Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Which Side to Take?

Which Side to Take?
By Erick San Juan

Once again the country is in the wait and see mode for the next episode of the impeachment trial of the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Corona. But this writer’s concern are the events that occurred prior to the scheduled impeachment day.

On the eve of the Feast of the Black Nazarene, a possible terror threat was announced by the President himself that according to Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, the reliability of the intelligence report was so high.

After tracking down the possible terrorists’ hideouts in the metropolis and found nothing, the heightened alert was withdrawn. The fiesta ended peacefully. Although the terror alert stays.

But the fear sowed upon the populace was still there and for many who are taken for a ride still believes the synthetic terror warning.

Then the weekend after that, another rumor was floated that there was a threat upon the president’s security. So, what else is new?

Uncle Sam’s Doublespeak

Last Friday the 13th we can’t help but notice the statement made by the US Ambassador, Harry Thomas (that appeared in the newspaper the following day) that the US is not taking sides on the issue of the South China Sea between the Philippines and China. Whatever happened to the good old big brother protecting his little brother and loyal ally in this part of the region?

The statement made was a sudden turnaround from what used to be the usual stand of Washington when it comes to protecting its allies most especially the Philippines. What is confusing here is the mere fact that Washington is giving its support by granting (even with some second hand and almost junk) military hardware to our AFP and yet they are not taking sides. Obviously, by helping Washington’s allies in the region militarily, is actually “taking the side” of its allies against an adversary.

Unfortunately, Uncle Sam is using rhetoric and doublespeak when former Republican Party presidential candidate John McCain said Washington should also turn to diplomacy to help Asean members sort out their own disputes and “establish a more unified front.”

McCain said the US should help members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations like the Philippines develop and deploy an early warning system and coastal vessels in the disputed waters.

He said, the US should let other countries know “which claims the US accepts, which ones we do not, and what actions we are prepared to support,” especially in defense of the Philippines, a treaty ally. (Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer by Jerry E. Esplanada)
So, which is which? Is Uncle Sam with the SCS claimants’ side or with Beijing?

Financial Armageddon stronger than a Nuclear Holocaust

At this point in time where bullying thy neighbor will not produce any positive results and China bashing only worsens the already tensed situation in the South China Sea, Washington should rethink its strategy. What if Beijing will retaliate in the most unusual way?

Uncle Sam should take the cue from Paul Craig Roberts’ analysis in his article - The Next War on Washington's Agenda, to wit :

Washington is getting all of us in over our heads. Washington has declared the “Asia-Pacific” and the South China Sea to be areas of “America’s national interest.” What sense does this make? It makes the same sense as if China declared the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea to be areas of China’s national interest.

Washington has deployed 2,500 Marines, promising more to come to Australia in order to do what? Protect Australia from China or occupy Australia? Encircle China with 2,500 Marines? It would not mean anything to China if Washington deployed 25,000 Marines in Australia.

When you get right down to it, Washington’s tough talk is nothing but a silly pointless provocation of Washington’s largest creditor. What if Washington’s 'hawks' idiocy causes China to worry that Washington and its UK and European puppets will seize its bank balances and refuse to honor China’s holdings of $1 trillion in US Treasury bonds? Will China pull its balances from the weak US, UK, and European banks? Will China decide to strike first, not with nuclear weapons, but by selling its $1 trillion in Treasury bonds all at once?

It would be cheaper than war.

The Federal Reserve would have to quickly print another $1 trillion dollars with which to buy the bonds, or US interest rates would shoot up. What would China do with the $1 trillion in newly printed paper? In my opinion, China would dump it all at once in the currency market, because the Federal Reserve cannot print euros, UK pounds, Japanese yen, Swiss francs, Russian rubles, and Chinese yuan with which to buy up its newly printed currency.

Which side to take?

A question for our leaders in this exciting times wherein any moment now, an event can trigger a regional conflict or a full blown global war. It may be nuclear or financial global disaster. Our leaders must always take the side of the nation’s interest and safety – no matter what. Let us pray harder that such unfortunate event will not happen.

No comments: