Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Saber Rattling Bluff by Erick San Juan

Saber Rattling Bluff by Erick San Juan

In these exciting times it is like we are on the edge of our seats breathtakingly awaiting a possible nuclear world war. Or its just some saber rattling orchestrated by the super elites controlling the alliance of military industrial complex and using real life puppets.

“Why? Because there will be no nuclear launch or missile launch or other military attack. Why? Because to do so would be sheer lunacy. Nobody in his right mind who wants to win a war will never telegraph his punches. Its either an element of surprise, the so called 'first strike policy' vis-a-vis a 'mutually assured destruction'.

The North Korea leadership, Kim Jong-un who's living a good life and has his own 'Ibiza of North Korea', unless it has a death wish, will absolutely not initiate military violence. While it may engage in back-and-forth hyperbolic rhetoric, it will not provide the excuse for a reprisal that will devastate the country and destroy his  government. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and his political counsel know that to start a war would be lunatic and suicidal. As Vox notes:

“North Korea is more rational than you think: The assumption that the country is run by a lunatic is not only incorrect — it’s dangerous.”

The rationale political figures on the US side are aware of this as well.

Donald Trump sounds lunatic, but he can’t be considered suicidal in the conventional meaning of the word, as he’ll not be in the line of fire. However, to start a nuclear conflagration that leads to massive deaths of not only North Koreans but South Koreans, Japanese, and American military personnel in the region would be a 'hara kiri' for Trump’s business interests. The devastation and fall-out among allies would render the Trump brand radioactive.

So no, there will not be a military response from either side. The American side could not emerge from initiating such an asymmetric attack with any pretense of international prestige or high standing intact.

The record is clear, no nuclear power has ever dared attack another nuclear power. There has been all kinds of braggadocio but never a military confrontation. Consider the current situation in the Doklam Plateau where there has been a standoff for 50-plus days between two populous nuclear powers, India and China. Neither side has yet resorted to violence.

North Korea has never attacked the US. It is only the US, when it intervened in a Korean civil war, that engaged in battle against North Korea. So what moral authority has the North Korea to threaten the U.S.? After all, when discussing military threats it is the US holding hostile military maneuvers in Korean waters (not North Korea holding military maneuvers in US waters).

The US lack of diplomacy — all stick and little or no carrot — has demonstrated to be a failure in achieving denuclearization. (Source: Kim Petersen @Global Research, August 14, 2017)

I have written some articles on denuclearization and methinks that this is not possible as long as countries with nuclear warheads will not even disclose on the number of such warheads they keep in their nuclear arsenals. Only time will tell when one superpower will push the button that will start a world war and end humanity.

When cooler heads prevail, there is a solution to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula sans the intervention of the 'super elites' through the current leadership of Washington.

According to Stephen Lendman (Challenging America’s Military Madness, Global Research, August 13, 2017) – “It’s time for China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and other world community nations to challenge America’s imperial recklessness.

The risk of possible nuclear war is too great to stay silent. Failure to act could let the unthinkable happen. South Korea especially is threatened.

War on the peninsula risks unthinkable carnage on both sides of the DMZ. Following his May election, President Moon Jae-in urged outreach to resolve longstanding differences with Pyongyang. He suggested meeting Kim Jong-un face-to-face.

Instead, he become hostage to the 'super elites' imperial agenda, supporting illegal sanctions on the DPRK, suggesting they be strengthened.

At the same time, he called for a “complete and thorough overhaul” of Seoul’s already formidable military. He’s more amenable to provocative US THAAD missile systems on South Korean territory, menacing the region.

Over 70 years since WW II ended, South Korea and Japan remain occupied by US forces, provoking North Korea, China and Russia, affording America’s allies the illusion of protection.

Cooler heads among strategic leaders could still neutralize the war threats and preempt the hostile rhetorics which could risk a possible nuclear war on the peninsula, is the best way to stop it.

Big powers are thuggish bully, taking full advantage of the world community’s failure to confront Them responsibly – smashing weaker countries like tenpins.

Suddenly, Kim Jong-un made a news  statement aborting his plan of attacking Guam. It’s the best way, maybe the only way, to save Guam, East Asia and humanity from the risk of devastating nuclear war – affecting all regional countries if launched.

All possible scenario to stop this stupidity of a nuclear war should be considered for humanity to prevail unless we will see the last of the mushroom cloud in the horizon.

Lets still be vigilant.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

US-Russia Historical Legacy by Erick San Juan


US-Russia Historical Legacy by Erick San Juan

During a time of crisis in U.S.-Russia relations, it is not in vogue to talk about their shared history, a time when ideological and political differences didn’t prevent the governments and people of both countries from helping each other and contributing to bringing stability to the world order.

The events of World War II should be another reminder that Russia and the U.S. have a common historical legacy and were close allies when they joined the anti-Hitler coalition. Under the 1941-1945 Lend-Lease Act, the U.S. provided the Soviet Union with more than $11.3 billion in financial aid. In addition, Washington sent a significant amount of food and provisions, in addition to 375,000 American trucks (one-third of all Soviet trucks), 15,000 planes, and 2,000 locomotives. The U.S. delivered the aid partly by its Arctic convoy through Russia’s northern cities of Arkhangelsk and Murmansk.

Even though the Western front in Europe was opened only in June 1944, it was primarily the Soviet Union that had to withstand Nazi Germany and face a great number of casualties. However, it is historically wrong to claim that the U.S. didn’t contribute to the fight against Nazi Germany and just focused their efforts in the Pacific battleground. After all, the Lend-Lease program contributed to the Soviet fight against Germany, both at the front and behind the lines.

Although Russians and Americans may assess the key events of World War II differently, the victory of 1945 was and remains shared. In fact, it is a matter of the common memory: the second front, the Lend-Lease program and even the famous American canned meat, which many Soviet soldiers saw as the best food in the world. The symbol of the Soviet-American alliance as part of the anti-Hitler coalition became and remains the April 25 historic link-up between Soviet and American soldiers at the Elbe River in 1945.

Meanwhile, World War II is not the only example when Russia and the U.S. cooperated closely. During World War I, they were allies as well and fought against Germany as part of the Entente, which also comprised the United Kingdom and France. (Through the lens of history: When Russia and the US were allies by Victoria I. Zhuravleva, May 9, 2016)

And there were other wars and conflicts in history that the US helped Russia and vice versa in order to bring peace and harmony. But today, there are forces who wanted war between the two nuclear superpowers.

“The 'war party' in the U.S. is escalating to a fever pitch for war, not only with Russia but now also with China. While the media and the Congress continue making up new excuses to attack Trump, to subvert his effort to build constructive relations with Putin and Xi Jinping, the 'reptilians' and their assets in the U.S. have dropped any pretense of sanity, demanding preparation for a nuclear world war.

Secretary Tillerson today drew out the battle lines in a press briefing at the State Department. Asked about the new sanctions on Russia passed overwhelmingly by the Congress, Tillerson was direct: “I think the American people want the two most powerful nuclear powers in the world to have a better relationship.... Neither the President nor I is very happy about how Congress went about the sanctions bill, but we can’t let it take us off-track in trying to restore the relationship.”

Some people in the Trump Administration did not get the message—or are out to wreck it. Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at a press conference July 31 in Estonia with the three Presidents of the Baltic states, spoke with the coldest of Cold War rhetoric: “A strong and united NATO is more necessary today than at any point since the collapse of communism a quarter-century ago, and no threat looms larger in the Baltic states than the specter of aggression from your unpredictable neighbor to the east.” Today in Georgia, Pence claimed that Russia was occupying one-fifth of Georgian territory (referring to Abkhazia and South Ossetia), then said: “We stand here today in the gap—on a front line of freedom, a front line compromised by Russian aggression nearly a decade ago.”

