Wednesday, November 30, 2016

TPP: Calculated Risk by Erick San Juan

TPP: Calculated Risk by Erick San Juan

If we have our own ‘change is coming’ ala Duterte style, with President elect Donald Trump of the world’s superpower, changes are coming too and one of these changes is the withdrawal of the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Program or TPP.

US President Barack Obama is the one who pushed for the TPP together with his pivot to Asia back in 2011.

The Obama administration and many in the business community view the deal as both an economic opportunity and in some ways a foreign policy one.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama and his team saw the deal as part of a broader strategy to assert American values and interests both in Asia and around the world in opposition to China's growing power and influence.

China is not included in the TPP. Instead, the deal comprises a diverse group of nations (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam) that the U.S. wanted to build stronger economic ties with.

Obama argued that by helping write the trade agreement that set policy for a wide group of nations, the United States could push for higher labor and environmental standards abroad. This would benefit American workers, he argued, because it would mean that companies in the TPP nations would abide by workplace standards that more closely resembled those in the U.S. With more equitable workplace standards, there would be fewer incentives for American companies to treat their workers poorly or outsource their jobs abroad.

The administration argued that the more direct benefit for Americans would be expanded and simplified trade with many of these nations. Obama's team estimated the TPP would lift 18,000 tariffs imposed on U.S. products sold abroad. This would lower the price of American-made products abroad and therefore potentially increase their sales, which could create jobs back home.

Obama did not state this so bluntly, but his argument is essentially that the trends that are causing American jobs to disappear — more international trade, technology, globalization, and automation — are not going away, and trade agreements like TPP can help the U.S. thrive in the new economy.

But soon-to-be US President Trump has different views on the TPP.

With the TPP, 12 countries would have been able to share in the perks of this free trade bonanza. That involves the reduction or elimination of tariffs (a tax or duty to be paid on goods), new rules for resolving trade disputes, and the renegotiation of subsidies for the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, among many, many other very complicated things.

Trump’s beef with the TPP is that he claims it will hurt American workers and undercut US companies. His stance on trade is protectionist: he believes that the average American farmer and auto worker has lost out from the fact that labor is cheap in developing countries like China, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

He’s definitely not wrong here—many low-skilled jobs that used to belong to the backbone of American industrial towns have been shipped overseas because, hey, if no one (read: the government) is stopping profit-driven corporations from lowering production costs, what incentive would they have to continue manufacturing products in higher cost jurisdictions like the US?

“Instead of negotiating with 12 countries in the TPP, he thinks he can get a better deal for Americans if there are fewer countries at the table,” says Stuart Trew, trade economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and co-author of “The Trans-Pacific Partnership & Canada: A Citizen’s Guide.” “These are interesting times for trade. Trump is shaking up the orthodoxy.”

Indeed, the TPP has long been touted by critics as a grand American plan to plant their flag in East Asia and counter the perceived economic threat that is China, by getting first dibs in trade negotiations with key growth markets in Asia-Pacific like Australia, Brunei, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

But with the pledge of president elect Donald Trump, to dump or to renegotiate the TPP, a window of opportunity is now open to China.

China is now positioning itself as free trade's new champion and seizing economic leadership of the Pacific Rim.

Under President Barack Obama the TPP was sold as a way to counter China's rise, and its possible demise is now viewed in China as a US retreat from the region.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has seized the opportunity at the APEC summit last weekend and pushed his own free trade vision, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

It involves 16 countries including Australia and Japan, but excludes America.

Mr. Xi is pushing to make it bigger and is leaving the door open to Latin American countries like Peru who are keen to benefit from the growing economies of Asia.

The move would be a massive boost for China's plans to shift the existing US-dominated world economic order.

With billions of dollars on offer, China is trying to supplant the World Bank and the IMF with its Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Now that China is picking off ASEAN countries one by one through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), will China rise as the new economic power using its cash diplomacy?

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak signed off on US$34 billion ($46 billion) in trade and investment agreements.

