, besides domestic problems, the President’s relying on the China Card has upset ASEAN, too. This was revealed in a Far Eastern Economic Review article, Manila’s Bungle in The South China Sea. In our own media, Ricky Carandang tackled the issue in The Correspondents, in a segment you can watch on YouTube. And the papers have picked it up, for example, Malaya’s Treason in dirty Chinese loans? Under Beijing gun, Gloria commits RP to Spratly deal.

In light of the above, something John Mangun wrote on April 25, 2005 in The Philippines and China: A Bad Match now makes perfect sense:

Malacañang refuses to accept and deal with the fact that China invaded, occupied, and stole Philippine territory in the South China Sea. The Spratleys may be worthless outcroppings or the gateway to boundless treasure. It does not matter. Those atolls and islands are Filipino property as much as the ground on which the President walks each day. China’s conduct and treatment of the Philippines shows their inconsistency and lack of honesty in their conduct of foreign relations.

To view China and Japan similarly in our economic relations is a disaster for the nation. Madame President, listen well: China is a business COMPETITOR; Japan is a buying CUSTOMER. Fifteen years ago, ninety percent of all Christmas ornaments and decorations sold in the United States were imported from the Philippines. Now that ninety percent comes from China. The same trend occurred with Philippine garments and shoes.

According to the FEER report, there are two agreements of significance. The first is “Agreement for Seismic Undertaking for Certain Areas in the South China Sea By and Between China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company” signed on Sept. 1, 2004, and later superseded by a “Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea,” signed on March 14, 2005. The agreements were kept hush-hush by the three governments, understandably so in the case of Socialist Vietnam and The People’s Republic of China, but not so in the case of the ostensibly democratic Philippines.

As the FEER report says,

…the details having leaked into research circles, the reasons for wanting to keep it under wraps are apparent: “Some would say it was a sell-out on the part of the Philippines,” says Mark Valencia, an independent expert on the South China Sea. The designated zone, a vast swathe of ocean off Palawan in the southern Philippines, thrusts into the Spratlys and abuts Malampaya, a Philippine producing gas field. About one-sixth of the entire area, closest to the Philippine coastline, is outside the claims by China and Vietnam. Says Mr. Valencia: “Presumably for higher political purposes, the Philippines agreed to these joint surveys that include parts of its legal continental shelf that China and Vietnam don’t even claim.”

Worse, by agreeing to joint surveying, Manila implicitly considers the Chinese and Vietnamese claims to have a legitimate basis, he says. In the case of Beijing, this has serious implications, since the broken, U-shaped line on Chinese maps, claiming almost the entire South China Sea on “historic” grounds, is nonsensical in international law. (Theoretically, Beijing might stake an alternative claim based on an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from nearby islets that it claims, but they would be restricted by similar claims by rivals.) Manila’s support for the Chinese “historic claim,” however indirect, weakens the positions of fellow Asean members Malaysia and Brunei, whose claimed areas are partly within the Chinese U-shaped line. It is a stunning about-face by Manila, which kicked up an international fuss in 1995 when the Chinese moved onto the submerged Mischief Reef on the same underlying “historic claim” to the area.

The “higher political purpose” euphemistically mentioned suggests purely partisan interests: that of the administration, which has, up to now, never disclosed these agreements. The Palace can always counter that “nobody asked,” and I’m sure this will be a Palace defense in the coming days. It may even claim that the agreement is a state secret, and covered by Executive Privilege.

This must be challenged. Not wanting to tip our government’s hand in negotiating international agreements may be understandable, but once signed, agreements should be subject to official disclosure. Reading old volumes of the Official Gazette, a regular portion was the publication, by direction of the President of the Philippines, of international agreements signed by the Republic. An agreement with economic consequences, and which involves defying an existing ASEAN consensus, certainly requires full disclosure. While MeiZhongTai pointed out in 2005 that an agreement had been signed and that exploration for oil had commenced (briefly noted by Ben Muse also), but never trumpeted, for obvious reasons, by our government although it liked trumpeting virtually every other China-related deal at the time.

The reason of course is that the deal would have negative political repercussions at home, and the government was not about to broadcast to its own people that the Philippines went against an ASEAN consensus.

I can think of many ways the administration will get stuck in another mess of its own making on this one.

Why?

Read Ricky Carandang’s entry, Treason:

Aside from angering our neighbors and potentially undermining regional stability, Arroyo’s action may also be illegal. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez–who was then acting justice secretary — told former Senator Frank Drilon, who was then allied with the administration, that she believed that the deal violated the constitution, because while it was a deal between the state owned oil firms (PNOC of the Philippines and CNOOC of China) of the two countries, it implicitly gave China access to our oil reserves. Officers of the Foreign Affairs Department were also upset because the deal effectively strengthened China and Vietnam’s claim to the Spratlys.

What would compel Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to sign a deal that potentially undermines regional stability, possibly grants China parity rights to oil reserves in the Spratlys that we claim to be ours, and likely violates our constitution?

How about $2 billion a year? After the Spratly deal was signed, the Chinese government committed $2 billion in official development assistance a year to the Philippines until 2010, when Arroyo is supposed to step down from office. My sources tell me that the Spratly deal was an explicit precondition to the loans.

A sizable amount to be sure, but for the Arroyo administration the China loans are particularly appealing. Not so much because the interest rates are so low and the repayment terms so lenient, but because Chinese loans do not have the cumbersome requirements that loans from the US, Japan, the EU, and big multilateral lenders have. Requirements for documentation, bidding, transparency and other details that make it very difficult for corrupt public officials to commit graft. In fact, in November of last year, those cumbersome requirements made it impossible for some government officials and private individuals with sticky fingers to avail themselves of the World Bank’s generosity.

It had gotten to the point where a corrupt government could no longer make a dishonest buck. That is until China’s generous offer came along.

My column, of course begins and ends with a jab at the bishops. An account of how the bishops voted: Mindanao bishops ‘saved’ Arroyo. Noteworthy tidbit, concerning another portion of my column, on E.O. 464, is this:

In seeking the abolition of EO 464, Cagayan de Oro Bishop Antonio Ledesma said the bishops also wanted the Palace to waive executive privilege “in the spirit of truth and accountability.”

Although it was not expressly stated, Ledesma said a waiver on executive privilege “is the essence of the recommendation.”

Iniguez, one of Arroyo’s more vocal critics in the CBCP, echoed Ledesma’s position. Thus, the CBCP reached a consensus on asking President Arroyo to revoke EO 464 in order not to stifle congressional investigations on anomalies in government.

But Oliveros said the CBCP stopped short of categorically asking the President to give up executive privilege since this is a right vested to the Office of the President.

“We are not trying to protect the President but the Office she represents,” he said.

***

Update 10:47 PM:

Newsbreak emailed me to point out they’d published a report in 2006, unfortunately, it’s only available online at the Geological Society of the Philippines Yahoo Group.

What is available at Newsbreak’s site is the full text of the Agreement Between the PNOC and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

I’ve been apprised that June 2009 is some sort of deadline for the passage of a law on identifying our territorial baseline, and so agreements like this take on a greater significance. If anyone has information on why this deadline exists, and on what basis, I’d appreciate it

***

On China, additional relevant readings are Parag Khanna’s provocative Waving Goodbye to Hegemony:

Without firing a shot, China is doing on its southern and western peripheries what Europe is achieving to its east and south. Aided by a 35 million-strong ethnic Chinese diaspora well placed around East Asia’s rising economies, a Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere has emerged. Like Europeans, Asians are insulating themselves from America’s economic uncertainties. Under Japanese sponsorship, they plan to launch their own regional monetary fund, while China has slashed tariffs and increased loans to its Southeast Asian neighbors. Trade within the India-Japan-Australia triangle – of which China sits at the center – has surpassed trade across the Pacific.

At the same time, a set of Asian security and diplomatic institutions is being built from the inside out, resulting in America’s grip on the Pacific Rim being loosened one finger at a time. From Thailand to Indonesia to Korea, no country – friend of America’s or not – wants political tension to upset economic growth. To the Western eye, it is a bizarre phenomenon: small Asian nation-states should be balancing against the rising China, but increasingly they rally toward it out of Asian cultural pride and an understanding of the historical-cultural reality of Chinese dominance. And in the former Soviet Central Asian countries – the so-called Stans – China is the new heavyweight player, its manifest destiny pushing its Han pioneers westward while pulling defunct microstates like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as oil-rich Kazakhstan, into its orbit. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization gathers these Central Asian strongmen together with China and Russia and may eventually become the “NATO of the East.”

(I don’t know if the “rallying to China out of Asian cultural pride” is exactly accurate; at least for ASEAN, since the 1990s there have been efforts at strengthening the regional bloc at the very least, to try to prevent individual member countries being intimidated by China; but American indifference has left the region no alternative but to cozy up to China):

This applies most profoundly in China’s own backyard, Southeast Asia. Some of the most dynamic countries in the region Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are playing the superpower suitor game with admirable savvy. Chinese migrants have long pulled the strings in the region’s economies even while governments sealed defense agreements with the U.S. Today, Malaysia and Thailand still perform joint military exercises with America but also buy weapons from, and have defense treaties with, China, including the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation by which Asian nations have pledged nonaggression against one another. (Indonesia, a crucial American ally during the cold war, has also been forming defense ties with China.) As one senior Malaysian diplomat put it to me, without a hint of jest, “Creating a community is easy among the yellow and the brown but not the white.” Tellingly, it is Vietnam, because of its violent histories with the U.S. and China, which is most eager to accept American defense contracts (and a new Intel microchip plant) to maintain its strategic balance. Vietnam, like most of the second world, doesn’t want to fall into any one superpower’s sphere of influence.

Also, see the entry of Steve Clemmons on Khanna’s article in his blog, The Washington Note: for an American’s view on the Khanna article.

And see Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism by Jerry Z. Muller in Foreign Affairs.

Also, while reproduced in one of my responses below, let me add, here, the relevant provision of our Constitution:

Article XII

National Economy and Patrimony

Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

And on a final note, more charges, filed against a President who knew her father when he was President: Salonga files plunder case against GMA.

In the blogosphere, an entry related to my previous one, on the Mandate of Heaven: Taoist lessons from Akomismo II. And sad but very, very true reading in Brown SEO.

Avatar
Manuel L. Quezon III.

247 thoughts on “Today the Spratlys, tomorrow Palawan (updated)

  1. Exactly, the conyos in the executive is selling us out. Treasonous to the core, and they don’t even know it. They think they’re just being apathetic, it’s worse than that. Impunity has become a habit and they now believe it is their royal privilege to do what they want of our patrimony.

  2. What’s happening to this country! My God whats’ really happening to this country!

    “2. Urge the President and all the branches of government to take the lead in combating corruption wherever it is found;”

    Its just like saying:

    “Go ahead Satan clean up the evil around you!”

    Perhaps people who went out of the country were right after all in their decision to go out… AND STAY OUT!

  3. Perhaps people who went out of the country were right after all in their decision to go out… AND STAY OUT!

    wrong floyd, staying out does not solve the problem. booting out the source of the problem is.

  4. Manolo,

    I am at a loss of expletives I wish to say. I had already held Gloria’s nationalism suspect when she made our June 12 Independence Day fall under the “Holiday Economics” rule. If she is indeed selling out our territories for a mess of pottage, then my suspicion is confirmed. It’s all money for her, nothing of the values of a true Filipino.

  5. The President in Revoking EO 464 will be Feeding a lot of her minions to Exposures and most of them held the Secrets as Bargaining chips. So I doubt it very much, but there is still the Executive Privilege that can be invoked by any Executive Officials and just as effective as the EO.

    The very reason why she can’t led the fight against Corruption as the Bishops want her to do, is her hands tied by the men and women around her who will be the very first people she has to deal with. AS somebody would like to say it, it’s no Brainer..

  6. mlq3,

    re: John Mangun’s piece on China

    i could be mistaken, as i have not been reading his column in Business Mirror regularly , but his last write-ups, he is now singing a different tune on China. too bad his blog isnt updated.

    early this month, he had a write-up about the Philippines having the great opportunity of feeding China’s hunger for minerals

  7. In that presscon, Favila: “kung sino man and nagsisinungaling, mamatay na ngayon.” How un-becoming of a minister. What kind of cabinet does she have?

    Being the shrewd bee that she is, don’t you think they were just playing good guy, bad guy? Sure, lifting EO464 would expose the cabinet men, but the trail will lead eventually lead to her bedroom. I don’t hink all the president’s men are as malleable as Neri.