The same end-game confrontation is being launched by the Congress against China, going for the kill on Trump’s effort to bring the U.S. and China together in the New Silk Road process. And some strategic think tank are seeing the real agenda of Xi Jinping to allegedly go to war soon.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), speaking on NBC this morning, said that “There is a military option to destroy North Korea’s [nuclear] program, and North Korea itself. If there is going to be a war to stop [Kim Jong-un], it will be over there. If thousands are going to die, they are going to die there, they’re not going to die here.” He claimed President Trump agreed, referencing Trump saying that China could stop North Korea’s nuclear program but wasn’t doing enough.

Not to be outdone is the 'reptilian' imperial “divide and conquer” madness, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to the President calling for the suspension of “all mergers and acquisitions in the U.S by Chinese entities.” Keep in mind that Trump wisely invited China to bring its Belt and Road infrastructure development program to the U.S., to help restore the devastated infrastructure and industrial capacity of the nation. Schumer ranted: “It is my assessment that China will not deter North Korea unless the United States exacts greater economic pressure on China. The U.S. must send a clear message to China’s government.”

The message is clear indeed—the Congressional leaders from both parties will not allow the rebuilding of the U.S. economy, and would rather launch World War III than to see Trump’s plan succeed.” (EIR Daily Alerts August 2 and 3, 2017)

With efforts of some countries to maintain peace in the world to achieve development goals in the process there are also war mongers who want war in order to destroy humanity.

Now we really have to repeat the good part of history when US and Russia are partners and allies in keeping the world safe against evil-minded people.

“It should remind people about the feeling of happy unity, which Soviet and American soldiers experienced in 1945. This unity should remain forever in U.S.-Russia relations despite the political environment in the Kremlin or the White House, no matter how different leaders try to reassess their common history. It is very crucial to withstand any attempts to distort history and pass over in silence the shining examples of a common past.” (Victoria I. Zhuravleva)

Methinks Zhuravleva is politically and strategically correct. You can read and hear saber-rattling but the common denominator is their important interest of controlling the outer space.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Checkmate by Erick San Juan

Checkmate by Erick San Juan


Djibouti, a resource-poor nation of 14,300 square miles and 875,000 people in the Horn of Africa, rarely makes international headlines. But between its relative stability and strategic location—20 miles across from war-consumed Yemen and in destroyer range of the pirate-infested western edge of the Indian Ocean—it is now one of the more important security beachheads in the world. Its location also matters greatly to global commerce and energy, due to its vicinity to the Mandeb Strait and the Suez-Aden canal, which sees ten percent of the world’s oil exports and 20 percent of its commercial exports annually.

Since November 2002, the country has been home to Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. Expeditionary base—the only American base on the African continent—along with other bases belonging to its French, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese allies. The United States maintains numerous small outposts and airfields in Africa, but officially regards Lemonnier as its only full-scale military base on the continent. (Source: Joseph Braude and Tyler Jiang @ HuffPost)

For fifteen years (and another renewal for ten years), the US military and its allies dominate the Djibouti nation and now two key players are joining the band – China and Saudi Arabia. In January 2016, the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry announced an agreement with Djibouti to host its first-ever base beyond the South China Sea, and construction commenced days later.Though Beijing called the installation a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” the Asian power’s “near-abroad” rivals, such as Taiwan, opined that it is more likely the beginning of a new, aggressive military buildup to rival the United States. Six weeks later, Saudi Arabia declared that it would construct a base in Djibouti, apparently as part of its newly assertive policy of countering Iranian proxies politically and militarily throughout the region.

Both new players have made substantial economic and soft power investments in the country to boot. Since 2015, Beijing has poured over $14 billion into infrastructure development. Saudi Arabia, itself a prominent donor to Djibouti’s public works, has spent generously on social welfare projects for the country’s poor; built housing, schools and mosques for its swelling Yemeni refugee population; and dispatched teachers and preachers from the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, long a pillar for the promulgation of Saudi-backed interpretations of Islam. Augmenting Saudi aid, moreover, has been further spending by some of its Arab military allies. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have poured millions into charitable work over the past few months—and the UAE in particular is working to spur economic development along the lines of the “Dubai model.” Even cash-poor North Sudan, newly returned to the Saudi orbit after a year-long alliance with Iran, began construction of a hospital in Djibouti in early February.

Neither the timing nor the confluence of these projects are mere coincidence. America’s perceived diminishing global military footprint has begun to affect the calculation of allies and rivals alike, and the outsized role Djibouti is poised to play in its neighborhood presents a case in point of the consequences. An examination of the changing role the country plays in American, Chinese, and Arab security policy offers a glimpse into potential conflicts as well as opportunities arising from the shift and some steps Americans can take to prepare for both. (Ibid)

The strategic location of Djibouti is the main reason why the above-mentioned countries are maintaining its military presence in that small country.

With the advent of the 'One Belt, One Road' project initiated by China, the new military base in Djibouti will secure China’s interest in the region. This could be China’s main goal due to the presence of US (and its allies) military base there.

In the article ‘US vs China in Djibouti’ by Thomas Mountain, the rivalry between China and US has gone beyond the South China Sea and the new arena also posts a threat in the African and Middle East region.

“The tiny country of Djibouti sitting at the strategically critical entrance from the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea is quickly turning into the latest confrontation between the USA and China in Africa.

Djibouti, home to the only US  permanent military presence in Africa, has recently notified the American military that they have to vacate Obock, a small secondary base which will see the installation of some 10,000 Chinese troops in their place.

The announcement, made the day after US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Djibouti last May (2015) is deeply worrying for Pax Americana for it comes on top of a major package of economic investments by China that has Djiboutian President Guelleh openly talking about the importance of his new friends from Asia. Sounds familiar?

China is about to complete a $3 billion railroad from the capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Africa’s second largest country to Djibouti, Ethiopia’s only outlet to the sea. China is also investing $400 million in modernizing Djibouti’s notoriously undersized port, where for the past 17 years (since the Ethiopians tried and failed to take Eritrea’s port of Assab during Ethiopia’s war against Eritrea from 1998-2000), Ethiopia has been forced to import 90% of its fuel and food from.

The US military pays Djibouti $63 million a year for the use of Camp Lemonnier, home to 4,000 US troops and one of the worlds largest drone bases used to terrorize the populations of Yemen and Somalia. This is a pittance really, when compared to the hundred$ of million$ a year that the Chinese investments will bring into Djiboutian government coffers.

The fact that 10,000 Chinese troops are being installed next door to such a critical US military base is causing powerful members of the US Congress to suddenly discover that Djibouti, long a de facto province of Ethiopia, is a “major violator of human rights”, dangerously “undemocratic”, and that it is time for “regime change” in the tiny country of about half a million people, long one of the poorest and most repressive on the planet. Again, sounds familiar?

So don’t be suprised if we wake up one morning and find that in the name of “democracy” there has been a military coup in Djibouti and that the Chinese, like what they are experiencing in South Sudan, find themselves with the short end of the stick when it comes to their rivalry with the USA in Africa.”

Like what I have been saying for quite some time now, the war between US and China is inevitable and that it will happen either in this region or in Africa-Middle east area.

Let's watch the confluence of events.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

War on Drugs: No End in Sight by Erick San Juan

War on Drugs: No End in Sight by Erick San Juan


The war on drugs is very much on the table in the present administration’s future goals just like in the first State of the Nation Address (SONA) of President Rody Duterte. Like what PRRD has been emphasizing, that the illegal drug flourished during the past administrations and international drug trafficking is very much active due to the advance technology via the internet.

Given the fast electronic money transfer, undetected, and using various ways of transporting illegal drugs across borders and continents, winning the war against this menace is farfetched. More cooperation from other countries near and far, using the latest technology on how to catch the drug traffickers are very much needed. New out of the box strategies and policy should be the immediate agenda of our national security to preempt other nations agenda of like 'Greek bearing gifts' and a perceived involvement in indirect 'state sponsored' narco operation.

After the self-imposed deadline of the Philippine National Police to end the drug problem in December 2016, the current leadership told the nation that the drug problem is so enormous and that they needed more time and resources. But the hanging question remains, mostly from the netizens (and ordinary people sans the internet), where are the ‘big fish’ and the so-called Chinese drug lords?  Who are the importers of billions of Shabu that even passes the customs Greenlane caught unnoticed? It’s always the petty drug users and pushers ‘in slippers’ that are caught and presented in the media (if they are still alive).

From “Meth gangs of China play star role in Philippines drug crisis” by John Chalmers published @reuters : The arrest of Hong, who has pleaded not guilty, added to the ranks of Chinese nationals seized in the Philippines on narcotics charges. Of 77 foreign nationals arrested for meth-related drug offenses between January 2015 and mid-August 2016, nearly two-thirds were mainland Chinese and almost a quarter were Taiwanese or Hong Kong residents, according to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

Remember Lim Seng, the mainland Chinese chemist for opium operation branded by Marcos as drug lord whose real boss was Siochi, a Binondo based drug lord and money launderer, friends of top level people during FM time as per record of CANU( Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit). The pattern of operation was just modified but the 'signature' is still there. Known in the trade as “cooks” and “chemists,” meth production experts are flown into the Philippines from Greater China by drug syndicates to work at labs like the one caught at Mount Arayat. Thanks to foreign agents. China isn’t only a source of meth expertise – it is also the biggest source of the meth and of the precursor chemicals used to produce the synthetic drug that are being smuggled into the Philippines, especially via Sulu and other parts of the country, according to local drug enforcement officials.

“It’s safe to say that the majority of the meth we have comes from China,” said PDEA spokesman Derrick Carreon.

China’s dominant role in the Philippine meth trade has not dissuaded President Duterte from cozying up to Beijing, even as he declares drugs to be his country’s greatest scourge. Duterte is waging a brutal anti-narcotics campaign that has killed more than 2,000 people and led to the arrest of more than 38,000. Police are investigating some 3,000 more deaths.”

And yet President Duterte announced the intention of China to help in the war against drugs. Duh?

Comes the Chinese-sponsored One Belt One Road initiative. Could this be another soft power op to take the world for a ride? Just asking.

But what is in stake for the nations in the OBOR?

“China’s planned pan-Asia railway network, reaching from Kunming in the north to Singapore in the south, is a signature project in Beijing’s One Belt One Road (Obor) initiative.

The economic benefits, if the 3,900 km network connecting all mainland Southeast Asian states with the Middle Kingdom goes forth as planned, could be enormous. There may also be troublesome aspects to countenance too, however: namely an increase in cross-border drug trafficking.

Infrastructure upgrades facilitate the exchange of people, goods, and culture. Yet they can also empower criminals seeking easier and speedier access to new destinations. Transporting illicit drugs via high-speed rail is nothing new.

The Taiwan High Speed Rail line that runs the length of the island’s west coast is an established pipeline for drug runners. In China, arrests of drug traffickers on its high-speed rail system are not uncommon.

One of the latest and most curious cases involved a Chinese smuggler returning from Myanmar with a batch of hollowed-out dragon fruits containing 1,031.28 grams of methamphetamine tablets.

The planned network is currently only moving ahead on the central sections connecting Kunming, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore, with regional geopolitics stalling the eastern and western routes. Given its reach, this line is the most crucial, however.

The country that stands to benefit most is the landlocked, impoverished nation of Laos. An upland nation of 6.5 million people, currently, it has a very meager railway. With the central line in place, its leaders hope to make it a land-linked regional transit center.

Construction officially commenced in December 2016 for the Laotian portion of the line. Running from the China-Laos border to the capital, Vientiane, the route’s total length is 414 km, with bridges and tunnels comprising 62% of a line that traverses rough mountainous terrain.

International narcotics intelligence believe that High-speed rail suits individual drug runners perfectly, with passengers typically allowed 40 kg of luggage per person. At present, traveling from northern Laos to Bangkok takes close to 30 hours by automobile, and even longer during the rainy season. The Luang Namtha to Vientiane drive can be exceptionally draining due to the terrain. But with high-speed rail, a run from northern Laos to Bangkok will easily be reduced to a comfortable five to seven hours.

Laos is the focus here because it is the starting point of the Southeast Asian drug trade. The recent arrests of prominent Laotian drug lords confirmed the rising status of Laotian nationals as leader players in the regional trafficking web.

Alarmingly, the distribution network of Laotian drug lord Xaysana Keopimpha, mapped by the Thai Narcotic Suppression Bureau, followed almost the exact route of the central line. Drugs purchased from jungle depots near Laos’ border with Myanmar were then transported down to Vientiane before crossing into northeastern Thailand, Bangkok, and onward to the entire region. (Source: Is China’s pan-Asia rail network a drug smuggler’s dream? By By Zi Yang, 6/23/17 @atimes)

Is this the prize we have to pay to be linked in the rail system that will bring about more drugs and more deaths?  In the end, who benefits?

 Unsolicited advice to President Duterte is to catch and jail the big fishes, the main source of drugs. Dont be blackmailed by some people pretending to be your friends. Rumor mill especially in the diplomatic circle is full of innuendos as to who are the brains not only of the drug trade but basically all illegal trade interconnecting with top honchos in the government service. If not addressed immediately, there will always be a repeat of history on how leaders fall and there will be no end in sight against his war on drugs and could even backfire when the family of aggrieved lowly users-pushers will file a class suit in the near future...

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Nation's Prosperity at Stake by Erick San Juan

Nation's Prosperity at Stake by Erick San Juan

First year in power of the Duterte administration and one year after The Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling in favor of the Philippines’ claim in the disputed area in the South China Sea, where are we now? Whether we like it or not, the bottom line here is still economics.

We are nearing the ten-year life of productivity of the Malampaya natural gas and we must look into other sources of energy to supply the growing need of the country’s populace. Economic managers and those in the energy department should have considered such important factor to make the Dutertenomics work. Although the president himself said that in time, he will talk to China’s Xi Jinping when it comes to our claim in the South China Sea which the PCA granted us. But Mr. President, we are being overtaken by events and after a year, China’s massive building of military structures are now in place in the SCS where most of our claim is located.

Unfortunately, China’s aggressiveness was based from its “systematic campaign to delegitimize the tribunal and its judges, adopting a “three-nos” policy of non-participation, non-recognition, and non-compliance with the final verdict. At the time, Beijing dismissed the award as a “null and void” decision and “nothing more than a piece of paper.”

Still, Duterte faces growing domestic pressure to adopt a tougher line with Beijing, which many believe has used cordial ties (translation-soft touch op) as cover to consolidate its control over key features. Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, a prominent supporter of the arbitration strategy, lambasted the president’s supposed lack of “discernible direction, coherence, or vision” in foreign policy.

He has heavily criticized some of Duterte’s remarks, particularly his announcement that he “will set aside the arbitral ruling” in the interest of better relations with China. “This incident [Dutetre’s remark] graphically explains Philippine foreign policy on the South China Sea dispute after the arbitral ruling,” exclaimed Carpio during a high-profile event marking the arbitration award’s first anniversary.

He reiterated the importance of the ruling, since it secured “the Philippines vast maritime zone larger than the total land area of the Philippines.” Instead of setting aside the arbitration award, the magistrate called upon the government to consider filing additional arbitration cases against Beijing if the latter continues its non-compliance with the award.

Senior former government officials, including former Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario, who played a key role in the arbitration proceedings, have echoed similar sentiments against the president. Others have openly accused the Duterte administration of soft-pedaling territorial issues in short-sighted exchange for Chinese economic incentives.” (Source: Has Duterte’s China engagement backfired? By Richard Javad Heydarian @ Asia Times online)

We have to move fast and firm to our claim which is included in our EEZ in order to survive the years ahead for the generations to come. What is at stake to claim what is rightfully ours?

According to U.S. oilfield services company Weatherford, one concession - SC 72 - contains 2.6-8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be as much as triple the amount discovered at the Malampaya project, an offshore field that powers 40 percent of the main island of Luzon, home to the capital Manila.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that beneath the South China Sea could be 11 billion barrels of oil, more than Mexico's reserves, and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Most foreign firms with capital and technology needed to develop those reserves, however, don't want to risk being caught up in spats over jurisdiction and have avoided concessions offered in disputed waters.

Manila's state-run Philex Petroleum (PXP.PS) has the controlling stakes in two stalled concessions, the 880,000-hectare SC-72 at the Reed Bank and the 616,000-hectare SC-75 off the island of Palawan.

The court verdict on July 12 sparked a surge in energy stocks the next day, with Philex shares up as much as 21 percent.

Philex says it is seeking a meeting with Philippine energy officials regarding the potential to lift a suspension order on drilling activities in the Reed Bank, in place since December 2014.

"It's a matter of national importance. We don't want to move on our own without guidance from the government," Philex Chairman Manuel Pangilinan told reporters.

"We will need a partner ... no local company has the expertise that we need."

Department of Energy spokesman Felix William Fuentebella said there were no immediate plans to lift the suspension as the department awaited guidance from new President Rodrigo Duterte.

"The moratorium stays. We are exploring ways to resolve the conflict peacefully and we follow the lead of the President," he said.

Manila and Beijing have both expressed a desire to resume talks, but the Philippines says it could not accept China's pre-condition of not discussing the ruling. (Source: Philippines' oil still in troubled waters after South China Sea ruling by Enrico Dela Cruz)

Now that President Rodrigo Duterte considers resuming energy exploration in the tension-laden South China Sea before the year ends, let us wait and see for China’s leader’s reaction. If the reason for delaying the talk with China on the arbitral ruling is economics then let it be the reason. It is still economics to assert our rights to our claim in order to develop and make Dutertenomics work.

It's our nation's prosperity on the line Mr. President. Your living legacy.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

War Games: Dress Rehearsal for a Real War by Erick San Juan

War Games: Dress Rehearsal for a Real War by Erick San Juan

“Chinese strategy in the South China Sea is expansionary in aim, incremental by design and realist in orientation.”

A revelation made by three PLAN officers on the real goal of China in the South China Sea from the article of Ryan Martinson and Katsuya Yamamoto posted at The National Interest (July 9, 2017) - Three PLAN Officers May Have Just Revealed What China Wants in the South China Sea.

“Jin, Hui and Wang reflect mainstream thinking in the PLA Navy, their views suggest that the new bases were always intended to alter the military balance in the South China Sea—regardless of how Chinese diplomats prefer to highlight their civilian character. Chinese decision-makers probably believe that the balance now tilts strongly in China’s favor, and this is unlikely to change until American completes its great “pivot” to Asia, if it ever does.

We take some comfort in the trio’s apparent desire to avoid armed conflict in the South China Sea. However, their attitudes suggest that the Chinese military may be too cocksure about its own ability to manage a military crisis at sea. Particularly worrisome, America is the assumed adversary, but never do the authors even mention the role nuclear weapons might play in a crisis.”

For obvious reason that China or its head President Xi Jinping is too stubborn and will never engage in multilateral talks nor even acknowledge the ruling at the Permanent Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague that favors the Philippines on its territorial claim.

In its designed intention to expand and increase its territory, setting up military installations is just secondary to ensure that they have a strong foothold on the said extension from the mainland. And the mere fact that the US is the assumed adversary in their grand design, a military conflict is surely in the offing and the region (and the rest of the world) should be wary on who will strike the first nuclear missile.

It jive with the analysis of Prof. Graham Allison of Harvard Kennedy  School warning the US and China could fall into a "Thucydides Trap", a war between Greeks, a dominant superpower and Sparta, the challenger.

Another was the lecture of RAND think tank last August 2016 entitled "War With China, Thinking Through the Unthinkable talking about who will strike first if a crisis overheated.

As I have written before and lectured since 1998, war between the US and China is inevitable, it can be delayed but it will materialize into a shooting war and it could be sooner given the provocations and tension in the South China Sea.

Like the month-long Exercise Talisman Sabre 2017 war games. This year is the largest ever of the biennial training and interoperability exercise hosted by Australia, with more than 30,000 troops, including personnel from the United States, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Canada participating.

However, as China continues to grow, and the United States continue to pursue total military supremacy, the system now threatens to inflame the very thing it was designed to prevent, large-scale conflict between the region’s most powerful states. The very scenario simulated in Talisman Sabre.

With conflict of this scale considered likely enough to necessitate such enormous preparations, Australian politicians, policymakers, and media outlets should be deeply engaged in a public dialogue centered around defining national interests, defense priorities, and how our relationships with other states reflect these. Instead, Australia sleepwalks along the path of military expansion and confrontation, incapable and unwilling to diverge from American security priorities where they do not reflect our own.

While the public relation branches of the defense forces involved only ever refer to the objectives of the exercise with ambiguous terms like “high end war-fighting”, in bare fact, Talisman Sabre simulates a large-scale confrontation between conventional forces, requiring coordination between all branches of the US military, as well as those of their Asia-Pacific allies. It is a dress-rehearsal of the new American battle doctrine, the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), which was developed to ensure continued US military dominance of the Western Pacific and the South China Sea, in the face of growing Chinese military capabilities.

In 2015, during the last iteration of Talisman Sabre, the Australian public was treated to a rare moment of political candour when Greens Senator Scott Ludlam publicly criticized the event, stating that he did not believe that it was in the nation’s best interests “to be preparing for a war with China”. (Source: War games could inflame what they aim to prevent: conflict with China by Stuart Rollo [writer focused on Asia-Pacific politics] @the guardian)

Opposition to such huge military exercise (war games) even from among Australia’s government officials (elected) is not new because they know the already tensed situation in the region will only be aggravated by such military war games by involving big players.

There are bigger problems coming (soon) that the Duterte administration will have to face and find solutions to in order to survive, not for him alone but for the whole country. Let us help this administration if Duterte will realize the nation's predicament and threats. If possible make a Council of Advisers to augment the National Security Council to address immediately what trouble we're facing.  Whether we like it or not he is our president and if ever he will fail, the whole Filipino nation will be dragged and we will be 'Fili-finish'.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

FONOP and the Next World War

FONOP and the Next World War
By Erick San Juan

Our country has its own share of security problems, both from local and foreign threats and we are suffering the backlash of the global war on terror where the stage for these terror groups/network has reached our soil. As we tried to finish this nightmare in our country’s history, the threat outside is still very much alive. I am talking about the South China Sea.

According to a June 30 report from Reuters – “China has built new military facilities on islands in the South China Sea, a U.S. think tank reported on Thursday, a move that could raise tensions with Washington, which has accused Beijing of militarizing the vital waterway.

The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), part of Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said new satellite images show missile shelters and radar and communications facilities being built on the Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi Reefs in the Spratly Islands.