A couple of weeks earlier, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte signed US$13 billion ($17 billion) in trade and aid deals.

Cambodia was already on side but to secure support Beijing offered 31 trade agreements and US$300 million ($406 million). Now attention is turning to Thailand, which since its military coup in 2014 is tilting towards China.

One by one China is picking off the ASEAN countries that were traditionally aligned to America and united against China's territorial claims in the South China Sea.

China's control in the South China Sea is as much about economics as it is national pride. About US$5 trillion ($6.7 trillion) — or half the world's trade — moves through the waters of the South China Sea.

Controlling and regulating those waterways will give China enormous power in setting the economic rules of the game.

To achieve this China is breaking the template that has been in place since the end of Word War II — most Asian nations accepted American security guarantees and were then left to focus on economic growth, stability and prosperity.

In the new Chinese order the remaining ASEAN countries face a choice. If they want to benefit from China's chequebook diplomacy then the cost might be to accept China's claims over the South China Sea.

At the end of the day China hopes to cleave ASEAN from America's grasp and make the United States strategic pivot back into Asia unworkable.

They are counting on Donald Trump as president advocating a more isolationist stance.

Although Trump’s administration will begin in January 2017, the present confluence of events might lead to global financial crisis beginning with the US Federal Reserve possible rate increase and the outcome could be devastating to at least four big national banks including the European Union and China.

And if this means trouble, is the inevitable global war still in the offing? And as a nation, are we prepared?

Research Sources:

Here's why Trump hates the Trans-Pacific Partnership so much
By Vanmala Subramaniam, VICE News
Nov. 25, 2016

Trump's Pledge to Dump the TPP Just First Step in Anti-Trade Agenda
by Perry Bacon Jr. (NBC News)
November 23, 2016

Trans-Pacific Partnership: China seizes trade opportunity after Donald Trump's threat - Analysis
By China correspondent Matthew Carney (ABC News)
November 24, 2016

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Never Learned from History by Erick San Juan

Never Learned from History by Erick San Juan

It seems that after over six months, the election fever is still on and the country’s socio-political gap is getting wider as crucial issues emerged. The latest of which is the ‘surprise burial’ of the former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani last November 18 at 12 high noon.

It will be remembered that Marcos’ burial is in the election promise list during the campaign period of team DU30 and allegedly in return for the campaign donation given by the Marcoses. It was even confirmed by President Rody Duterte in one of his interviews that Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos donated for his campaign funds.

So the big fuss that the anti-Marcos/anti-Martial Law protesters are staging is due to the fact that the burial was likened to a thief in the night and a lot were surprised. Former President Ramos got pissed off that despite his meeting with PRRD last week, he was not informed not even by his boys who are now in the cabinet of DU30.

Duterte has defended the burial, saying laws entitled Marcos to be buried at the heroes’ cemetery as a former president and soldier. Although varied reports said that PDU30 was not aware of the Marcos burial last November 18 and the flowers from Malacanang was a SOP  (standard procedure).

Is PDU30 convinced by the Marcoses to fast track all legal remedies so that the FM secret accounts in the Carribean under a shell corporation at the British Virgin Islands be recovered before the globalists garnished it due to the expose of the Panama Papers?

Aside from the so-called Martial Law victims and protesters, former President Fidel Ramos, once again reminded President Duterte to be very careful of his decisions that concerns almost healed wounds from the past.

The number one supporter and a staunch believer of a Duterte presidency, PFVR said that the move of the Marcos family to hasten the burial of the patriarch, with the help of the police and military, is a “step backwards” for the Duterte administration.

"You must understand that is just a happening in a series of happenings. The scheme of the Marcos family with the connivance of some elements of Armed Forces including the national police -- some only, not everybody -- is a step backwards for this administration in the sense that they are losing support, they are losing friends," Ramos said. (Various sources)

Is the former president’s statement a warning to the present administration to be cautious of things to come that may contribute to his downfall if he will not heed the writings on the wall? Just asking.

