Harbingers of the Next World War

Harbingers of the Next World War
By Erick San Juan

The financial crash is on. Like what I have been telling everyone through my writings and radio commentary that if the 'program' is on, it can be delayed but it will push through whether we like it or not.

According to EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) News Service dated December 14 —The entire trans-Atlantic London-Wall Street financial system is on the very edge of total collapse. It could happen any hour, any day. The critical signs are already there, for anyone who is not wilfully blind. Four Italian banks have gone under in the past week, with the European Union imposing bail-in looting of depositor’s funds. Puerto Rico has already announced it will likely default on a $1 billion debt payment by Jan. 1, the front end of a $72 billion debt bubble; and 'vulture' funds are fully exposed. Already, a number of hedge funds, exposed to the Puerto Rican debt and to the shale oil and gas sector bankruptcies, have collapsed. These are merely harbingers of a total breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system that is imminent.

"The crisis is compounded by the imminent danger of world war, triggered by London and Wall Street desperation over their possible bankruptcy. NATO and the Obama Administration have done everything possible to provoke Russia, from the eastward expansion of NATO to the deployment of a unilateral ballistic missile defense system on the borders of Russia, to the modernization of tactical nuclear weapons to soon be deployed throughout Eastern Europe. Russian Armed Forces Chief of the General Staff Gen. Valeriy Gerasimov briefed foreign military attachés in Moscow this week on the added threat of NATO’s plans for asymmetric warfare aimed at regime change in Moscow. Under President Vladimir Putin’s clear leadership, Russia will not capitulate to the threats from the likes of President Obama and UK's Prime Minister Cameron. The danger of a thermonuclear war of extinction is greater today than at the height of the Cold War at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is driven, purely, by the bankruptcy of Wall Street and London.”

The destabilization ops from Europe to Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region are signs that the globalists wanted to start a war with Russia and China. The encirclement of the two countries through regional conflicts with the help of some allies have gradually gained momentum since the talks of an impending economic collapse.

In the midst of all these, our country plays a major role as we are situated strategically in this part of the region but unfortunately, a battleground to the next war if we will allow our territory to be used by war mongers.

If there are some flashpoints in the Middle East, some parts of Europe and Africa, we also have several flashpoints here in Asia. If we are going to talk about areas of concern for China and its neighbor, we have them here. Actually China is ‘fighting’ so many fronts, so to speak, due to territorial claims, and any miscalculation might lead to disaster.

“China makes its deliberate ambiguity more dangerous in its apparent commitment to defend undefined claims by force. Beijing’s 2015 defense white paper states that one objective of its military is to “safeguard” the country’s “maritime rights and interests” in a situation where “some of its offshore neighbors take provocative actions and reinforce their military presence on China’s reefs and islands that they have illegally occupied.” Hawkish military leaders give more reason for concern. Retired Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan has stated, for example, that if China is biding its time, its military should at least be ready to defend Chinese interests in the event of war.

Since China’s maritime claims are not clarified, it is impossible for others to determine where and when China is willing to use force, thus increasing the chance of conflict. The majority of small and middle powers in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore, react to an uncertain security environment by hedging. They seek to accommodate China’s growing influence primarily by establishing closer economic ties with Beijing while at the same time strengthening defense cooperation with Washington. Their priority is not to be seen as choosing sides in the ongoing China-U.S. strategic competition.

China’s policy of ambiguity leads to one conclusion, Beijing wants to expand its military presence in the South China Sea as a direct challenge to the U.S. alliance system because to do so would allow China to interfere with the free movement of military vessels and aircraft. Translation-  "look for an enemy to unite their nationals and delay the economic and political in-fighting from within."

American leaders cannot afford to sit back and do nothing. Washington needs to show that international waters cannot be turned into special zones with restrictions on other nations.

China’s behavior suggests that it see the American presence as a threat. If Beijing wishes to lower tensions, it should, as a starting point to negotiations, reassure Washington that it accepts the United States as part of Asia’s future. This requires avoiding changing the status quo in ways that ratchet up tensions.

"Sending warships to oppose American display of the freedom of navigation without explaining which legal principles Washington has violated is not a good start.” (China’s Dangerous Ambiguity in the South China Sea by Liselotte Odgaard, 12/10/15)

Yes, this ambiguity complicate matters and add to the possibilities of a regional conflict if not handled carefully by stakeholders to the disputed territories.

From economics to national security of nations involved and the next geopolitical move, are we all heading towards the next world war? As in war during Christmas and holiday season? God forbid!

 

Terrorism in Disguise by Erick San Juan

Terrorism in Disguise by Erick San Juan


Since 9/11 (September 11, 2001) the global war on terror (GWOT) has dragged all nations to a new kind of war. A special coalition was formed through the initiative of the former US President George Bush, Jr. The coalition of the willing to get rid of the terror network of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida terror group.

From the so-called death of bin Laden to the different terror group springing from the original Al-Qaeda terror network, leaders of different countries have invested in various forms of protection especially in their airports and sea ports in order to secure their territories from terrorists.

In the span of fourteen years, several terror attacks or other similar attacks being associated to terrorists were the new normal. Almost every year ‘a terror attack’ happens and the culprit/s were associated with the Al-Qaeda terror network or a new group of terrorists.

The strategy of fear among the populace was successfully maintained and the threat of another terror attack created a new kind of tension that justified the government’s move to create laws that limited every citizen’s freedom. All in the name of national security.

But the nagging question remains, are these terrorists for real? Who benefits from every act of terror against civilians? Who are the sponsors behind these terrorists?

Unfortunately as long as state-sponsored terrorists can freely roam and do their terror acts, and through corporate-backed media group that helps in fanning the faked stories of terrorism, fear and tension will remain as part of our daily lives.

The mere fact that terrorism is here to stay in whatever form, leaders and would-be leaders of countries seeking peace will have to think twice of providing security to its citizenry.

That is why the article of David Stokes - It’s National Security, Stupid (12/11/2015) cited the importance of having in mind the national security of one’s nation especially those who are running for national office.

Come 2016, the US will have its national elections (like in the Philippines) and Stokes wrote his observation and analysis – “One thing is clear as we watch candidates from both major political parties scramble for the presidential prize in 2016—the stakes are very high. And national security issues are finally getting the kind of attention they always warrant in this dangerous world.

Many candidates for the highest office in the land—and most of those who make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—tend to prefer talking about their “domestic vision.”  Bill Clinton’s mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid,” comes to mind. But they eventually find themselves facing issues of war and national security, whether they like it or not.

It’s just a guess, but I don’t think President Obama likes talking about the bad guys who are after us. I’m pretty sure he’d rather change the subject and talk about climate change.”

Stakes also mentioned the book “1932: The Rise of Hitler and FDR—Two Tales of Politics, Betrayal, and Unlikely Destiny” by David Pietrusza, historian. He writes – “Mr. Pietrusza has done a masterful job bringing a vital era and several dynamic personalities to life.  The Great Depression was in full bust, and deprivation was giving way to desperation in some quarters.  It is one of the odd convergences in history that Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler came to power within weeks of each other, and then also died within weeks of each other.

The two men were, of course, very different from each other. One was born to wealth, the other to meager means.  One lived a charmed life, for the most part. The other man barely managed to crawl on his belly from failure to failure. One man faced a dreadful disease that served to strengthen his character. The other battled diseases of the imagination that poisoned his. But both men managed to climb their respective political ladders to the top.  Each leader superimposed a sweeping societal vision.

One man used hope—the other used hate.

David Pietrusza’s book is a must read for all political animals during this political season. If only for the fact that while Franklin Roosevelt and the nation wrestled with political and social solutions to the great domestic problems of the day, Adolf Hitler was already planting the seeds of aggression and conflict that would wreak havoc on the world.

Clinton was wrong back in 1992. It’s national security, stupid.  It always has been and always will be.”

Especially here in our country when every time a new terrorist group emerges, the international community always tag us as the training ground for this group particularly in the south. They conveniently used the southern part of the country as haven for training of terrorists because of its strategic location (even though the US special forces are stationed there).

The political bickering of the country’s presidentiables (and other political wannabes) that had bombarded us day in and day out should be mature enough to discuss current issues as important as national security instead. Whether we like it or not, our archipelago is in danger from domestic and foreign threat that should be addressed with concrete plan of action and not just asking the Big Brother’s help.

At the end of the day, it still is the national security, stupid!

War by Design by Erick San Juan

What really happened in November 24 over the Syrian-Turkish border? What version credible enough to believe – Moscow or Ankara? What occurred then does not fit the usual line … and the rest is history… The shooting down of the Russian bomber by Turkey could just be the beginning of another mistake by humanity – a prelude to world war. Is history repeating itself? Or people repeating history?

Not so long ago, in September 11, 2001 through the leadership of former US President George W. Bush jr, the global war on terror (GWOT) started after the terror attack at the World Trade Center in New York. Bush said the famous line ‘you’re either with us or against us’ in the fight against terrorism.  And the bogeyman at that time was Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror group.