The United States has criticized China’s build-up of military facilities on the artificial islands and is concerned they could be used to restrict free movement through the South China Sea, an important trade route.

Last month, a U.S. Navy warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef in a so-called freedom of navigation operation, the first such challenge to Beijing’s claim to most of the waterway since U.S. President Donald Trump took office.

China has denied U.S. charges that it is militarizing the sea, which also is claimed by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Trump has sought China’s help in reigning in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, and tension between Washington and Beijing over military installations in the South China Sea could complicate those efforts.

China has built four new missile shelters on Fiery Cross Reef to go with the eight already on the artificial island, AMTI said. Mischief and Subi each have eight shelters, the think tank said in a previous report.”

Some pundits observed that because of the ongoing North Korea’s nuclear and missile ops, Trump Administration is easy on China due to Beijing’s help in resolving the said issue peacefully for it is well known that NoKor is a friend of China.

“But the Trump administration needs to make it clear that the current balance of power in Asia, while uneasy, is acceptable, but Chinese hegemony is not."

That is the argument Ely Ratner makes in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs:

“In recent years, however, China has begun to assert its claims more vigorously and is now poised to seize control of the sea. Should it succeed, it would deal a devastating blow to the United States’ influence in the region, tilting the balance of power across Asia in China’s favor.” […]

“U.S. policymakers should recognize that China’s behavior in the sea is based on its perception of how the United States will respond. The lack of U.S. resistance has led Beijing to conclude that the United States will not compromise its relationship with China over the South China Sea. As a result, the biggest threat to the United States today in Asia is Chinese hegemony, not great-power war. U.S. regional leadership is much more likely to go out with a whimper than with a bang.”

The commentary comes amid uncertainty regarding the Trump administration’s foreign policy in the region. Many have noted that North Korea has distracted Washington from the issue of the South China Sea, with some speculating that Trump is holding off pressure on that issue – as he implied he has with trade – in exchange for help on the Korean peninsula.

The foreign policy establishment, led by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tried to reassure allies in the region this week that the US is not ceding influence in the Pacific to China.

Speaking to lawmakers on Wednesday Mattis said of naval exercises that” This (Freedom of Navigation exercise) is our policy. We will continue this.” He added, “could it change if circumstances change? Of course, but right now Secretary Tillerson and I give him the military factors — and we’re in league together on this, so I don’t think anything is going to change.” (Ibid)

Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) has long been a major issue for Uncle Sam because the SCS where China has claimed almost all of the area based on its nine-dash line theory and now that it has been militarizing the area, the threat on FONOP is for real. No matter how China puts it, the reclaimed area is now militarized and for a very obvious reason that it was built.

“When reporting on the South China Sea, it has become commonplace for media around the world to draw upon think tank research detailing China’s developing military capable facilities in the region.

Some use the information to bolster campaigns to convince the US Trump administration that China presents an imminent threat to the country’s interests, including freedom of navigation. But the deepening drumbeat for the US to militarily confront China in the South China Sea should be considered with a healthy dose of skepticism.

One report by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies describes China’s latest construction projects in the South China Sea, concluding that it “can now deploy military assets including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers to the Spratly Islands at any time.”

This is fact. But the AMTI director also warned in a subsequent interview to “look for deployment in the near future”. This implies that China intends to use these facilities to do so. This is supposition.” (Source: Mark Valencia posted @atimes.com)

The threat of war is for real and this FONOP issue will be the spark that will light the tinderbox to the next world war.

Please wake up to reality!

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Will We be the Next Syria? By Erick San Juan

Will We be the Next Syria? By Erick San Juan


Who could fail to see the parallels between the situation in the Philippines with that of Syria, where the US military, initially prevented from carrying out any sort of military action, eventually got the green light. Thanks to the arrival of a little-known, ultra-violent terrorist group called ‘Islamic State’ [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL]. Now the United States believe it has acquired some sort of moral authority for carrying out what amounts to the illicit invasion of yet another sovereign state.

However, that is just the beginning of the strangeness. Many have questioned how IS, bereft of any sort of sophisticated fighting apparatus - not least of all an air force - could have continuously evaded the mighty US military, even as the terrorist convoys traveled across wide-open desert in broad daylight between Iraq and Syria.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky, writing in Global Research, forwarded the question so many people have been asking: “Why has the US Air Force not been able to wipe out the Islamic State, which at the outset was largely equipped with conventional small arms not to mention state of the art Toyota pickup trucks...The Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory. With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, F16), it would have been – from a military standpoint – a piece of cake, a rapid and expedient surgical operation, which would have decimated the Islamic State convoys in a matter of hours.

Instead, what we have witnessed is an ongoing drawn out six months of relentless air raids and bombings, and the terrorist enemy is apparently still intact,” Chossudovsky concluded.

For anybody who doubts the veracity of that assertion, a declassified US document, obtained by government watchdog Judicial Watch, shows that US policymakers actually encouraged the growth of Islamic extremist groups as a way to “isolate the Syrian regime.”

The heavily redacted document notes, among other disturbing revelations, "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).” (Source: Robert Bridge @rt.com)

Sad to say that predicates are laid for the next Syria and a possible ‘regime change’? What could have gone wrong when the US Joint Special Operation Task Force Philippines (JSOTF-Phl) is in Mindanao for the longest time and the so-called Coast Watch Center? Are we taken for a ride here? Who benefits if this overstretched war on terrorism, like in Syria (is now going on for six months already) will also happen in our country?

And despite the statement of President Rody Duterte that the US troops should leave the country soon and directing its foreign policy towards better ties with China and Russia, in the midst of the Marawi City siege, the Duterte administration asked help from Uncle Sam. Even though it was through the Department of National Dafense, but still it was the government that made the request for military support from the US.

From the article “'Dirty Duterte' on the ropes as ISIS, US Special Forces crash the Philippines” by Robert Bridge explains – “Clearly, President Rodrigo Duterte – like Syrian President Assad – is facing the ultimate challenge to his presidency. And considering his past pledge to realign Philippine foreign policy away from Washington and towards Moscow and Beijing, the question is an obvious one: Are those US Marines and Special Forces in the Philippines, which, as in Syria, appeared without invitation, there to help the Duterte government, or do they have other ideas in mind, which will only become painfully apparent when it’s too late for the Philippines leader? As is the case with Syrian President Assad, time will tell what is in store for President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. My personal hunch is nothing good.”

Now it can be told, Duterte is fighting several fronts, both domestic and international. He cursed some of the world leaders, including the pope and called them names. His war on drugs metamorphosed into a semblance of gang war like the Mafia vs Cosa Nostra, the Mexican drug cartel war, the chinese Triad vs other drug cartel, etc.

its unusual for a perceived leftist and close to the communists, is being destabilized by CPP-NPA from north to south especially in his home base in Davao. He should stop dealing with the National Democratic Front and instead use his leftist cabinet secretaries to negotiate with the CPP's Central Committee based here.

My unsolicited advice to the president is to stop cursing and playing toughie. I hope by this time, he should have realized that everything seem to backfire. Despite the denial of his people, his health is now affected by too much tension and stress. We have to make him realize that a dangerous 'program' is on and if not controlled by strategic experts which he needed most this time, we could all be part of the so called 'collateral damage' in the process.

Lets get our act together and help save our nation from destruction.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

War Between US and China, Soon a Reality by Erick San Juan



“On the current trajectory,” Allison contends, “war between the U.S. and China in the decades ahead is not just possible, but much more likely than currently recognized.” The reason, he says, can be traced to the problem described in the fifth century B.C.E. in Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War. Sparta, as the established power, felt threatened by the rising might of Athens. In such conditions, Allison writes, “not just extraordinary, unexpected events, but even ordinary flashpoints of foreign affairs, can trigger large-scale conflict.”