The alleged payback of the Marcos donation through the burial of the ‘dictator’ at the LNMB can be a trigger to a series of events that might be a repeat of the Erap ouster in 2001. Duterte should make decisions based on intelligent advises from people who know more like PFVR on matters of politics, diplomacy and national security.

Now that the outrage of the netizens and the millenials from the internet (via social media networking) to the streets is gaining momentum, are we geared towards a social volcano in the offing ready to erupt any moment now?

No matter how often people say to move on when it comes to the Marcos’ burial, it is quite obvious why the past administrations did not touch such controversial issue because wounds of hate and anger will pry open and create a divided nation in the process. Everything will be affected, people will turn to parliament of the streets and economic activities will be hampered. And here we go again, just like in the 70’s when Martial Law was declared, same old chants and placards, and same old, now old activists and protesters of the Marcos years.

Some say that this ‘Marcos’ political victory’ is a step closer for the younger Marcos, Jr. to win the second highest position of the land. What? We have been fooled once, and maybe twice but another Marcos in the Palace? WTF! Never again!

Let us not allow another deception by the family that plundered this nation and when exiled, helped by people like me and the original Marcos loyalists hoping that they will acknowledge and grant what was promised and be given what due us. Nothing. Many of the original loyalists got sick and died without even visited, assisted nor given condolences by any one of the family despite that they're all back and in government service. The worst, my good friend, Col. Rexor Ver, one of the sons of the late Fabian Ver died without getting any assistance for his medication from this family. All but empty promises and lies.

Let us all learn from history and never to allow a repeat.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Is Marxism Dead? By Erick San Juan

Is Marxism Dead? By Erick San Juan

Pray that the Obama/ Clinton/global elitist cabal hasn’t found the Marxist way to compromise the promise of Tuesday night, because it’s still a long way between now and January 20, 2017 Inauguration. (Source: Marxists still looking for the way to compromise Tuesday’s election by Judi McLeod)

Will there be a coup even before the president-elect takes its oath of office as the new US President?

In the article by Doug Hagmann last November 12 he writes, it is now Hillary Clinton and her Marxist supporters who are threatening our Representative Republic through the petition website Immediately following Donald Trump’s election victory, a petition was launched to sway the Electoral College to “Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19.

The Electoral College will meet and vote on December 19, 2016, to certify the Trump victory as defined within our Constitution. Remember, the United States is a Representative Republic and not a Democracy, no matter how many times journalists want to change our constitution through language and the repetitiveness of their lies.

It is typical for the Clintons and those in their camp to do the exact opposite of what they say publicly. This has been proven through the Wikileaks release of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to big money interests behind closed doors confirming that what she says and does in public is not consistent with what she says to (and does for) her private, big dollar supporters and special interest groups.

Unable to comprehend such duplicity and blinded by their idolatry, these useful idiots, including the Hollywood elite are pushing for the Electors of the Electoral College to cast their ballots for Clinton on December 19, 2016. They believe that they have the chance to change the outcome of the election, an event that would surely throw this already heavily divided country into a very real civil war, something the Marxists Progressives have been longing for. Sounds familiar! In fact, my own government insider admitted as much exactly as I have documented in my previous reports.

As to the petition to the Electoral College, it should be noted that they currently have over 2.2 million “signatures” and are gaining on their goal of three million.
> No one should think that the globalist power structure, for which Hillary Rodham Clinton is the face, will willingly cede their power. They will not go quietly into the night. Unless a secret concession will be ok'd by incoming President Trump as told. Instead, they will utilize the tactics of their patron saint, Saul Alinsky, whose book Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer himself.  We are seeing this play out on the streets of Portland, Los Angeles, New York and other cities in between.”

If we have liberation theologists and Maoists support thru the National Democratic Front, Communist Party of the Philippines and New People’s Army, in America its the secret funds of China through pro-Beijing big business Chinese based in the US funding the Marxists. We have to remember that the same Chinese block supported the presidency of Bill Clinton. So its a no-no this time from the Zionists who really control America. I was even shock to know that some agit-props in the US are NDF US base supporting Hillary.