    If she outplayed the China card, then nobody could save her if the U.S. and Japan decide to oust her, with the help of FVR and the generals. FVR is known to have ties with some U.S. group wanting to maintain the old international economic order. He is the only one who went after Lucio Tan. Some conspiracy theory, no? Masyadong malalim ang laro.

  8. mlq3,

    Hope your title in this thread is not a typo error. Aren’t you thinking of “Philippines” instead of “Palawan”?

  9. How much did the Russians sell Alaska to the USA for? Our Spratly Islands might turn out to be the same and we’ll have another laughing matter; something other nations will use to laugh at us.

  10. how an agreement for exploration of territorial waters to find oil amount to giving up sovereignty beats me. there’s a whole lot of things to know before anyone should make such an outlandish exaggeration. what if it’s an american oil corporation that’s the other party to the agreement. would anyone raise a stink?

    not able to do it by itself, the philippines has been looking for foreign investment to develop local oil resources since time immemorial. this is how the malampaya deposits were discovered.

    the general principle is that any contract that violates the law, the constitution or public policy is void. not even a vast conspiracy of every single official of the executive branch, i think, would have the power to “give up” philippine sovereignty. i think macasaet and carandang are just being alarmist and partisan.

  11. Perhaps people who went out of the country were right after all in their decision to go out… AND STAY OUT!

    ***sigh***

    kung pwede nga lang bang sabihin din sa kanilang ‘DON’T COME BACK’! pero inherent in the right to travel is the right to return

    kung sabagay, nafi-filter din kung sino talaga ang may malasakit sa bayan. at least OFWs are expected to return.

    yung mga naiwan dito ay working, to borrow i.n.e.’s words of wisdom, to boot out the source of the problem.

    para naman kasing pwedeng i-boot out from a remote place. ano yan, ‘offshore booting out’?

  12. THE EQ POLLS:What People Are Telling Us!

    1)80% of EQ readers who have participated in the poll think that Jun Lozada is a “very credible witness”(base: 146)

    2)63% of EQ readers who participated in the poll think that Gloria Arroyo’s legacy is a
    “disaster”(base:201)

    3)74% of EQ readers who have participated so far that there is a “simmering outrage”( poll base:105).

    4)60% of EQ readers who have participated so far think we may have reached the “tipping point” in this political crisis(poll base:80).

    5)69% of EQ readers who have participated so far in the poll think that the role of Ex-Comelec Chairman Abalos was that of a “big-time broker” in the ZTE deal(base: 136)

    6)72% of EQ readers who have participated in the poll think that Gloria Arroyo should resign in the face of the ZTE mega scandal(base:136)

    7)93% of EQ readers who have participated in the poll are against CHA-CHA (base:92)

    8)EQ Readers are divided on whether Noli De Castro should succeed GMA if and when she resigns:

    YES:27%
    NO:26%
    “It’s like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea”:37%

    base:(104)

    9)75% of EQ readers think that Gloria should go exile together with Mike Arroyo (base:97).

    10)81% of EQ readers who participated in the poll think that Gloria will not peacefully leave Malacanang in 2010 (base:117)

    11)”Pagkaraan ng pitong taon ramdam nila ang pag asenso!” Sabi ng mga TV ads ng GMA administration ay ramdam na ramdam daw ang pag-asenso ng ating mga kababayan. Agree or disagree? Kayo – ramdam ba ninyo ang pag-asenso?

    OO naman! :6%
    Ano ‘yun?:13%
    Pwede ‘yan sa joke of the day!:77%

    Base:(139)

  13. yeah. i saw that episode on abs-cbn’s correspondence on the spratly’s with the arroyo government signing a joint agreement with china and other se asian countries.
    agreement that allows china to explore spratly’s for oil. then out of the blue china’s economic relationship with the philippines started to flourish in terms of loans and other economic agreements.
    gma is selling us out to china and it took a “probinsyanong intsik” to blow the whistle on gma’s shenanigans! what an irony!

  14. hawaiian, no, just palawan, that’s the area immediately affected at least based on reports.

    bencard, the main issues are rp deciding to break the asean consensus it helped build; proceeding with an agreement that strengthens the china claim and weakens the rp claim; trying to keep the agreement secret or at the very least, not releasing it as should be the case; so what could be an innocuous and far-sighted agreement now bears the burden of proof as far as government having to justify it at this late date.

    it’s fair to assume that the administration did not want the agreement revealed and that it took no steps to reveal it, unlike practically every other agreement that the government has trumpeted to the public. you have to ask why.

    also, for reference:

    Article XII
    National Economy and Patrimony

    Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

    Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

    The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

    The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

    The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

    as i said in my entry, it makes sense for the president to keep our country’s cards close to her chest during the negotiations for any agreement. having concluded one, however, it is democratic practice to publish these agreements as it’s part of the accountability processso the public knows what the president’s real foreign policy is.