After almost two weeks now, the Russians’ effort to stop the terror group ISIS/ISIL by bombing Syria was somehow aborted by Turkey, by shooting down the Russian bomber. And so the question – is Turkey against Russia in its effort in fighting the terror network ISIS/ISIL?

In his article Stumbling to War with Russia? by Pat Buchanan (posted at townhall.com Nov. 27, 2015) – “Turkey's decision to shoot down a Russian warplane was a provocative and portentous act."

"That Sukhoi Su-24, which the Turks say intruded into their air space, crashed and burned -- in Syria. One of the Russian pilots was executed while parachuting to safety. A Russian rescue helicopter was destroyed by rebels using a U.S. TOW missile. A Russian marine was killed."

"A stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists," said Vladimir Putin of the first downing of a Russian warplane by a NATO nation in half a century. Putin has a point, as the Russians are bombing rebels in northwest Syria, some of which are linked to al-Qaida.
Security analysts believe that it is impossible to believe Turkish F-16 pilots would fire missiles at a Russian plane without authorization from President Tayyip Recep Erdogan. We must ask: Why did the Turkish autocrat ok'd it?

Why is he risking a clash with Russia?

Answer: Erdogan is probably less outraged by intrusions into his air space than by Putin's success in securing the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, whom Erdogan detests, and by relentless Russian air strikes on Turkmen rebels seeking to overthrow Assad.
Imperiled strategic goals and ethnicity may explain Erdogan. But what does the Turkish president see down at the end of this road?

And what about us? Was the U.S. government aware Turkey might attack Russian planes? Did we give Erdogan a green light to shoot them down?

These are not insignificant questions.

For Turkey is a NATO ally. And if Russia strikes back, there is a possibility Ankara will invoke Article V of NATO and demand that we come in on their side in any fight with Russia.
And Putin was not at all cowed. Twenty-four hours after that plane went down, his planes, ships and artillery were firing on those same Turkmen rebels and their jihadist allies.
Politically, the Turkish attack on the Sukhoi Su-24 has probably aborted the plan to have Russia join France and the U.S. in targeting ISIS, a diplomatic reversal of the first order.
When provocation and miscalculation happen in a region where tension is very high, retaliation will occur and might lead to a regional conflict and maybe a war on a global scale.
“President Vladimir Putin said Turkey's shooting down of a Russian military jet was a war crime and that the Kremlin would punish Ankara with additional sanctions, signalling fallout from the incident would be long-lasting and serious.

Putin, who made the comments during his annual state of the nation speech to his country's political elite on Thursday, said, Russia would not forget the Nov. 24 incident and that he continued to regard it as a terrible betrayal.

"We are not planning to engage in military sabre-rattling (with Turkey)," said Putin.
"But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime, the murder of our people, that they are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken."

"Turkey would have cause to regret its actions more than once, he said, promising Russia's retaliatory actions would be neither hysterical nor dangerous.”

Leaders around the world are saying their piece towards peace and probably de-escalation of tensions between Turkey and Russia and one of them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a prominent geopolitical strategist and a former US National security advisor.

"Putin blew out some steam but subsequently began to talk about coping with the problem. The Turks proved to be resilient and tough but without exaggerating the collision. … So in effect the parties to this unfolding drama have become more reasonable," Brzezinski observed. "But I think it was quite lucky the shoot-down in Turkey was not done by us."
The Cold War hawk is also quite optimistic when it comes to relations between Washington and Moscow, which many describe as no less than the second installment of the Cold War. These tensions, according to him, are "serious but not fatal."

"I may be naïve but I think this is one of those situations in which the stakes are not that dramatic," Brzezinski noted.

In fact, the analyst believes that major powers could well move beyond the Su-24 incident, put aside their differences and focus instead on finding a solution to the Syrian conflict since they have a shared interest in regional stability and would prefer to avoid confrontation in other areas.

"In effect, we might be on the brink of some progress among the major powers regarding not just the Turkish-Russian skirmish, but towards some salutary accommodation regarding containment of wider regional violence," Brzezinski noted. (http://sputniknews.com/politics)

For whatever its worth, regional tensions are building up but cooler heads will always be around to neutralize tensions and work out their differences. May God guide all world leaders to value human lives and to do their best to avoid wars by design.

Climate Change Myth by Erick San Juan

Climate Change Myth by Erick San Juan


Nearly 150 world leaders gathered in Paris, France for COP21 – Conference of the Parties on its 21st year since it started in April 1995 in Berlin, Germany. World leaders and thousands of delegates including Philippine president BS Aquino III will talk about climate change, carbon emissions and greenhouse effects for almost two weeks, reports said.

There is nothing worthy to talk about this year’s climate change summit except the venue. Unfortunately, COP21 pushed through even after the terror attack that sent fear throughout France and some other key cities of the world.

World leaders showed solidarity with France and went on with COP21. But still the perennial question is (after two decades), what are the accomplishments of COP21?

Annually, more people are getting skeptical about this climate change summit, the perception is it’s all diplomatic rhetoric. There was a time that evidence of tampered data regarding global warming was exposed. Connivance of the so-called scientists were put into the limelight due to false entries of data in order to make the world believe that there is global warming happening.

Another strategy of fear? So, why spend so much time and money in this so-called meeting when there are more pressing problems confronting the world? Why spend just to allegedly fool the world and come out with story-telling a lie that the icebergs are melting fast and polar bears are dying?

Pundits believe that the United Nations should stop this foolishness and face the truth that what is happening at this conference are all lies and a big BS!

The big question always centered on the carbon emissions by countries especially the big ones like China and the US. No one can measure exactly how much reduction in greenhouse gases that each nation has recorded. It’s like nuclear arms, not one country will report the exact number of nuclear heads they have.

“Other countries have submitted their own hollow commitments to the U.N. as well. Russia based its emission reduction goals on outdated numbers that allow the country to increase its emission over the next decade. China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, which accounts for 30% of the world's emissions now and 50% of estimated growth by 2030, will only commit to emissions peaking about 15 years from now -- and won't even say what that peak will be. India's willingness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contingent on developed countries' funding.  According to India, all it needs is about $2.5 trillion for its plan, with an off-ramp in the event it interferes with economic growth.

Basic requirements, such as measuring, verifying, and reporting a country's emissions, are also problematic. The Chinese government was recently exposed as having under reported the amount of coal it burns and failing to account for more than a billion tons of carbon dioxide.

These realities are a mere reflection of the fact that -- diplomatic rhetoric aside -- no nation will ever prioritize emission reduction promises over poverty eradication and economic growth.” (Beware of empty climate promises by Jim Inhofe, Nov. 30, 2015)

The UN together with its members are talking about this for two decades already and why are there no concrete solutions to this so-called climate change? The truth of the matter is – this world body is not addressing the real culprit of this problem they are talking about. Yes it is man-made, not the carbon emissions but the weather engineering or weather modification through chemtrails.

This is not new and not confidential because through the internet, one can find a lot of materials and data which shows how weather manipulation (engineering) can alter the world’s storms, snow, heat and other weather disturbances.

And one would wonder why tamper with nature? Why science and technology will go as far as this tinkering with Mother Nature? It is all because these evil-minded scientists backed by the globalists agenda to depopulate the world and murder what they call ‘useless eaters’.

Not one COP summit or UN-sponsored meeting addressed the issue on weather engineering and how one can actually alter the earth’s atmosphere just to create disastrous hurricane, super typhoons and even earthquakes.

Until world leaders recognize this depopulation tool to eliminate large number of the world’s population, all their efforts would be in vain.

Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

Still trending in the world wide web via the social networking sites are the Paris attacks and then the attack in Mali. Although some pundits believe that the two recent attacks are not related, just the same the world is now being terrorized and the latest attacks are sowing fear globally. Especially when reports of possible more terrorists attacks in different parts of the world are on the internet.

Actually, it is through the internet that netizens are becoming more aware of what is really going on especially if one will visit websites of patriotic citizens of the world through their blog or as writers of progressive websites, and fortunately there are many such sites that one can access with ease. Thinking public should not rely much on mainstream media and must be critical enough in analyzing reports.

One such analysis came from Dr. Paul Craig Roberts through his intriguing set of questions about the Paris attacks. "Most pundits believe that the Paris attack is the same as the terror attack in mainland USA in September 11, 2001 and they call it '9/11 French style'. And when we mention 9/11, it is a false flag operation."

Then the perennial question – who benefits? And if most Americans believed that 9/11 was an inside job, what then is the Paris attack? Who gave the funds to the ISIS/ISIL terror group? Who wrote the script? In other words, who is pulling the strings?

Here is one answer posted at http://www.collective-evolution.com Nov. 16 by Arjun Walia – “On more than one occasion, Russian President Vladamir Putin has revealed information that Western media won’t air. Two months ago he provided information illustrating that ISIS is funded by the West, and now he is making more noise at the G20 summit that’s currently taking place in Turkey, where he has supposedly shared intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his G20 colleagues."