I'm right after all that's the main reason why the super elites shifted their secret support to Trump.

But is Donald Trump really an anti-establishment president?

“The establishment is concerned that Trump would “shake-up” long standing policies under the Democratic and Republican duopoly that benefited private interest groups:

He promised to build a wall along the Mexican border and temporarily bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. He questioned Washington’s longstanding commitment to NATO allies, called for cutting foreign aid, praised President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, vowed to rip up international trade deals, assailed China and suggested Asian allies develop nuclear weapons.

“I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall” Trump said in 2015. Trump’s plan to build a wall along the borders of Mexico will not stop immigrants from crossing the borders without addressing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has devastated millions of small Mexican farmers.

As for NATO troops who are supported by U.S. taxpayers, Trump told Charles Lane and the editorial board of the Washington Post on March 21st, that he does “not” want to pull out NATO. Here is what he said: No, I don’t want to pull it out. NATO was set up at a different time. NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country. We’re borrowing, we’re borrowing all of this money. We’re borrowing money from China, which is a sort of an amazing situation. But things are a much different thing. NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe but we’re spending a lot of money. Number 1, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved. And I think we bear the, you know, not only financially, we bear the biggest brunt of it. Obama has been stronger on the Ukraine than all the other countries put together, and those other countries right next door to the Ukraine. And I just say we have, I’m not even knocking it, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s fair, we’re not treated fair. I don’t think we’re treated fair, Charles, anywhere. If you look everything we have. You know, South Korea is very rich. Great industrial country. And yet we’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do. We’re constantly, you know, sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games, doing other. We’re reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing. Trump will support NATO as long as the EU pays for it.

One other positive note, Trump does want a better relationship with Russia who has been fighting alongside Syrian government forces against the Islamic State. Trump wants the U.S. and Russian forces to work together to defeat the Islamic State. Putin has expressed his willingness to work with Trump to rebuild a relationship that is mutually beneficial. The New York Times also made accusations that “with Mr. Trump praising Mr. Putin and American investigators concluding that Russians had hacked Democratic email messages.” There is no proof that Russia hacked the Democratic National Convention’s (DNC) emails or that Trump is linked to Vladimir Putin.” (Source: Is it Fact or Fiction? US Media Says that New World Order is in Jeopardy with a Trump Presidency by Timothy Alexander Guzman, Global Research, November 11, 2016)

But what concerns most of us on the other side of the globe, the biggest continent, Asia, What Does Trump Victory Mean for Asia? An “Isolationist America” or More “Soft Power”? as what was cited by The New Atlas last November 10 – “With the victory of Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential elections, many commentators, analysts and academics have “predicted” a more isolationist America. For Asia specifically, particularly those in need of US intervention to prop up their unpopular, impotent political causes, they fear an ebbing of US support.

However, as history has shown, the whims of US voters rarely has an impact on US foreign policy, particularly amidst the more subtle use of US “soft power.”

US policy toward Asia has been a historical, socioeconomic and military continuum marked by a consistent desire for geopolitical and socioeconomic primacy in the region stretching back for over a century. Since World War 2, the US has attempted to contain a rising China, temper and exploit emerging developing nations across Southeast Asia and prevent nations subjugated to US domination (Japan, South Korea and the Philippines) from achieving anything resembling an independent foreign and domestic policy.

This is a continuum that has transcended presidential administrations and congressional shifts of power for decades.

The networks that primarily seek to establish, protect and expand US primacy in Asia are driven by corporate and financial special interests including banks, the energy industry, defense contractors, agricultural and pharmaceutical giants, the US entertainment industry and media as well as tech giants.

They achieve primacy through a variety of activities ranging from market domination through incremental advances in “free trade,” the funding of academic and activist groups through organizations like the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Open Society, Freedom House and USAID as well as direct pressure on the governments of respective Asian states through both overt and covert political, economic and military means.