  15. Bencard, have you been to the Spratly Islands? Have you seen the structures built in there? Also, are you familiar with the China-Japan problem regarding deep sea oil exploration? If you do, then you shouldn’t just wave or dismiss this “problem” away.

  16. I agree with Bencard. The Chinese do not want territory; they are only after the money. They are all businessmen. I’m sure their ambitions are limited to increasing the wealth of their people. Who wants the Spratlys anyway? So what if it’s right in the middle of the ASEAN? Amd a good vantage point for delivering nucear warheads via submarine to US bases in the middle East. Besides, the Chinese have proven to be trustworthy in the past with regards to the Spratlys.

  17. It’s also stupid to mention once again, Bencard, that the Chinese want ALL of the islands in that area. We are only claiming a few and those are the ones within 50km of Palawan. So, sleep well.

  18. MLQ3: “as i said in my entry, it makes sense for the president to keep our country’s cards close to her chest during the negotiations for any agreement.”

    Manolo, are you putting your trust on our president’s abilities as a schemer and negotiator. I wouldn’t even touch the problem with a hundred-foot pole. Status quo at the Spratlys is the best option. If the Chinese are willing to give up our claim and sign up for it, even better. What Gloria is doing is open things up for the Chinese and maybe weaken our claim in the future. This is international stuff, people. If the US can invade Iraq, and they have a Congress, imagine what the Chinese can do. We are safe teaming up with other ASEAN nation, all of very modest ambitions, and with no history of warfare against one another. You’re right about that one.

  19. what foreign power wants us? for all the weatlth we have, underground and under the seas, we’re so messed up, no one would want the responsibility of RULING over us.

    divvy up the islands, baka tanggihan pa at may mga tao. they’re only interested in the uninhabited islands?!

    excuse me today. for some strange reason, i woke up finding only humor in the country’s situation…it’s so absurd with the drama and all the intrigues, it’s turning to a comedy.

  20. brian, i’m saying that a president conducts foreign policy, and that in the negotiations of foreign agreements, at times a certain amount of secrecy is justified. the check and balance on that, is that we ought to assume that upon their being signed, even if they do not require senate ratification (the ultimate check and balance on treaties, e.g. jpepa), they should be published and not witheld from the public.

    this is at the heart of the problem -the lack of disclosure. it makes no sense, precisely because every other deal has been given wide publicity. this only strengthens the suspicion that the president knew the agreement would raise a ruckus and there are times when a ruckus is justified.

    we expect presidents to outline their foreign policy when they campaign for office and every year in the state of the nation address, because the conduct of foreign policy is the president’s prerogative but its aims and the means used must receive public support -in a democracy, at least.

  21. Besides that, Manolo. Should she make negotiations at all? That’s my point. I will not even touch the subject one bit. Just protect our territory, don’t deal with China on Spratly, whatever the offer is.

  22. Bencard,

    they will use anything, as in anything, to induce/incite people power, like what is being done in the present Senate hearings on the NBN-ZTE deal

    any prosecution of the culprits can be initiated now, as enough evidence is available. yet how come the prosecution has yet to begin? (even without 1 second of Senate hearings, a prosecution of the culprits will prosper)

    the reason – walang media mileage, walang chance for people power outside the Senate hearings

    to those objecting to letting China explore for oil – as if naman our country can finance exploration. PNOC/Petron’s funds are tied to explorations of oil/other energy sources here.

  23. Mita “what foreign power wants us? for all the weatlth we have, underground and under the seas, we’re so messed up, no one would want the responsibility of RULING over us.”

    Yes, I’ve heard of a similar spin. RP does not need a standing army to guard against foreign invasion. We are so messed up internally, foreigners will just wait for us to implode.

  24. anthony, aren’t you keeping track of the blizzard of charges? and the lack of swiftness on the part of the doj and the ombudsman?

    and the distinctions between what is at stake in criminal trials and how there is a separate sphere for political crimes? and the need for oversight?