As RT News reports:

[During the summit] "I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them."

He also voiced his concern regarding the illegal oil trade by IS, stating that he has seen photos taken from space and from aircraft that demonstrated the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products.

I’d also like to mention that I am aware that RT news is sponsored by Russia and misconstrued as counter propaganda, but the fact remains that Putin has said that Western nations are funding ISIS before. Here is one of multiple examples.

At the summit he also stated that:

“The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000  to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon. “

"Again, it’s not the first time Putin has stressed that people who are going after ISIS and invading other countries (U.S. and their allies) are the very same people who funded and created ISIS in the first place.”

And here is what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has to say – “Why do terrorists attack ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their” government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

Historically, terror attacks are not on the innocent but on the rulers and those who are guilty. For example, it was the Archduke of Austria/Hungary who was assassinated by the Serbian terrorist, not ordinary people blown up or shot down in a street cafe.

It is interesting to note that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the Muslims. In past years on several occasions, I have remarked in my columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrorists on a neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around without threat free as birds.

How believable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has been very supportive of the Palestinian statehood was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber?

With the Paris terror attacks, what was impossible became possible, and the President of France immediately announced the closing of France’s borders. The border closings will spread. The main issue of the rising dissident political parties will be defused. The EU will be safe, and so will Washington’s sovereignty over Europe.

Whether or not the Paris attacks were a false flag operation for the purpose of obtaining these results, these results are the consequences of the attacks. It is believed that these results to serve the interests of the European political establishment and Washington.

Is ISIL so unsophisticated not to have realized that? If ISIL is that unsophisticated, how did ISIL so easily deceive French intelligence?

Can westerners be intelligent to fall for a story set in stone prior to any evidence? In the West, it is perceived that facts are created by self-serving statements from governments. Investigation is not part of the process. When 90 percent of the US media is owned by six mega-corporations, it cannot be any different.

As the matrix grows in the absurdity of its claims, it nevertheless manages to become even more invulnerable.” (Posted @globalresearch.ca Nov. 14, 2015)

Former FBI whistleblower, author, Sibel Edmonds in her interview by Sophie Shevardnadze of Sophie&Co at RT.com in October 13, 2014, more than a year ago:

Sophie Shevardnadze: So what you’re saying basically is that it was expected for ISIS to turn into something so powerful, into a powerful group, but they are not just admitting to it?

Sibel Edmonds: To answer the question briefly, the ISIS is what the U.S. media and the propaganda creators behind the media decided to create. I mean, tomorrow or 3 months from now we will start hearing another name, that we’ve never heard of, and within a month they can make that the world’s greatest or the most dangerous threat. And, again, that is the main concept here, and I know the Western media, U.S. media, they have been playing it as such, but they did exactly the same thing with Al-Qaeda. I mean, Al-Qaeda was hundred people, or 100,000 people, or ten million people… Another interesting perspective in this is that I referred to the brand-change, and sometimes you have to switch the brand for the marketing purposes – with ISIS as you can look at and see from the term, from the name now, the brand created, the Western powers have gotten closer to just name and link the entire global terrorism to Islam, and that’s another marketing strategy by the U.S., NATO and main Western countries.” (https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/195384-us-fbi-syria-isis/)

There are still a lot of perspectives coming from different analysis from various observers and experts alike but one thing for sure, the design for the next world war has started just like in the past, one false flag op can lead to a world war. This one is worst – it’s the perpetual war on terror on a global scale. The goal? To sustain the perpetual war machine designed and managed by the globalists.

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

Once again the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition against the Philippines' Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US was deferred November 16. It was reset to December 16 or thereafter.

It was reported at Manila Times (November 8) that “the Supreme Court (SC) is poised to declare the controversial Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States constitutional, according to unimpeachable sources.

The Manila Times has gathered from several sources that an 82-page draft decision upholding the constitutionality of the defense agreement had been circulated among the 14 magistrates. The ponente of the case is Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

In her draft decision, Sereno said EDCA is “not constitutionally infirm,” the sources told the Manila Times. According to the decision, President Benigno Aquino III, as head of the executive department, has the power to sign agreement on matters of foreign affairs and national security.

An overwhelming majority of the justices are inclined to agree with Sereno since no dissenting opinion had been issued.

Some of the justices who do not see eye to eye with the Chief Justice, however, are waiting for a magistrate to issue a separate opinion concurring with the constitutionality of EDCA and they will favor that opinion so that Sereno will not gain credit from President Aquino because she is the ponente of the case.

A source said CJ Sereno circulated her draft decision days before the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to please Malacañang and gain 'pogi' points [credit] from the President. The EDCA decision is seen to be the Philippines’ “gift” to US President Barack Obama, who will be flying this week in Manila to attend the APEC summit scheduled from November 17 to 19.”

What went wrong (or right)? Well, the Senate did the right thing through Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago together with the other 14 senators, adopted Sen. Santiago’s resolution expressing the strong sense of the Senate that, absent their concurrence, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is a treaty prohibited under the Constitution.

Beside Santiago, those who voted in favor of the resolution were Senators Sonny Angara, Nancy Binay, JV Ejercito, Chiz Escudero, TG Guingona, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Serge Osmeña, Koko Pimentel, Grace Poe, Ralph Recto, and Cynthia Villar. The 15th vote came from Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was not at the session hall during the vote, but later manifested that she is voting in the affirmative.

Plenary approval formalizes Senate Resolution No. 1414 as the Senate’s position on the question of the validity and effectivity of the EDCA. Only Sen. Sonny Trillanes voted against the resolution, deferring to the Supreme Court. Under the same premise, Senate President Frank Drilon and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile abstained. Sen. Bam Aquino, who was not in session during the vote, later manifested his abstention.

In her sponsorship speech, Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations, argued that the EDCA “belongs to the category of prohibited treaty. Namely, it is a treaty of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities without the concurrence of the Senate.”

Santiago, the foremost constitutional expert in the Senate, insisted that “other than concurrence of the Senate, no authority expressly transforms a treaty into law.” She cited the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, Article 7, Section 21, which states that:

"No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."

The senator added that the need for Senate concurrence was made an integral part of the nature of a special kind of treaty—that which involves “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities”—by the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25:

.… foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.… and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. (Emphasis added)

Santiago said the EDCA falls under this prohibition, as it had substantive provisions on the establishment, location, stationing of the U.S. military forces and storage of military facilities in Philippine territory.

“That such a prohibited ‘treaty’ has been concluded by the Executive Department as an executive agreement testifies to its inherently prohibitory nature under the Constitution,” the senator added.

She further claimed that the prohibitory character of Article 18, Section 25 trumps Article 8, Section 4(2), which Macalañang used to defend the EDCA as an executive agreement. The Constitution, Article 8, Section 4(2), states that:

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc…. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

“On the remote assumption that this provision may be applicable to a case involving the constitutionality of a treaty or executive agreement, it must exclude from its applicability the prohibited treaty as described in the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25,” Santiago said. These articles of our constitution are legal matters that are all binding.9

The Senate statement on EDCA comes a week before U.S. President Barack Obama’s expected arrival in the Philippines for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meet.

The senator added that she hopes the Supreme Court, to which she sent a copy of the proposed resolution in June, will consider the strong statement from the Senate “with decisive concern.”

Need we say more? Our congratulations to Sen. Santiago! Hoping that the SC decision come December will favor the Senate and let the Senate of the Philippines deliberate on the EDCA.

It's not the Americans fault per se but we really have to deal with them in a position of strength and level the playing field. Our colonial mentality should be redirected once and for all to get what's due us.

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

Yes–China Is A Threat to U.S. Interests by Matt Vespa posted at townhall.com last  November 6. Vespa stated that “Over the past couple of years, China has built several man-made islands near the Spratly archipelago to prevent any challenges to China’s sovereignty in the region (via the Diplomat):

"The United States and China are hurtling toward a showdown over Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea. The U.S. Navy is poised to sail near seven artificial islands China constructed in the Spratly archipelago over the past two years as a means to challenge any excessive or illegitimate Chinese sovereignty claims there."

In Beijing, meanwhile, opposition to U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) around the artificial islands is hardening, as evidenced by the threat China’s state-run Xinhua news agency issued last week:

"America’s provocative attempt to infringe on China’s South China Sea sovereignty are sabotaging regional peace and stability and militarizing the waters…China will never tolerate any military provocation or infringement on sovereignty from the United States or any other country, just as the United States refused it 53 years ago [during the Cuban Missile Crisis]."

This Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) issue was answered by China’s President Xi Jinping  in a promise to safeguard freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, where tensions have flared due to overlapping claims and the US Navy’s move to challenge Beijing’s massive island building.

Speaking at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, China's President Xi said there has never been any problem with freedom of navigation and overflight, “nor will there ever be in the future.”