This is a process that takes place independent of both the White House and the US Congress.

Regardless of how elections turn out, this process will continue so long as the source of these collective special interests’ power remains intact and unopposed.

For Asian states, in the wake of Trump’s victory, keeping track of and dealing with the actual networks used to project American primacy into Asia Pacific is more important than weighing the isolationist rhetoric of president-elect Donald Trump.”

There are a lot to speculate on a Trump administration, like our own president, surprises and maybe blunders will surely occur for days to come.

Just like what President Obama said today to Trump, "Trump soon to face sobering reality check". Meaning- who's the real boss? Who rules?

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Yolanda Debacle by Erick San Juan

Yolanda Debacle by Erick San Juan

The commemoration of the 3rd anniversary of the super typhoon Yolanda’s devastation in the Visayas was once again marred with the shortcomings of the previous administration. Funds were allegedly missing because the victims of the calamity are still suffering from poor living conditions.

Organizations under the auspices of the United Nations kept saying that our country is one of the vulnerable nations that has and will greatly suffer due to climate change. May it be dry or wet season, we experienced a great loss of lives and properties because of the so-called climate change (a.k.a. global warming).

Actually this could be the reason why the former president Fidel Ramos got pissed off when President Rody Duterte reiterated his stand against the signing of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It was in July that PDU30 hinted in his speech that he will not honor the climate change pact on carbon emission.

But last November 7, during a speech at the oath-taking of the new officers of the National Press Club in Malacañang Palace, the president announced his decision that he will now back the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, after a near-unanimous approval by his Cabinet, and he will be signing the historic pact.

According to the 2016 Climate Change Vulnerability Index, the Philippines is one of the 15 countries most vulnerable to climate change. But what is the Paris Agreement all about?

According to the article of Tony La Viña (former dean of the Ateneo School of Government), “The Paris Agreement is not just a carbon emissions agreement but a comprehensive sustainable development agreement. It is an adaptation, loss and damage, finance, technology and capacity building agreement – all of which are essential to our survival. We cannot cherry-pick but have to accept the whole package. But we can do so in our own terms.

To opt out of the Paris Agreement is to allow developed countries to escape from their responsibility to compensate us for causing climate change. The Paris Agreement is the only process where we can get developed countries to be accountable for their emissions through a loss and damage mechanism and through provisions that require them as a matter of climate justice to provide support to us so we can adapt to and mitigate climate change. Indeed, the Paris Agreement has good provisions on finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Our delegation worked hard in Paris to get the best text possible for these provisions.

The Paris Agreement does not impose emissions reduction limitations on us. We can determine our own targets based on our development needs. We can adopt targets but we can make that conditional on support by developed countries. That’s what we did in Paris – we did offer 70% but we said we will do it only if support was given. If the Duterte administration wishes, it can lower the number to maybe 30-40% and perhaps commit to do 10-15% of that as unconditional since we are already doing many things on our own. Such a decision would be credible and acceptable.

The Paris Agreement is a good document whose consequences will last generations. While this legally binding agreement in itself is not enough to solve the climate crisis, it is as strong, ambitious, and as equitable as it can be for an agreement that required consensus by 195 countries—a positive beginning to a long and hard journey towards climate justice.”

Yes, there are concerted efforts of countries around the world to address the so called threats of global warming/climate change but as what we have been saying for several years now in our radio program and in our writings that there is one element that this body is missing or has refused to acknowledge, which is the man-made cause of climate change, that is weather manipulation or weather engineering.

Strange behavior of weather systems and abnormal movements of typhoons that we have never before witnessed are the signatures of someone or something is really manipulating Mother Nature that has caused great dangers to humankind.

Could it be that through this evil science of manipulating weather is the reason for people of various nations to be compelled to sign a pact to address the man made disaster? In the various UN-sponsored gatherings of leaders of various nations, there is always opposition to such move because it will only hamper the growth and development of countries especially the developing ones.