Graham Allison’s book “Destined for War” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) is just one of the many writers, pundits, professors and journalists who wrote books and articles all pertaining to the possible US and China war. Even yours truly had written articles some few decades ago that the US-China war is inevitable. And what it takes is an ordinary flashpoint of foreign affairs that will trigger a regional conflict or a global war in the process.

As I always say, history repeats itself or people repeats history as what great wars in the past showed which is very much true today, when an existing superpower like Sparta (US today) threatened by a rising power Athens (China today), the possibility of a war is not farfetched and with the alliances in place by both countries, it could be very bloody and a lot of lives will be wasted.

Another analysis by Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times foreign-affairs commentator, considers China’s increasing clout in the broader context of what he calls, in a remarkably ugly phrase, “Easternization,” which is also the title of his well-written new survey (just published by Other Press). The gravity of economic and military power, he argues, is moving from West to East. He is thinking of more than the new class of Chinese billionaires; he includes India, a country that might one day surpass even China as an economic powerhouse, and reminds us that Japan has been one of the world’s largest economies for some time now. Tiny South Korea ranks fourteenth in the world in purchasing-power parity. And the Asian mega-cities are looking glitzier by the day. Anyone who flies into J.F.K. from any of the metropolitan areas in China, let alone from Singapore or Tokyo, can readily see what Rachman has in mind. There is a great deal going on in Asia. The question is what this will mean, and whether “Easternization” is an illuminating concept for understanding it.

One difficulty is that East and West are slippery categories. The concept of European civilization has at least some measure of coherence. The same can be said for Chinese civilization, extending to Vietnam in the south and Korea in the north. But what unifies “the East”? Korea has almost nothing in common with India, apart from a tenuous connection through ancient Buddhist history. Japan is a staunch U.S. ally and its contemporary culture is, in many respects, closer to the West than to anything particularly Eastern. Previous attempts to create a sense of Pan-Asian solidarity, such as the Japanese imperialist mission in the nineteen-thirties and forties, have been either futile or disastrous.

Since nationalism is now the main ideology propping up the legitimacy of China’s regime, no Chinese leader can possibly back down from such challenges as Taiwan’s desire for independence or Tibetan resistance to Han Chinese rule or anything else that might make China look weak in the eyes of its citizens. This is why Donald Trump’s loose talk about revising the One China policy inflamed a mood that is already dangerously combustible. It’s worth bearing in mind that “The China Dream” is actually the title of a best-selling book by Colonel Liu Mingfu, whose arguments for China’s supremacy in an Asian renaissance sound remarkably like Japanese propaganda in the nineteen-thirties. Rachman quotes him saying that “when China becomes the world’s leading nation, it will put an end to Western notions of racial superiority.” The only Western power that might stand in the way of this project of Chinese hegemony is the United States.

Since 1945, the United States, with its many bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, has effectively played the role of regional policeman. Partly out of institutional habit, partly out of amour propre, and partly out of fear of seeing its power slip, the United States has had its own issues with nationalism, even before Trump came blundering onto the scene. Joseph Nye, the scholar and former U.S. government official, once argued that accepting China’s dominance over the Western Pacific would be unthinkable, because “such a response to China’s rise would destroy America’s credibility.” In a conversation with Rachman in 2015, another American official put this in saltier terms: “I know the U.S. navy and it’s addicted to pre-eminence. If the Chinese try to control the South China Sea, our guys will fucking challenge that. They will sail through those waters.”

American swagger will always have its enthusiasts. Gordon G. Chang, the author of a 2001 book titled “The Coming Collapse of China,” recently wrote a piece in The National Interest that praised Trump effusively for cutting “the ambitious autocrat down to size” during Xi’s visit to Mar-a-Lago. Trump, Chang recounts, arrived late to greet his guest. He announced a missile strike against Syria over the chocolate cake. He made Xi “look like a supplicant.” Trump may have revelled in this behavior, but Chang’s acclaim is idiotic. Deliberately making the Chinese leader lose face, if that’s what happened, can only worsen a fraught situation. American bluster—the reflex of the current U.S. President in the absence of any coherent policy—is a poor response to Chinese edginess. Now that China has developed missiles that can easily sink aircraft carriers, and the United States is responding with tactical plans that would aim to take out such weapons on the Chinese mainland, a minor conflict could result in a major showdown.

China’s own attitude toward the status quo is far from straightforward. China may dream of sweeping its seas clean of the U.S. Navy. But, if the alternative is the military resurgence of Japan, the Chinese would probably opt for maintaining the Pax Americana. At the moment, though, the United States itself appears to be drifting. Trump has accused Japan of playing the U.S. for a sucker. He has even suggested that Japan and South Korea might build their own nuclear bombs. But the ex-generals and corporate executives who run his foreign policy seem to favor sticking to the world we know. Both of these policies are flawed. There is no ideal solution to the late-imperial dilemma. But the surest way to court disaster is to have no coherent plan at all. (Source: Are China and the United States Headed for War? By Ian Buruma)

 That is the saddest part when leaders are supposed to lead the way for its citizenry’s well-being and the country’s development but when the leader has no plan at all and be blinded by sheer power and arrogance, hell will break loose and deaths of innocent lives will go to waste.

The pattern of world war is in the offing. The pretext is already there to see. With so many flashpoints, economic crunch, talking about peace but terrorism proliferate unabated, cyber-attacks which could lead to possible banking and stock market collapse, all signs of chaos are now in the offing. Lets all be vigilant..

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Threat of War is Real by Erick San Juan

Threat of War is Real by Erick San Juan

China has for the first time extracted gas from an ice-like substance under the South China Sea considered key to future global energy supply.

Chinese authorities have described the success as a major breakthrough.

Methane hydrates, also called "flammable ice", hold vast reserves of natural gas.

Many countries including the US and Japan are working on how to tap those reserves, but mining and extracting are extremely difficult.

The element, a kind of natural gas hydrate, was discovered in the area in 2007, but this is the first time the country is able to successfully extract combustible ice from the seabed, in a single, continuous operation on a floating production platform in the Shenhu area of the South China Sea, about 300km southeast of Hong Kong, state-run Xinhua news agency reports.”

Methane hydrate global sources are estimated to exceed the combined energy content of all other fossil fuels.”

Estimates of the South China Sea’s methane hydrate potential now range as high as 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas equivalent, sufficient to satisfy China’s entire equivalent oil consumption for 50 years.

The commercial production of methane hydrate would reduce China’s dependence on energy imports, which accounts for nearly 60% of its crude oil needs, making it the world’s No. 2 importer by volume, after the U.S.

Methane hydrate will also aid China’s efforts to shift to natural gas from coal, which accounts for nearly 70% of its primary-energy consumption, which has caused harmful pollution to China’s cities.

China’s discovery of methane hydrates off the coasts of Vietnam and the Philippines is what has prompted China to aggressively pursue the occupation of Philippine and Vietnamese shoals and their conversion to artificial islands in order to safely conduct its exploration and production of methane hydrate.

This explains China’s placement of an oil rig platform off the coast of Vietnam which triggered international showdowns with Vietnam.

The Recto Bank (Reed Bank) area located only 50 miles west of the Philippine island of Palawan is considered a methane hydrate honey pot. The Philippines estimates that the Sampaguita Field within Recto Bank may also hold large deposits of natural gas equivalents in the form of methane hydrates. (Source: Rodel Rodis, Why China will declare war if PH drills for oil)

Now that the question was answered on the real intention of China in the disputed area in the South China Sea especially on our territories, there is no doubt that what China’s soft power approach now with our President is part and parcel of China’s ‘looting’ of our mineral resources.