  25. mlq3, how does the “spratly deal” strengthen china’s claim and weaken philippines’ claim to spratleys? isn’t entering into such a contract necessarily implies china’s recognition of philippines’ claim of title?

    btw, as i stated, the constitutional provisions you cited preclude cessions of sovereignty as raised by carandang and macasaet. there’s no need to unduly alarm people who are not in a position to understand the principles and issues involved.

  26. Bencard, principles! Legality has no bearing here. China do not even educate diplomats. Geez! Remember when Ramos and his generals played chicken with the Chinese about these islands. Nakaktakot. That was the time when Saving Private Ryan was showing in the movies. Imagine my fear of being recruited in case the situation suddenly deteriorated.

    We should know by now that our government is weak and officials are corruptible. I’d rather not deal with the Chinese ever re Spratlys.

  27. inodoro ni emilie & anthony scalia: There is nothing wrong in going out and staying out that is what the former revolutionaries did and even Rizal did it himself when he was fighting against the spaniards. (He went back and what happened? He was killed right?)

    Just a hint – Watch the movie “City of God” by directed by Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund. You’ll get my drift.

    By the way you cannot help a person if it doesn’t want to help itself same goes with a country whose form of religion, beliefs and government is backward.

    Lets be realistic here we can’t afford to have a revolution and a genuine one because we don’t want to loose the grace of the rich people around us. Even Cory is still haunted by Hacienda Luisita and now she’s calling for another revolution after her family killed a number of farmers?

    Education is the solution but how can you educate when the system that you want to help is even the one who’s killing you?

    Filipinos don’t want a revolution, all it wants is the gratitude of the rich. So there.

  28. During Ramos’s time, Chinese structures built on the part of the Spratleys we claim were destroyed by the Philippine navy. Literally blown up. Ramos wouldnt stand for it. This was reported to me by someone from Almonte’s NSC right after the navy did it.

  29. almost swallowed my tonsils laughing at j madrigal. The supposedely smoking gun(the only paper trail) against FG went kaput!

    this exemplifies the desperate attempt of the anti-GMA and opposition to splurge on every opportunity that they can take hold of using everything under the sun except reason.

  30. I tried replying at Inquirer Current but I don’t see it getting in the comments section. This is a repost:

    This president is very dangerous Manolo, if she really thinks this way. Imagine a minor player like us in world politics dealing “cards” like a pro. As a small country, we defend ourselves by having sincere needs and wants. This is our protection against ambitious countries. If you are correct and GMA is trying to act like one of the big boys then we are in trouble.

    Let us simply protect what we have, including our portion of the Spratlys. Wealth and progress will come from our own abilities to cope with the changing times. Who cares about AID. Only the corrupt benefit from AID. If they give, they give; if they don’t, forget it.

    This is not to stay, presidents shouldn’t engage in geopolitics. She should be limited with prudence, however. Territory is important, and since the beginning our main concern and claim on the Spratlys has always been its propinquity to Palawan.

  31. Bencard,

    Pwede yun contract between our gov’t and a private oil company kasi ang message nun ay the land is ours and we can contract it out to any private company. The private company recognizes our claim.

    That is different from signing a treaty with another country over mutual exploration of a piece of land that they claim belongs to them and we claim belongs to us. A deal like that implies mutual recognition of claims.

    So the China claim is strengthened because we recognized it instead of rejecting it. And our claim is weakened for the same reason – we recognized someone else’s claim to our territory.

    Sovereignty and ownership of the territory is in dispute so, if we recognize a competing claim, our claim is weakened and the other sode’s claim is strengthened.

    Here is a simple illustration:

    Two children fighting over a toy

    One Kid: Akin yan

    Second kid: Akin yan

    Both kids: o sige share natin

    So who is the sole owner of the toy now?

    If you were a judge and you were asked to decide who owned the toy after the two kids decided to share the toy, how will you decide ownership?

  32. mlq3, i read your pdi article, macasaet’s malaya article link & carandang’s “treason”, but none of them addresses my observation that by entering into a contract with the philippines, china necessarily confirms our claim of ownership of those specified portions. if so, it is a victory for the philippines. our government’s sole duty is to protect our nation’s interest. the other claimants (vietnam. taiwan and malaysia) can take care of theirs.

    this is a common practice in multi-party litigations. each co-plaintiff or co-defendant may settle his/her part of claim or defense with an opposing party. i don’t think there’s anything illegal or unfair with that arrangement.

  33. are the other asean members objecting to that agreement? vietnam joined in. china has approached malaysia and brunei for similar agreements, according to the cited article. it’s just an oil exploration agreement. Today the Spratlys, tomorrow Palawan seems to be a stretch.

  34. mindanaoan, Manolo’s point is that she made the deal in secret. My point is that even if she didn’t the Philippines shouldn’t have.

  35. buencamino, first, who says it is a treaty? don’t you know there is a complex process in negotiating and consummating a treaty, not the least of which is approval by the legislature? second, in a contract, each party recognizes the other’s capacity, i.e., ownership of the subject matter. are you saying that while we have to recognize china’s claim, they don’t have to recognize ours? try not to lecture me on legal principles, will you?

  36. mlq3,

    “anthony, aren’t you keeping track of the blizzard of charges? and the lack of swiftness on the part of the doj and the ombudsman?”

    i am. i think the only complaint (as a result of the Lozada episode) filed in the ombudsman thus far was by Sen. Salonga. i don’t know of any complaint filed with the fiscal’s office.

    who could be the initiators of these ‘blizzards of charges’? have they been filed with the ombudsman and the fiscal’s office?

    i don’t know if there is such a crime as an attempted bribe. Neri still recommended approval of the project independent of the 200-M offer.

    is the mere offer, even if unaccepted, a crime already?

    the ombudsman on its own can investigate. but it can also act on any person’s complaint

    the ombudsman can investigate even the President. gloria is immune from suits, not from investigation.

    “and the distinctions between what is at stake in criminal trials and how there is a separate sphere for political crimes? and the need for oversight?”

    that confirms the open secret that the only reason for the Senate circus is to induce people power

    oversight? two observations: (1) those honorable senators already have more than enough material needed to enact new or amendatory legislation. (2) the project was cancelled, so no public funds were disbursed

  37. anthony, to help you keep track of the ‘blizzard of charges’, I found this site. You can check for yourself if the DOJ and Ombudsman are acting on the charges in a reasonably timely manner.

  38. the title sounds like our sovereignty is at stake. i will not go as far as bencard’s outlandish exaggeration but you have to believe conspiracy theories to connect that agreement with our sovereignty.

  39. Bencard,

    buencamino, first, who says it is a treaty? don’t you know there is a complex process in negotiating and consummating a treaty, not the least of which is approval by the legislature? second, in a contract, each party recognizes the other’s capacity, i.e., ownership of the subject matter. are you saying that while we have to recognize china’s claim, they don’t have to recognize ours? try not to lecture me on legal principles, will you?

    FIRST, if it is executive agreement, an moa or mou, it is worse. That means your president singlehandedly committed the Philippines to recognizing China’s claim to the Spratleys without the consent of Congress. Can you see the constitutional problem you just created for your president?

    Maybe we should check to see if she made a similar deal with Malaysis over Sabah. If you will recall the farthest Fidel Ramos ever went on the Sabah issue was to announce he was going to put it on the backburner. You know there is a world of difference between FVR’s and your president’s position.

    SECOND, our claim is we are the SOLE OWNERS AND SOVEREIGNS of that disputed territory. That’s why we cannot enter into a contract with a party that has a rival claim. We cannot enter into a mutual recognition arrangement without sacrificing our claim to SOLE OWNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGNTY!

    Which part of SOLE OWNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGNTY do you not understand?

  40. An economist argues for keeping corrupt leaders, specifically, centralized corruption.

    wwwdotamericandotcom /archive/2008/january-february-magazine-contents/graft-paper

    Makes one think a monarchist government is best for the Philippines.

  41. buencamino, it’s my business to understand the concepts of “sole ownership” and “sovereignty”. what about you? being able to write those words doesn’t necessarily connote technical understanding of those terms. i don’t think debating the matter would benefit either one of us. sorry, buddy.

  42. Here’s a possible play:

    Feb 27: Queen takes bishops.
    Feb 29: Pawns rebel.
    Mar 1: Knights join Pawns.
    Mar 2: Queen sacrifices King.
    Mar 3: Queen checkmates Tower(State).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.