Treaties that will only manipulate nations and like a herd of cattle, will lead them to the slaughterhouse because the real culprit of such world disaster such as global warming is actually known as man-made and it will go on as long as the evil geniuses behind it are not exposed and punish.

Who may taught that such weather engineering is only seen in the sci-fi movies?

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Is The Honeymoon Period Over? By Erick San Juan

Is The Honeymoon Period Over? By Erick San Juan

The first 100 days of the Duterte administration has shown several good and bad aspects in its governance.  Those who voted for DU30 gradually find mistakes and a lot of blunders especially in his style of using cuss words. Campaign supporters suddenly turned sour and now become critics to the administration’s shortcomings. Is the honeymoon period over?  What went wrong? Is there an exodus of supporters turning sour already?

The number one supporter and the man who believed he can do it as the president of the land is no other than former president Fidel Ramos.  Now a supporter-turned-critic, PFVR wrote in his articles what  a true leader  is and how he sees the Filipinos being led in the wrong direction. Even pundits accepted DU30 as a 'necessary evil' in a divided nation. But oppositors believed that former President Ramos created a 'Frankenstein' out of Digong. Of course the diehard Duterte fans in turn criticize PFVR, and in the long run we are again divided. Is this what we hoped for and asked for after being led to the pits of the previous administration’s 'tuwid na daan'? Where are the promised changes?

Ramos said from day one, a national leader must define where he will bring the nation and show the people how to get there. He leads by setting the right example that the citizenry should emulate. He leads by making the correct decisions for the betterment of the many, not the enrichment of the few.

The bottom line is, Ramos said, Duterte  cannot do it alone. Nether can the government do it alone.

“But when all of us strive together with one goal in mind, and abide by the same precious values and commitments—we become a strong nation, able to achieve the higher quality of life we have always yearned for—in an environment of enduring peace and sustainable development,” he said.

He added that the government was “losing badly” after Duterte’s first 100 days because the administration gave priority to the war on drugs at the expense of alleviating poverty, bringing down the cost of living, attracting foreign investments and generating jobs. (Source: PH a sinking ship — FVR by Sandy Araneta @manilastandard)

PFVR was right because of the so much attention given to the war on drugs and criminality, but where are the big fishes? Why eliminate the poor people who are victims of hardships and unemployment? The war on poverty was not addressed and it was shown on the latest survey that the government should now focus on the poverty issue and generating jobs. The common (tao) people most probably DU30’s supporters are now asking the present leadership to put the war on drugs operation in the back burner and have real and tangible government policies that will help the poor Pinoys in their day-to-day struggle to survive.

Another very crucial matter that is being overlooked by the DU30’s administration due to his war on drugs is the country’s security from external threats. For the president, the war on drugs is too big that the national police is not enough and so he also included the armed forces to help in the campaign against drug users, dealers and protectors. Added to this is his campaign to bring an end to the Abu Sayyaf menace in the south that has sent several troops in the area instead of getting the mastermind and financier who basically owns the businesses in Sulu and nearby provinces to lessen the collateral damage and deaths of our soldiers.

Now the crucial question lies in the external and maritime defense that we needed badly in this exciting time where the rumblings of a possible world war is in the offing. External threat is always there especially Duterte announced the suspension of maritime patrol with the US on the country’s coastal area.

With the endless verbal attack on the US, the United Nations and the EU, with the possible termination of agreements and ties with them, are we headed to deliberately weakening our capabilities and defense in relation to our alliances in case a war broke out.

The present leadership is perceived dragging the whole country to the wrong direction when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy among nations. The growing number of Filipinos who are in favor of the US than China is already a clear sign that we must not trust China wholeheartedly and do away with Washington’s help in the process.

We are approaching a year of global turbulence and a helping hand from an old ally will somehow help us get through during the hard times. Unless President DU30 changes his mind on certain important matters such as this, we will all go down with him unwittingly,

God forbid!