The threat of war is real because China has already succeeded in extracting methane hydrates (flammable ice) in the SCS and if we will conduct our own oil exploration and extraction, we will disrupt their flammable ice operation in the process.

With our domestic problems on terrorism and the war on drugs, China easily extended help with these two problems. We all know that President Duterte has somewhat gave up on our claim in the disputed areas in the SCS by saying that there is no point of going to war if we are establishing friendship with China. In effect we are allowing the extraction of this mineral by China without doing anything. And not even a joint project? Where is the so called bilateral talks towards bilateral agreement to peaceful resolution of the territorial dispute? Are we taken for a ride here with our full consent? Just asking?

Pres. Rody Duterte should be very careful with his discreet plan of action because so many international think tanks are watching and studying his 'chess game'. One example is the perception that a China inspired revolutionary government was sabotaged by international terrorist organuzation, ISIS.

According to Solgen Jose Calida, Pres. Duterte knew about the plan of the Maute group to attack Marawi. It jibes with my info of a bigger plan of terrorism which could affect the nation.

Even before Pres. Duterte left for his China trip, I alerted him through Sec. Bong Go, NSA Sec. Jun Esperon and other cabinet secretary friends to make sure that my assessment will reach him. I told all of them to reactivate the 'Situation Room' so PRD can preempt any possible threat and mischief.

This plan had been successful during the time of former Pres. Fidel Ramos because of former NSA Joe Almonte's appreciation of strategic intelligence. Any one who knows me and internet information about me will prove me right. Maybe they thought all the while that I was just scare mongering.

Before Duterte left for Russia, he only secured Davao city by putting additional military contingent there. He even brought his top level officials to Moscow and let Budget Sec. Ben Diokno as his caretaker head.

When the Maute siege started, Pres. Duterte knew that the Maute's plan is real and immediately returned to Davao. Despite his statement of giving timetable to finish the Maute's it all failed due to the support of the ISIS to the Maute group.

Good thing that DND Sec. Delfin Lorenzana seeked the assistance of the US forces in fighting the real enemy, the ISIS. Despite the noise of the pro-Beijing left, now is the ripe time that the US can prove them wrong by finishing the ISIS terror group before a spill over can reach Metro Manila which could fully destroy Duterte's administration.

There are so many Filipino experts who can be of help. We have to swallow our pride once and for all and tap them for our nation's sake.

This is a matter of sovereignty, we are in a dire strait and we need an immediate solution to this problem. Many soldiers and people died. We have to remind the president that his nationalism is now being tested. We don't even have to give up our mineral resources to anyone, its for our country’s future generations. There are other ways than going to war to assert our rights to our resources, there is still time to find solutions to such predicaments.

As Filipinos, this is the right time to do action and unite. Let us help our President, our nation. God bless our country.


Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Rumored ISIS In Ph Now a Reality by Erick San Juan

Rumored ISIS In Ph Now a Reality by Erick San Juan

The recent attack at the Resorts World casino-hotel has created another atmosphere of fear now in the metro and we can’t blame the public to speculate on the possibility that the ISIS terror group is now in Metro Manila. The timing is suspect because the ongoing war on terror against the ISIS-linked Maute group et al in Marawi could somehow created the fear that it will reach Metro Manila. So every time that a so-called attack for whatever reason and nature could be linked to the terror group.

Thanks to the NCRPO headed by PNP Gen. Oscar Albayalde, despite the rumored conspiracy theory including ISIS claiming the Resort World tragedy Albayalde's team closed the case by confirming that the mischief was done by a known gambler named Jesse Carlos.

In the February 2016 article of Joseph Chinyong Liow - ISIS reaches Indonesia: The terrorist group’s prospects in Southeast Asia he writes – “On January 14, militants killed four civilians and wounded at least 20 in a terrorist attack in Jakarta, in the first successful operation that the self-proclaimed Islamic State (also known as ISIS) has launched in Southeast Asia. For several months, security officials from several Southeast Asian governments had been warning that ISIS supporters might mount an attack in the region. The signs were ominous: increased chatter on Malay and Indonesian language sites expressing support for ISIS, a steady stream of Southeast Asians departing for conflict zones in Syria and Iraq, and the arrest of ISIS sympathizers in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. Indonesian counter-terrorism authorities had already received intelligence that militants were planning to mount attacks over the holiday period a couple of weeks earlier, which prompted the arrest of several militants and foiled a potential earlier attack.

The fact that Southeast Asia is not yet on the radar of the core ISIS leadership, however, or that the number of Southeast Asians fighting under the ISIS standard pales in comparison with the number of Europeans or Australians, should not be grounds for complacency. ISIS will always struggle to gain considerable popularity in Southeast Asia. The social, political, economic, and cultural conditions in Indonesia and Malaysia are such that the appeal of the ISIS brand of extremism will always remain limited. Even in Thailand and the Philippines, where Muslim minorities suffer more persecution, the conditions they face are nowhere near those confronted by alienated Muslims in Europe.

Even if extremists do eventually create an ISIS in Southeast Asia, its origins will lie not in Raqqa but in the fringes of Indonesian society, in the climate of extremism that reemerged amid the political activism that followed the fall of Suharto, Indonesia’s long-ruling dictator, in 1998. In that sense, the threat remains at heart a local phenomenon, even as it may find some form of transnational expression. So although ISIS’ ideology will always receive an airing, it will have to compete with radical and extremist groups of various ideological, political, and operational stripes.

Some analysts have warned that competition among presumptive leaders of ISIS in Indonesia will trigger more violence, and there is every likelihood of that happening. Others worry that ISIS may offer opportunities for existing groups to make common cause. This has not happened yet. The fallout between Jemaah Islamiyah and Indonesian ISIS supporters is well documented. But it would be foolhardy to dismiss the possibility of alliances for tactical, if not doctrinal, reasons. There are indications that the rivalry between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, which Jemaah Islamiyah supports, has started to taper off. There is also evidence that the Indonesian jihadist ideologue, Aman Abdurrahman, has tried to unite disparate pro-ISIS groups. Counter-terrorism establishments in the region should tune in closely to any chatter among Indonesian groups that points in this direction.

The world is transfixed on the possibility, however unlikely it may be, that a transnational, violent network might someday span Europe, the Middle East, and all the way to Southeast Asia. Such concerns are not new: recall the Comintern during the Cold War, and al Qaeda just a few years ago. But the real danger is not that the black banner of ISIS will be raised the world over but that the appearance of ISIS would trigger dynamics among existing jihadist groups and personal networks within Indonesia, possibly joined by groups from the Philippines and Malaysia, that may well escalate into further violence.”

And it did happen... the ISIS in Southeast Asia, and now in the Philippines as what Indonesian defense minister told at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an international security forum last Sunday.

Speaking in Singapore amid a bloody standoff between Philippine troops and militants fighting under the IS flag in Marawi city, Defense Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu called the militants "killing machines" and urged full-scale regional cooperation against them.

"I was advised last night, 1,200 ISIS in the Philippines, around 40 from Indonesia," Ryacudu told the Shangri-La Dialogue, using another name for the IS group.

The threat of heightened terrorism, including the impending return of hundreds of Southeast Asian fighters who fought with IS in Syria and Iraq, has been a hot-button issue at the three-day Singapore summit also attended by US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

Hundreds of Islamist gunmen rampaged through Marawi, a largely Muslim city of 200,000 in the south of the mainly Catholic Philippines, on May 23 after government forces attempted to arrest their leader, Isnilon Hapilon.

Up to 50 gunmen are still controlling the city center nearly two weeks  after the start of fighting that has killed 177 people including 120 militants.