He said China need unimpeded passage through the waters more than anyone else.

“We have absolute confidence and capability in maintaining the peace and stability. This can be done through negotiations and the establishment of reasonable maritime rights,” Xi added.

China criticized last week’s patrol of the USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, within the 12-nautical-mile (22-kilometer) territorial limit of Subi Reef, one of the South China Sea features that have been claimed, expanded and reinforced by China over objections of other claimants, particularly the Philippines.

The US Navy said it wanted to demonstrate the principle of freedom of navigation.

China has called it a “deliberate provocation,” and sent two warships to shadow the US vessel and issued warnings. Although China labeled the action illegal, international law allowed warships to transit other countries’ territorial seas under the principle of “innocent passage.” (AP posted at atimes.com)

It would be an endless issue until China gives in from what they claimed as undisputed sovereignty over territories as per historical ‘facts’ according to their history books. Otherwise other claimants  have the right to their claim based on international law.

A very hot and controversial issue that will go down in history and could span over several administrations which was suggested by Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, that the country’s dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea should be made an election issue, with each presidential candidate obliged to make public his or her stand. And that the question will be “if elected president, ‘will you withdraw the case, if it’s still pending’?” he said.

Methinks that our ‘relationship’ with Uncle Sam should be included also as one of the election issues. The pending passage of EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) should be tackled and the next set of leaders must give their stand on giving up our military bases as forward bases by the US military troops as hundreds of US soldiers will be based here on rotational basis in line with Obama’s pivot to Asia soon.

If China will continue to threaten the region as per the American view, our next leaders must give their clear foreign policy and not just rely on day to day band-aid solution to any eventuality that will come our way as a sovereign nation.

Word War: Laying the Predicate by Erick San Juan

Word War: Laying the Predicate by Erick San Juan

Maintaining peace and stability in the world’s busiest sea lane, the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, is once again put to a test on how the G2 (China and US) could manage to keep the region peaceful. After the US destroyer USS Lassen (sail-past) entered what China claims as a 12-mile or 21-kilometer territorial limit around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago, a group of reefs, islets, and atolls, word war has started again.

According to reports, China's naval commander told his U.S. counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States will not stop its "provocative acts" in the disputed waterway, the Chinese navy said on Friday.

Admiral Wu Shengli made the comments to U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson during a video teleconference on Thursday, according to a Chinese naval statement.

The two officers held talks after a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing's man-made islands in the contested Spratly archipelago on Tuesday.

China has rebuked Washington over the patrol, the most significant U.S. challenge yet to territorial limits China effectively claims around its seven artificial islands in one of the world's busiest sea lanes.

"If the United States continues with these kind of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war," the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.

"I hope the U.S. side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and U.S. navies that has not come easily and avoids these kind of incidents from happening again," Wu said. (Reuters)

China has been reminding the US and the rest of the world that any miscalculation can trigger a conflict in the South China Sea and will surely drag other countries as alliances are already in place. Just like in the past world wars where allies are used as cannon fodders and worst, being short changed in the end.

Sounds familiar? We had our bitter share of history and loss of precious lives should be the top consideration if ever history be repeated. I have been reminding our leaders to be wise enough and stop kowtowing to a perceived master to avoid a one way ticket to hell.

There is no point to ever rely on the US military to defend us if ever our country will be confronted by an external force especially China on the issue of sovereignty over disputed areas.

According to a statement posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry website, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said, “The Chinese side strongly urges the American side to take China’s solemn representations seriously, put right the mistakes, refrain from any dangerous or provocative actions detrimental to China’s sovereignty and security interests, and honor its commitment of not taking sides on disputes over territorial sovereignty so as to avoid any further damage to China-US relations and regional peace and stability.”

It is very clear here that the US has committed to China  and  it will not take sides in the territorial disputes so 'WTF' that our leaders are still hallucinating that Uncle Sam will come to the rescue if ever China attacks us?

Pundits believe that this 'moro-moro' ( secret arrangement to justify a scenario) between US and China are all for a show and that the operation being done in the SCS is just a bait to drag us into a conflict with China. Of course we will not win, presto, a long time secret plan that China will take Luzon and parts of the south where minerals are in abundance as prelude in retaking Taiwan.

The mere fact that the so-called military modernization being pushed by the Aquino government only boils down to buying more vintage and museum grade military hardware from the US.

Such posturing lead to militarization and the threatened Chinese will retaliate but it is actually a proxy war. Will our defeat be the payment for all the US debt to China?  A scenario that is not farfetched if we know how the great Big Brother works.

We have to wake up and confront this sweet dream-turning into nightmare posturing of Uncle Sam or we will be doomed without us knowing what hit us.

TPP: Good or Bad Deal? By Erick San Juan

TPP: Good or Bad Deal? By Erick San Juan

After nearly six years of negotiations, trade ministers recently announced they had reached agreement on the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This does not mean the TPP is a done deal. The next hurdle for this perceive rigged corporate power grab is to convince the participating governments, including Congress, to ratify it.

Both chambers of Congress must ratify the TPP by a majority vote using a process called “fast track.” The Trade Justice Movement fought a multi-year campaign to prevent Congress from giving the president fast-track trade authority. "We delayed it for much longer than the corporate traders wanted, forcing the TPP into the election year. Since the TPP is believed to be a 'Toxic Political Poison,' an election year is not when they wanted to consider it. The corporate traders were required to compromise and to pass fast track. One key compromise was making the text of the agreement public for 60 days before Congress considers it. This is a tremendous opportunity to educate and mobilize people."

Just after the TPP negotiators reached an agreement, Ralph Nader was asked if the TPP could be stopped. He said, “It will be stopped on its demerits.” He further noted its wide impact, saying, “Its scope is everything,” and described it as a “global corporate coup … the most brazen corporate power grab in American history.” The TPP, he added, is “a major peril to our national authority” that is “ceding our sovereignty, ceding our self-reliance, ceding everything we can do within the boundaries of the United States.”

The TPP is a bad deal. Just like every other similar agreement, it is going to outsource jobs, lower wages globally, increase the wealth divide, increase the U.S. trade deficit, undermine democracy, weaken the federal court system, degrade the environment and undermine sovereignty at every level of government. The more people who learn about this deal, the worse it will look, and if we resist it, the likelihood of passage in Congress will shrink.

And, similar to the TPP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is having troubles in Europe. Europeans see TTIP either not advancing or going in the wrong direction because of the heavy handedness of the U.S. The French negotiator said: “France is considering all options including an outright termination of negotiations.”

More than 3 million people across Europe signed a petition calling on the European Commission to scrap the agreement and hundreds of thousands marched in Berlin last Oct. 10 opposing the TTIP. People realize that rather than opening up new markets, since the U.S. and EU countries already trade a great deal, it will privatize public services for corporate profits. (By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Global Research, October 24, 2015)

As the TPP getting closer to its ratification, opposition to the said agreement is also growing stronger. There are reports that the US Congress will delay the ratification until late 2016.

“In the US, opposition continues to mount, suggesting that the TPP faces a difficult time getting through Congress.

US Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, came out against the TPP, arguing that it is too favourable to powerful pharmaceutical companies and believing that it didn’t “meet the high bar I have set”. While Clinton’s opposition could be viewed as mere politicking in the lead up to an election year, opposition is mounting across the board.

The powerful US pharmaceutical lobby is reportedly livid that the TPP did not secure better monopoly protections, whereas big tobacco lobby and its representatives in Congress are furious that the industry has been carved-out of the investor-state dispute settlement provision, thus limiting its ability to take legal action against member states that regulate against the tobacco industry.” (By Leith van Onselen, http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/10/us-to-delay-tpp-ratification-until-late-2016/)

The much talked about US pivot to Asia wherein the TPP is the centerpiece seemed to have lost its way by dealing with the Middle East crisis.

As what Fareed Zakaria opinion writer at the Washington Post online) wrote “The Obama administration’s foreign policy energies are fully engaged in the Middle East — negotiating the Iran deal, sending Special Operations forces into Iraq, supporting Saudi airstrikes in Yemen, working with the Syrian rebels. Whatever happened to the pivot to Asia?

Remember, the basic argument behind the pivot was that the United States was overinvested in the Middle East, a crisis-prone region of dwindling importance to the U.S. national interest. Asia, on the other hand, is the future. Of the four largest economies, three are in Asia, if measured by purchasing-power parity. As Singapore’s late leader Lee Kuan Yew often said, “America will remain the world’s dominant power in the 21st century only if it is the dominant Pacific power.”

The growing tension in some of the flashpoints where a regional conflict might be waiting to be triggered by a miscalculated event are just too overwhelming for a leader who will be facing an election soon. President Obama will have to play his cards well in order to have a legacy that will go down in history as something to be proud of. If not.....

End Game in Syria by Erick San Juan

End Game in Syria by Erick San Juan


In an article written by Tony Cartalucci, US End Game in Syria is Just the Beginning for A Wider Regional War?, he writes, “To call it a civil war is a gross mischaracterization. The entire conflict was engineered and fueled from beyond Syria’s borders. And while there are significant number of Syrians collaborating with this criminal conspiracy, the principal agents driving the conflict are foreigners. They include special interests in the United States, across the Atlantic in Europe, and regional players including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel. Syria is far from an isolated conflict. America’s interest in dividing and destroying Syria is part of a much larger agenda serving its aspirations both in the region and globally. The division and destruction of Syria as a functioning, sovereign nation-state is admittedly meant to set the stage for the conquest of Iran next."

"US End Game in Syria is just the beginning for wider regional war. Reuters recently published an op-ed titled, Syria’s one hope may be as dim as Bosnia’s once was, which argues that the only way the US can cooperate with Russia regarding Syria is if all players agree to a weakened, fragmented Syria.

If this scheme sounds familiar, that is because this op-ed was authored by Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution – a corporate-financier funded think-tank that has in part helped engineer the chaos now consuming the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). O’Hanlon previously published a paper titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A New Strategy for America’s most Hopeless War,” in which he also calls for the division and destruction of Syria.

In it, O’Hanlon calls for the establishment of “safe zones,” the invasion and occupation of Syrian territory by US, European, and Persian Gulf special forces, the relaxing of criteria used to openly fund what would essentially be terrorists operating in Syria, and openly making the ousting of the Syrian government, a priority on par with the alleged US fight against the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL).” (Posted at Global Research, October 17, 2015)

Sounds familiar? World leaders didn’t learn from history at all, repeating the same mistakes. In our case, if our own leaders will not be cautious enough, the design for the country’s balkanization is still on. It was delayed alright but the goal of some evil-minded globalists to balkanize this country is very much on the table. As I have written a few decades ago that the program (balkanization) is on but can be delayed, will materialize if we are not careful in choosing our next leaders.

The regional war we might get into by being ‘loyal’ or our leaders blackmailed by the Big Brother and be used as a cannon fodder against China is something that we have to rethink. The crisis in the Middle East will definitely affect our own peaceful existence because our corrupt leaders allowed and pressured to support US troops in its pivot to Asia to have its virtual military bases here.

There are lessons to be learned in contemporary history that we should be aware of and not be misguided by greedy collaborators. There is so much going on in the Middle East. In Syria  for example, that we should be vigilant enough so as not to be dragged Into another war.

“Putin, with a clear message to Washington and NATO governments on the subject of national sovereignty, something anathema to many who embrace the Nirvana supposed to come from globalization, homogenization of all to one level."

"What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here?” Putin rhetorically asked. “It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future. By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn’t play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.”

Putin added, “We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one. We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress. “

"Those few words succinctly point to what is fundamentally wrong in the international order today. Nations, above all the one proclaiming herself Sole Superpower, Infallible Hegemon, the USA, have arrogantly moved after the collapse of the main adversary, the Soviet Union in 1990, to create what can only be called a global totalitarian empire, what G.H.W. Bush in his September 11, 1991 address to Congress called a New World Order. I believe with conviction that borders do matter, that respect for different cultures, different historical experiences is essential in a world of peace. That is as much true with nations as with individual human beings. We seem to have forgotten that simple notion amid all the wars of the past decades. Vladimir Putin reminds us.” (Putin is Defeating More than ISIS in Syria by F. William Engdahl, October 16, 2015 @Information Clearing House)

Thanks to the American patriots in exposing the hidden agenda of the globalists. We have forgotten our sovereignty just to kowtow to a perceived master. Unless we act as one sovereign nation and assert our rights to say no and insist to get what is due us, we will remain a slave in the this age of sophistication through modern technology and be ruled just like in the Middle Ages.

Seachange in World Affairs by Erick San Juan

Seachange in World Affairs by Erick San Juan

According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on the recent geopolitical crisis in the Middle East, particularly in Syria – “The world is beginning to realize that a seachange in world affairs occurred on September 28 when President Putin of Russia stated in his United Nations speech that Russia can no longer tolerate Washington’s vicious, stupid, and failed policies that have unleashed chaos, which is engulfing the Middle East and now Europe.

Two days later, Russia took over the military situation in Syria and began the destruction of the Islamic State forces.

Perhaps among Obama’s advisors, there are a few who are not drowning in hubris and can understand this seachange. Sputnik news reported that some high-level security advisors to Obama have advised him to withdraw US military forces from Syria and give up his plan to overthrow Assad. They advised Obama to cooperate with Russia in order to stop the refugee flow that is overwhelming Washington’s vassals in Europe. The influx of unwanted peoples are making Europeans aware of the high cost of enabling US foreign policy. Advisors have told Obama that the idiocy of the neoconservatives’ policies threaten Washington’s empire in Europe.

Several commentators, such as Mike Whitney and Stephen Lendman, have correctly concluded, that there is nothing that Washington can do about Russian actions against the Islamic State. The neoconservatives’ plan for a UN no-fly zone over Syria in order to push out the Russians is just a pipedream. No such thing as resolution will come out of the UN. Indeed, the Russians have already established a de facto no-fly zone. (Posted at Global Research, October 11, 2015)

The neocons in Obama’s loop still very much around (very active in the war on terror, Bush Jr. era) influencing decisions that is causing havoc in the Middle East and has affected the global balance, had taken the backseat in the Syrian crisis, for now.

The man-made crisis (by design) is not yet over and the move by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Syria against the Islamic State terror group is only the beginning.

The mere fact that this is a repeat of history, of alliances before a world war, there is still a lot of possibilities waiting to be ignited, like a tinderbox. And now China is coming into the picture.

“China's entry means two major powers are stepping in to do what the U.S. was unwilling to do against IS.

It's a lesson in how fast the tables can turn when America displays weakness — losing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and proving to be ineffective against IS despite fighting it for a year and three months now.

Our commander-in-chief even admits that he has no strategy against the monstrous caliphate that his very own policies of weakness brought into being.

What is apparently happening now was inconceivable before Obama sent America spiraling into decline: our two Cold War adversaries uniting militarily in an effort that will ultimately give them dominance, at our expense, in the most strategically important part of the world, the oil-rich and politically fragile Middle East.

You can't carry out your objectives there over the course of years with the most advanced military in the world? Fine. Watch us do it, Moscow and Beijing are telling us with their actions. And in months, or perhaps only weeks.

How the next president will dig us out of this hole is hard to fathom. A new post-Cold War Brezhnev Doctrine could come into effect, in which Moscow and Beijing warn that they will not let the U.S. reassert its influence in countries they've "liberated" in the Mideast.

If that turns out to be the case, America will be risking war with both Russia and China if it even tries to return to its pre-Obama influence in the region.” (Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com, 10/9/2015)

Pundits believe that the entry of China means our country will be used as cannon fodder being an ally of the ‘mighty Uncle Sam’. An unfortunate scenario that we will be drag again into war whether we like it or not.

And such tension happening now, escalating into a possible global conflict and yet our supposed leaders are infected with the election fever, dragging the whole nation into the pits.

The China Syndrome and the Next World War

The China Syndrome and the Next World War
By Erick San Juan


President Barack Obama's Washington summit and White House state dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping marked one of the administration's last big attempts to place U.S.-China relations on a good track. With China's secretive and troubled massive economy affecting others in ways we're still learning, growing American concern over cyber-espionage matched by Chinese concern about global surveillance, and China becoming still more aggressive in its extraordinary maritime claims, Obama has a lot to overcome.

Aside from a new agreement on climate change, some mutual make-nice rhetoric on spying, obvious agreement to oppose maritime piracy, and self-interested big business deals on China's part with Boeing and Cisco, there wasn't much to point to. Xi, in fact, was quite defiant on China's highly aggressive maritime claims.

Obama's China syndrome is that he seeks both to engage China and to contain China. Both are appropriate and arguably quite necessary goals for American statecraft. But they presuppose a state of creative tension between the established superpower and would-be superpower. The tension is real enough, especially coming from the Chinese. The question is whether it's matched by creativity. (By William Bradley, Obama's China Syndrome, 9/27/2015)

Now we understand the perennial problem of a disease infecting the Obama administration – the China syndrome. The tug-of-war between engaging and containing China has proven to be a paradox because it only creates more tension in the region. It could be a choice of only one but as diplomacy dictates, peaceful resolution has to be employed in order to avoid a bloody conflict.

In a recent article “Know World War II, Avoid World War III. US Provocation and Propaganda directed against China” by Tony Cartalucci he writes, “an Asian state aggressively expanding its military, bullying its neighbors, illegally fortifying islands, and bent on regional, then global domination – sound familiar? Are you thinking it’s China 2015? No, it is Japan 1937-1944.

So shockingly similar is American propaganda regarding Japan during World War II to the propaganda being leveled against Beijing today that it seems almost intentional. Or perhaps those on Wall Street and Washington think so little of the general public’s ability to discern fact from fiction, they see no reason to revise the script and are going ahead with a remake faithful to the original with only a few minor casting twists.

This US government production is titled “Why We Fight: A Series of Seven Information Films” with this particular part titled, “The Battle of China” released in 1944.

It describes Japan almost verbatim as how the US today describes China.

China is depicted as a righteous victim – but as the film elaborates – it is clear that any affinity shown toward the Chinese people is only due to the fact that the US held significant economic and geopolitical interests there. Admittedly, the US military was already occupying China after extorting through “gunboat diplomacy” concessions from China’s subjugated, servile government – not unlike US troops occupying Japan today, hosted by a capitulating government in Tokyo.

Japan in the film is depicted as a “blood crazed” race of barbarians, while the Chinese are depicted as noble resistors. Of course, this narrative shifted immediately as soon as US interests were ousted from China and US troops began occupying and shaping the destiny of conquered Japan after the war.”

Time and again, together with other observers like me, we have been warning of a repeat of history just like in the past World Wars, the scenarios are the same with ‘a little twist’ and the possibility of a next world war if humankind will not heed our warnings.

Like what US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler in his book “War is a Racket” would specifically warn about a military build up aimed at Japan for the jealous preservation of American conquests in Asia Pacific. Speaking specifically about these conquests, General Butler would say:

What does the “open door” policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war — a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit — fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends. (Ibid)

For whatever its worth, bilateral talks between leaders can help but accidents and miscalculations happen just like in the past. So again a warning - always remember the past so you will know the future by not repeating the mistakes in history.
 

China Dream: PLA's Version by Erick San Juan

China Dream: PLA's Version by Erick San Juan

Col. Liu Mingfu, 64, is the most prominent warrior-scholar from the People’s Liberation Army. His fame rests on ‘‘The China Dream,’’ a book published in 2010 that became a best seller.

It dissected American global dominance and advocated the need for China to overturn it, and  that will secure peace not just in the region but also worldwide. ‘‘Becoming the strongest nation in the world is China’s goal in the 21st century,’’ the colonel wrote.

Colonel Liu laid out his vision of the biggest geopolitical rivalry of this century. ‘‘There are flames around Asia, and every place could be a battlefield in the future. That’s all caused by the invisible hand of the United States. Without the black hand of the United States, Asia would be more peaceful and stable."

"Washington’s policy in Asia is a ‘crab’ policy. There’s a big bamboo cage, and the United States wants all the countries to bite each other like crabs inside the cage.’’ (Edward Wong, International New York Times Asia)

The China Dream that every Chinese wanted to achieve (but reality check, every dream) can turn into a nightmare, unfortunately. Even the mighty land of milk and honey is undergoing an economic crisis, including the whole world like domino.

Such situation, like in the past world wars, the world is again ripe for a another global war where several flashpoints are brewing with the possibility of a regional conflict first and then the real war.

The recently concluded meeting between US and China leaders did not solve anything because it was filled with rhetoric. And to heed the viewpoint of Col. Liu – “no matter how much China commits itself to a ‘peaceful rise,’ conflict is inherent in U.S.-China relations.’’
A very sad reality confronting this region because efforts being undertaken by smaller countries to find peaceful resolutions in the disputed areas are now in vain.

It all boils down to the leadership of every country involve as claimants in the South China Sea area. It is perceived that Uncle Sam is using the Philippines as cannon fodder that will create a proxy war in the offing.

The so-called alliances build-up and military modernization through ‘military grant’ (a.k.a. loan) has already established a community of war mongers and an arms race has begun.

That is why from the Chinese perspective, US allies have “been inciting our neighbors to provoke us.’’

Continued provocations and word wars might hasten the impending war to occur. Yet here we are, offering our military bases to Uncle Sam as their forward base via the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement, and the much controversial Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) that according to some US officials, they are expecting the Supreme Court to come out with the resolution of EDCA’s constitutionality any time soon.

Despite the statement of several US military generals that they will protect us, history dictates that without the approval of the US congress, the commitments of US military officers are just sweet nothing.

While the region is boiling with tension, our local politicians are ‘hot’ in every aspect and can’t wait for the next election. Propaganda after propaganda, gimmickry and mud-slinging are the latest trending acts in the world of politics.

They seem to be oblivious of the current economic crisis that is a clear prescription for another world war.

Hi-Tech Warfare by Erick San Juan

Hi-Tech Warfare by Erick San Juan


Advance science and technology has its good and bad effects depending on the purpose of the creator of the project. No matter what the intention is, sometimes accident happen and thus creating unfortunate effects on mankind. Like the EMP – electromagnetic pulse.

“In 1962, during the depths of the Cold War, the U.S. military exploded a nuclear weapon high above an atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Dubbed 'Operation Starfish', this exercise was part of a larger project to evaluate the impact of nuclear explosions in space. The missile, launched from Johnson Island, 900 miles from Hawaii, was armed with a 1.4 megaton warhead, programmed to explode at 240 miles above the earth. It detonated as expected. What was not entirely expected was the magnitude of the resulting electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

The EMP was powerful enough to affect the electric grid in Hawaii, blowing out streetlights, resulted in telephone outages and radio blackouts.

Dr. William Graham was active in the follow-up of the project, working out of the Air Force weapons lab in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After the blast, it was his job to understand the data collected, find out just what had happened in Hawaii, and what the defense implications were of this phenomenon.

According to Dr. Graham, the effects were bizarre and almost entirely unanticipated.  One effect was an electromagnetic pulse, but nobody knew it was going to be anywhere nearly as large it proved to be.  They had all this data and they didn’t understand very much of it, including the EMP's that had been observed and the effects produced…all kinds of electrical disturbances were seen over 1,000 kilometers away in Oahu. "The Air Force brought in a bunch of us…and asked us to explain it.  With the leadership of scientists from Los Alamos, we figured it out.  It was a fairly subtle piece of physics.  At that time we were worried it could be used as a precursor attack on the U.S. and suppress our retaliatory capability.  Since the effect wasn’t really understood before 1962, our military system hadn’t protected against it up to that point.” (Source: Peter Kelly-Detwiler, forbes.com)

Back in May this year, a report in a Wall Street Journal by missile defense expert Henry Cooper and electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) attack specialist Peter Vincent Fry brought home just how dangerous letting the nuclear genie out of the lamp has become.

An EMP strike, most likely from the detonation of a nuclear weapon in space, would destroy unprotected military and civilian electronics nationwide, blacking out the electric grid and other critical infrastructure for months or years. The staggering human cost of such a catastrophic attack is not difficult to imagine.

What is your president doing to protect you against these inevitable threats? Not enough, of course. They write:

"US President Barack Obama has not acted on the EMP Commission’s draft executive order to protect national infrastructure that is essential to provide for the common defense. Hardening the national electric grid would cost a few billion dollars, a trivial amount compared with the loss of electricity and lives following an EMP attack. The U.S. also should deploy one of its existing transportable radars in the Philippines to help the ground-based interceptors at California’s Vandenberg Air Force defend the country against an attack from the south.

Congress hasn’t been doing much better, but presidential leadership and commitment could perhaps overcome congressional inertia.

Congress also has failed to act on the plans of its own EMP commission to protect the electric grid and other civilian infrastructure that depends on a viable electric grid—such as communications, transportation, banking—that are essential to the economy. In recent years, the GRID Act, the Shield Act, and the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act have gained bipartisan and even unanimous support in the House, yet they died in the Senate.”

Imagine, the US Congress failed to secure their electric grid against a possible electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack and to think they were supposed to have the most advanced technology to do so, aside from the fact that their enemies are growing strong in the same field.

Such scenario is not farfetched here in our country when it comes to our own electric grid. Unfortunately the irony of its name (NGCP) National Grid Corporation of the Philippines, is partly owned by the State Grid Corporation of China and the Board of Directors are dominated by Chinese and Chinoy Taipans. So what else is new?

The backbone of any country’s electric supply and other forms of communication are crucial and should be owned and operated by the state because it involves national security. It is about time to rethink and nationalize our public utilities.

Show of Force? By Erick San Juan

Show of Force? By Erick San Juan

Chinese leaders are torn by two conflicting goals: The desire to regain “lost” islands and waters and a need to maintain stable relations with neighbors and America.
(By Ryan Martinson)

The irony that is China – wanted to maintain a peaceful region and at the same time raising the tension by building military structures in their reclamation projects in the contested areas.
Moreover the ‘parade’ of China’s military capabilities last September 3 “to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the surrender of Japan and the end of World War II is perceived by pundits as a real show of force. The parade was the largest since at 2009, when the Chinese Communist Party celebrated 60 years in power. Considering that China is a nation with a fast modernizing military, Stratfor watched the events closely, keeping an especially attentive eye out for the potential display of new weaponry and equipment.

China showed off a large number of cruise and ballistic missiles during the parade, highlighting the scale of its expanded missile arsenal. The designations of these missiles were written in non-Chinese characters, indicating that Beijing wanted to show the world its missile prowess. (Stratfor)
The show of China’s military might which was supposed to be the commemoration of the end of WWII only proved that the world never learned from history.  The mere fact that top level overseas ethnic Chinese were invited and well represented with their local media assets in tow. Is this a deliberate provocation and at the same time a warning to a ‘perceived enemy’?

If that is the intention, how can there be stability in the region? Actually this is the reason why there is an arms race, every nation (especially claimants in the SCS) in the region has started stockpiling military hardware. Aside from the fact that former allies (and non-allies) turned to the ‘big brother’ for armaments and other support to secure their country in case a war broke out.

As what Stratfor observed – “the Chinese undoubtedly will continue to invest heavily in their conventional ballistic and cruise missile arsenal. These missiles will become more capable over time, giving Beijing a powerful tool it can use to threaten, deter or target its potential enemies. As China’s missile arsenal becomes more prominent, the United States and its allies in East Asia will continue developing means to mitigate this threat. The continuing development of Chinese missiles with US and allied countermeasures will remain an important component in the evolution of the security balance in the Pacific.”

Security balance cannot be achieved, it is more on the question of the real intention of such military build up and how can it affect the stable relations among the countries in the region.

In Ryan Martinson article (September 11, 2015) he wrote - "During a July 2015 television news show, Renmin University professor Shi Yinhong was asked to define China’s strategy in the South China Sea. After first declining to answer the question—'I can’t tell this to outsiders. I can’t tell you.', the raspy-voiced professor quickly found a compromise between discretion and the academic’s inherent need to expatiate. With fellow guest, naval analyst Li Jie, nodding on, Shi described China’s strategy in four characters: which means 'bubu weiying' : “Building fortifications after each new advance.”

Professor Shi’s image of an army on the march, carefully consolidating its position after new territory is gained, is only the latest in a long line of metaphors used to depict China’s recent expansion in maritime East Asia. Most are products of American minds. They range from the sartorial to the salacious. Some, like “salami slicing,” are standard terms used by political scientists for decades. Many will doubtless serve as fodder for future scholars seeking to understand both the observers and the observed.”

Therefore no one will know the actual intention and how far will it go in order to achieve its goals. In the end, it’s the weaker nations that will suffer the consequences due to selfishness.
As long as mankind will not heed to the lessons of history especially during the past world wars, lives will be wasted and nothing will be gained but sufferings and more hatred.

Conflict: Outside Looking In by Erick San Juan

Conflict: Outside Looking In by Erick San Juan

Majority of Filipinos are concerned about the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China, according to United States-based Pew Research Center.

In the regional poll, nine out of 10 respondents from the Philippines expressed the most concern about territorial conflicts in the region. Some 56 percent were very concerned while 35 percent were somewhat concerned.

This was followed by Vietnam and Japan, whose 83 percent of citizens were worried about the sea dispute with China.

More Vietnamese are very concerned (60 percent) than the Japanese (52 percent). Those saying they are somewhat concerned were 23 percent in Vietnam and 31 percent in Japan.
Others who expressed fears of the territorial dispute were South Korea (78 percent), Australia (63 percent), India (62 percent), Pakistan (45 percent), Malaysia (45 percent) and Indonesia (41 percent). (From various sources)

Such survey is long overdue to state that Filipinos and other countries in the region are worried and very concerned over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. The mere fact that China has been very vocal on their increased military budget and display of firepower plus the massive reclamation operations are enough reasons that people in this part of the region should be very concerned. And actually the rest of the world to be nervous because any miscalculation and stupidity may cause a regional conflict that can actually lead to a global war.

This survey has also created a somewhat division among observers and analysts, one issue in point is who is the real threat in the region, the US or China? Who benefits from the survey? And most of all what could be the real motive of the said survey? 
What worries pundits outside looking in was the recent statement of China's President Xi Jinping at the Commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japan and the World Anti-Fascist War in Beijing, to quote: "In the interest of peace, China will remain committed to peaceful development. We Chinese love peace. No matter how much stronger it may become, China will never seek hegemony or expansion. It will never inflict its past suffering on any other nation....." Most intelligence analysts believe that the address of Xi could be following the line of Sun Tzu's Art of War, a double speak. Translation-war,war,war!

Could this be the reason why more foreign warships of allies are in the area to protect nation-states?

In one social network group through yahoo mail where I am an active participant, I gave my rejoinder by saying that to argue and fight over who the real threat is and how are we going to deal with China in the issue of the South China Sea are actually of lesser concern. I shared with the group that to argue over spilled milk will not help, we have to prepare for the worst. The worst mistakes our leaders did.

The reality is – we are not prepared at all to fight an external threat. What we have to face right now, domestically, is too much corruption veiled in the guise of rhetorics and play of words like 'daan matuwid’ where officials are beholden to bribe givers, conniving with power brokers and foreign governments with vested interests.

There's NO ACCOUNTABILITY. "Nilalahat ko na." After 'waltzing' with their scheming funders, some of them even attempted to defy their local and foreign 'boss'. Look what happened to them? Planned killing disguised as plane crash, assassination, proxy killing due to greed for power and vengeance against people who don't want to tow the line anymore. Putting them behind bars to teach them a lesson and so many kinds of treachery in the 'Book'.

We have to be ever vigilant. The immediate external enemies will not attack us frontally. The enemy is again from within. We have to review our history, especially the possible pattern of scenario when before the Second World War where the Japanese were the poor OFW's who were actually 'sleepers' (hibernated agents, spies and operators) who metamorphosed as officers and members of the Japanese Imperial Army.

I don’t want to sound like an alarmist but how sure are we that our friendly ethnic wealthy Chinese neighbors and siblings are still with us? Most of them strategically control in their pockets barangay officials, local politicians (few are now in the government service, military and law enforcement).

This is a nagging question that we have to consider in order to protect our country from forces within. Are we united to stand against such threat? This is the time we have to be serious and gather our act together if we want to win this battle. Be ever be vigilant and may God bless us all.

Which Interest Will Prevail? by Erick San Juan

Which Interest Will Prevail? by Erick San Juan


The U.S. regards itself as the leader of the world, which clearly reveals its mentality of hegemony. It also holds that hegemony and contributes to stability, but this is not the fact.

A good example is the Iraq war, launched by the U.S. more than ten years ago and caused unprecedented turmoil. The reason why the U.S. was repeatedly set back is it seeks to shape an unfair global order in which it tends to monopolize benefits. (Source: Zhang Yuan (People's Daily Online), August 27, 2015)

This statement only proves that countries like China and Russia will always seek ways to change this US tendency to be the dominant superpower and divert to multi-polar world. And according to Zhang Yuan, “Sino-Russian" relations are closer than they have been at any time in the past fifty years, giving them the chance to reshape the global order to their liking.

Indeed China and Russia intend to improve the global order instead of ruining it. Both will carry forward good things from the current order. Moreover, U.S. dominance has damaged the development and security of international community, so any U.S. wishful actions to overthrow other countries’ regime must be thwarted.

China proposes to join the U.S. to build a new type of major power relationship, which is different from the order dominated by Washington: never seek confrontation and conflicts. The U.S. should change its mentality to work with China to build a mutually beneficial new type of relationship.”

But despite the rhetorics, China and then USSR had been in conflict for so long. According to Agence France Presses 9/1/15 beneath the Sino-Russian warmth, there is still a border fear and betrayal. It reportedly started during China's cultural revolution where anyone who had contact with foreigners was held liable to be branded a spy. Despite China and Russian current closeness and shared communist past, the neighbors were once bitter rivals, their enmity reaching the brink of war during the time of Chairman Mao Zedong.

This is the reason why the meeting of the G2 (US and China) leaders this September is crucial as we mentioned in our last article on the events to look out for this month. Although – "Assessing US national security adviser Susan Rice’s weekend consultations in Beijing, the Global Times acknowledged that tensions have been building up in the relations and the root problem is that China’s rise is 'causing a sense of crisis' in the US thinking, which manifests as China-bashing. Whereas China’s past attitude has been to ignore the 'hawkish noises at critical times of China-US ties,' it has not yielded positive results and, therefore, Chinese authorities could consider some systemic adjustment in order to enhance the effectiveness of their responses, and resources home and abroad need to be mobilized.” (BY M.K. Bhadrakumar on Asia Times online)

Remember that the visit to Beijing by US National Security Advisor Susan Rice last August 28-29 prior to President Xi Jinping’s US visit was also met with opposition: “On the eve of Rice’s arrival in Beijing, Chinese navy conducted a live fire drill in the East China Sea. According to Xinhua, the “exercise involved more than 100 warships, dozens of aircraft and several missile launch battalions. Nearly 100 missiles and several hundred shells and bombs were fired during the exercise.”

A commentary featured by People’s Daily on the eve of Rice’s arrival in Beijing asserted that China cannot accept the global order that is “shaped to the US liking” as it “jeopardized China’s legitimate interests.” It said the US’ “mentality of hegemony … seeks to shape an unfair global order in which it tends to monopolize benefits” and this adversely impacts stability and security. The commentary asserted that China and Russia “intend to improve the global order” without disrupting it and will “thwart” the US’ agenda of regime change.

Equally, an article last week in the National Interest magazine penned by the Chinese ambassador in Washington, Cui Tiankai, in the run-up to Xi’s visit to the US was noticeably lacking in effusiveness. Somber in tone, it urged the US to foster “good habits of cooperation,” which Cui explained in these lines – “never lose focus, stick to shared goals and interests, accommodate each others legitimate concerns, benefit from each others wisdom, overcome obstacles that hold us back – and most importantly – prevent our differences from dominating the agenda of the bilateral relationship.”

Although China’s Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington was met by opposition even from US presidentiables, it will be an event that will alter the geopolitical stage.

In spite of the propaganda and counter propaganda coming from different camps, the best interest will surely prevail.

Assessments coming from some experts in geopolitics see this meeting of Obama and Xi as an effort to somehow ease the tension in the Pacific region. But for whatever its worth, let us give peace a chance so that development of countries in the region can be realized.

Self-fulfilling Time Line by Erick San Juan

There are now several videos and articles going around or shall we say – trending on the internet particularly the things that will happen in September.

Are these the globalist’s self-fulfilling assessments and programmed scenarios? It is like saying to us that we have to prepare for the worst and pray for the best. The crisis by design is on.

Michael Snyder wrote something about this in his article last August 17 – “Even after everything that has been said and written in the alternative media about what is going to happen during September, most Americans are still completely ignorant about the history changing events that are going to take place next month."

First of all, the most important template for global governance that the United Nations has ever dreamed up is going to be launched at a major conference from September 25th to September 27th.  The launching of this “new universal agenda” is such an important event that Pope Francis is going to be traveling to New York City to give the address that will kick off this conference.  This new plan is known as “the 2030 Agenda“, and it is being called “Agenda 21 on steroids”.  This is one of the most significant steps toward global government in the history of the world. Translation: a one world government becoming a reality this time.

Secondly, we also know that a major push for the establishment of a Palestinian state is being planned for September.  It has been widely reported by the international media that France plans to submit a UN Security Council resolution which would formally recognize a Palestinian state for the first time ever.  This is one of the most critical moments in the modern history of the Middle East, and yet the mainstream media in the United States is saying virtually nothing about it.

In September we also have the end of the Shemitah year, the fourth blood moon, the end of the Jade Helm exercises.  Despite the denial of NASA, we were alerted by a possible impact of a large asteroid named Nibiru or 'Planet X'. All over the Internet there is rampant speculation about a major stock market crash, devastating natural disasters and the weird “coincidences” that are pointing to the date of 9/23.

And even though articles and videos that discuss all of these things are going viral all over the Internet, the mainstream media in the United States has been strangely silent about all of it.”

Why is this so? Are the Americans in denial of the impending economic earthquake as what Snyder wrote - "When I first came across Sputnik News (a fully owned and operated by the government of Russia) and it is an international multimedia news service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on 9 December 2013. Sputnik replaces the RIA Novosti news agency on an international stage (which remains active in Russia) and Voice of Russia.

And I have to admit that Sputnik News is willing to address many things that the corporate-controlled media in the U.S. simply will not touch.  For example, the following is from a recent Sputnik article about the financial crash that is coming this fall…"

The founder of Trends Research, who predicted the “panic of 2008,” believes that soon we will witness the crash of a global stock market and predicts “the economic earthquake [that] will send reverberations around the world”.

“There’s going to be panic on the streets from Wall Street to Shanghai, to the UK down to Brazil.” Gerald Celente told King World News. “You’re going to see one market after another begin to collapse.”

Analyst Larry Edelson took the fear to the next level as he even predicted the exact day the catastrophe begins, or, as he called it, a “roller-coaster ride through hell.”

“On October 7, 2015, the first economic super cycle since 1929 will trigger a global financial crisis of epic proportions.” He said.

“It will bring Europe, Japan and the United States to their knees, sending nearly one billion human beings on a roller-coaster ride through hell for the next five years. A ride like no generation has ever seen.”

In one recent article, RT was even willing to discuss the coming end of the Biblical Shemitah year in September. The report also jive with the Internet's Red Flag News of big list of 33 things to happen in September by Michael Snyder saying that next month will change history. He advised everyone to prepare for what you believe will happen. He added that Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, an ultra orthodox Jew has indicated that the 'messiah' that the Jewish people are expecting could come at this time. While the Muslims are expecting for their 'Mahdi' to come and the Days of Awe by Christians waiting for the return of Jesus Christ..

Indeed, the hysteria over next month has reached such a fever pitch that even  seasoned experts are cracking open their dusty Bible for signposts.”

Yes, the ‘signs of the times’ are quite scary and most of them will happen next month that are actually man-made or planned agenda by the globalists. But the mere fact that most of these events will coincide with natural and biblical confluence of events – is the world coming to an end soon?
 

The War Has Started

The War Has Started
By Erick San Juan


In recent years, Japan, the U.S. and Europe have been accused of fomenting currency war by employing monetary stimulus that drove down their currencies. These accusations were off base: by boosting domestic spending with easier monetary policy, everyone, including their trading partners, benefited.

But China’s move this week to devalue the yuan is an exception. Because, its action was not part of a broader monetary boost, the effect will be to siphon demand from its trading partners while giving nothing in return. It is a zero-sum game and thus the first shot in a currency war. (Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/08/13)

Basically, the hype that Chinese economy is doing great and that it had so much money to be spending much on military upgrades were all just simple hype. Sounds familiar? Remember my article about how the Soviets in the 90's were gypped by Gorbachev's 'Perestroika' and 'Glastnost' and his globalists counterpart that USSR is the next economic miracle? It was only during the chopping of the Berlin wall which I witnessed in November 1989 that the world found out that the eastern establishment had already collapsed (pls read it at ericksanjuan.blogspot.com).

In China, growing domestic problems, the infighting among the princelings, too much corruption at the top level, pay back time for overseas Chinese who have supported mother China to be great but conniving with some corrupt members of top Politburo officials in their alleged money laundering operation, President Xi Jinping's alleged corruption was even exposed by Bloomberg and his counter move of blame game and jailing former and present leaders of China he perceived as corrupt, the latest freefall of China's stockmarket, housing and infrastructure bubble that cannot be kept secret anymore pushed its leaders to start the currency war.

In an interview with Rajiv Biswas, Asia-Pacific chief economist at HIS by Al Jazeera, focusing on China's yuan and a potential global currency war, Biswas cited the following – “China's decision to devalue the yuan against the US dollar reflects concerns about the weak performance of the Chinese export sector this year... The sector has faced a perfect storm of sluggish global demand for its exports and eroding competitiveness due to rising Chinese manufacturing wages, as well as the depreciation of the euro, yen, and many other emerging markets' currencies against the US dollar this year.

With the US Federal Reserve expected to begin lifting its policy interest rate soon, which would have put further downwards pressure on the euro, yen and emerging markets' currencies, pressure had built up for the Chinese government to allow the yuan to move lower against the US dollar before the Fed rate hike.

Although President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang have made economic reforms and a transition to domestic demand-led growth policy priorities, the sharp economic slowdown and stock market crash have forced them to take measures to stabilize the Chinese economy. The export sector has been a key growth engine for the economy...

While China will continue to make a gradual transition from an economy driven by investment and exports towards an economy driven by domestic consumption, this transition will take many years. Meanwhile during the current cyclical slowdown, the government is again having to resort to boosting its traditional growth engines of investment and exports to try to stabilize the economy, using its toolbox of currency devaluation to improve export competitiveness, and fiscal and monetary stimulus to boost domestic demand.”

The years that it will take for China’s economy to bounce back could raise discontent among its citizenry and may create an internal conflict in the process. Such situation may lead to what we have been saying all along that in order to pacify the growing frustration from the Chinese populace against its government, they have to go to war to unite them towards an outside enemy. Pundits believe that the illusionary 9 dash line and bullying could be the pretext for war to unite the angry Chinese people.

As I have been saying, the growing tension in the South and East China Sea, if not handled with diplomacy and by cooler heads might lead to a regional conflict. And with the alliances already in place, such conflict can trigger a global war.

Finally, from Mike Larson of Money and Markets - "this move is sure to worsen U.S.-China relations. U.S. manufacturers have already been suffering from a rising dollar, and politicians have lambasted China in the past for manipulating its currency to give its companies a relative advantage. This is going to increase those tensions significantly, and raise the possibility of retaliatory 'trade war' type actions."

Bottom line: The capital markets were already getting more volatile and risky, as I’ve been warning for several months. Now China is launching its most aggressive currency war in decades – threatening to add even more uncertainty and risk to the mix. So if you haven’t taken protective action, now may be a very good time to do so.