"How can we tackle these foreign fighters? We have to be comprehensive," said Ryacudu, a retired general.
"We have to find... complete ways but we must exercise caution, they are killing machines. Their aim is to kill other people so that's why it's our responsibility that we have common understanding, consensus and common proceedings on how to fight these foreign fighters."

Philippine Defense Undersecretary Ricardo David, speaking at the same forum, said the 1,200 figure for total IS fighters in the Philippines mentioned by Indonesia was new to him.

"I really don't know, my figure is about 250-400, a lot less," he told reporters.

But David said there were 40 foreign IS fighters among those who seized parts of Marawi, eight of whom have been killed by government forces.

Earlier, Philippine officials said the slain foreign fighters were from Malaysia, Indonesia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Chechnya.

"Our intelligence estimates that there are about 40 foreigners that fought in the Marawi incident," David said.
The Philippine official added that the foreign fighters used "back channels" in the Sulu and Celebes Seas near the borders of the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia to enter the southern island of Mindanao and link up with local terror groups.

"That's why they were able to muster the operations in the area of Marawi," David said. (Source:Agence France-Presse)

But for whatever its worth, when the Intel Center, an organization of international security analysts leaked to the press that the Philippines is now the 7th failed state, it alarmed me. What a coincidence that another international security group PROTECT had a security forum at MOA and Rohan Gunaratna, a terror expert lecturer confirmed that the ISIS is now in our country. i immediately alerted the president and his key people to activate immediately his SITUATION ROOM as contingency to avert any terror attack while he's in Cambodia,Hong Kong and China. Good thing that he made DOJ Sec. Vitaliano Aguirre as caretaker head. Aguirre has good contact with the intelligence community that averted any mischief while Pres. Duterte was abroad. The rest is an ongoing pocket wars that could escalate like what's happening in Syria and other parts of the world. What happened in Marawi can now be considered another Aleppo.

 We all have to be vigilant and help the Duterte administration to stop this stupidity and put an end to terrorism and violence. If not we could be part of the so called collateral damage.
 

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Terrorism Blame Game by Erick San Juan

Terrorism Blame Game by Erick San Juan

Once again, our country is in the limelight due to the unfortunate Marawi City siege orchestrated by the local terrorist Maute clan/group  and supported by the international terror network of ISIS. And it happened while President Rody Duterte is out of the country – in Russia.

While the region is distracted by the missile launching of North Korea, there is far greater problem happening right here in our home, a symbolic move by ISIS from the Middle East to East Asia. But it has been for a while now that President Duterte has been warning that the ISIS terror group is already in Mindanao and the Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police should be ready for any eventualities.

Was the government caught unaware that such group will attack sooner than they expected? Some believe that timing is suspect and that the country is ripe for a regime change. Why is this so?

Remember that Pres. Duterte is very vocal (and can be read also) through his actions that he is gradually pulling away from the claws of Uncle Sam. He also gained several international critics on his war on drugs that his men in uniform (allegedly) are engaged in extra judicial killings (EJK).

Some pundits believe that there are several financiers that is backing the operation in Marawi siege, both local and international. May be some narco politicians and drug lords and those hurt by the president’s harsh words and comments.

In the article by Tony Cartalucci, 'ISIS Touches Down in the Philippines', he writes – “Both the Maute group and Abu Sayaff are extensions of Al Qaeda’s global terror network, propped up by state sponsorship from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and fed recruits via a global network of likewise Saudi and Qatari funded “madrasas.” In turn, Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s state sponsorship of global terrorism for decades has been actively enabled by material and political support provided by the United States."

This arrangement Carlucci added, provides Washington both a global mercenary force with which to wage proxy war when conventional and direct military force cannot be used, and a pretext for direct US military intervention when proxy warfare fails to achieve Washington’s objectives.

This formula has been used in Afghanistan in the 1980s to successfully expel the Soviet Union, in 2011 to overthrow the Libyan government, and is currently being used in Syria where both proxy war and direct US military intervention is being applied.

Maute and Abu Sayaff activity fits into this global pattern perfectly.

The Philippines is one of many Southeast Asian states that has incrementally shifted from traditional alliances and dependency on the United States to regional neighbors including China, as well as Eurasian states including Russia.

"The Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, cancelling his meeting with Russia is a microcosm of the very sort of results Maute and Abu Sayaff are tasked with achieving in the Philippines. Attempts by the US to justify the presence of its troops in the Philippines as part of a wider strategy of encircling China with US military installations across Asia would also greatly benefit from the Islamic State “suddenly spreading” across the island nation."

"Likewise, violence in Malaysia and Thailand are directly linked to this wider US-Saudi alliance, with violence erupting at each and every crucial juncture as the US is incrementally pushed out of the region. Indonesia has likewise suffered violence at the hands of the Islamic State, and even Myanmar is being threatened by Saudi-funded terrorism seeking to leverage and expand the ongoing Rohingya humanitarian crisis."

That reported US-Saudi sponsorship drives this terrorism, not the meager revenue streams of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, goes far in explaining why the terrorist organization is capable of such bold attacks in Southeast Asia even as Russia and Iranian backed Syrian troops extinguish it in the Middle East.

"With US President Donald Trump announcing a US-Saudi alliance against terrorism – the US has managed to strategically misdirect public attention away from global terrorism’s very epicenter and protect America’s premier intermediaries in fueling that terrorism around the world."

The Philippines would be unwise to turn to this “alliance” for help in fighting terrorism both the US and Saudi Arabia are directly and intentionally fueling., said Carlucci.

Instead – for Southeast Asia – joint counter-terrorism efforts together would ensure a coordinated and effective means of confronting this threat on multiple levels.

By exposing the deep military industrial complex role in regional terrorism – each and every act of terrorism and militancy would be linked directly to and subsequently taint the 'plotters' in the hearts and minds of Southeast Asia’s population.

This paves the way for a process of exposing and dismantling 'state sponsored' funded fronts – including Saudi-sponsored madrasas and some international funded NGOs – both  of which feed into regional extremism and political subversion. As this unfolds, each respective nation would be required to invest in genuine local institutions to fill sociopolitical and economic space previously occupied by these foreign funded fronts.

Until then, Asia should expect the plotters to continue leveraging terrorism against the region. If unchecked, Asia should likewise expect the same progress-arresting instability that has mired the Middle East and North Africa for decades.

When the Intel Center, a global organization of top intelligence and geo strategic experts leaked to the international media that our country is now the 7th FAILED STATE, i know that the globalist program is ON.

This is the best time to give our support to our president because no matter what and he needs more prayers and moral support than ever to get through this crisis.

Who wants to be part of collateral damage. Lets get our act together. God bless our country.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

China's Double Talk by Erick San Juan

China's Double Talk by Erick San Juan

We are living in very exciting times of war threats and countries being dragged on the brink of actual shooting war. There is the ever threatening North Korea with its stubborn leader and the bully in the region that is making the neighborhood nervous.

In the midst of ‘warm friendly talks’, President Rodrigo Duterte said that China’s Xi Jinping threatened the country of a war if we insist of oil drilling in our territories in the South China Sea. Below is our leader's version of what transpired between Him and President Xi :

“I said, Mr. Xi Jinping, I will insist that it is ours and we will drill oil,” Duterte said in a speech in Davao City.

“Sinabi ko talaga harap-harapan, that is ours and we intend to drill oil there. My view is I can drill the oil. Ang sagot sa akin, ‘Well we are friends. We don’t want to quarrel with you. We want to maintain warm relationship, but if you force the issue we will go to war.’ Ano pa bang sabihin ko?”

The mere fact that this incident came from the President himself, still some people ‘clarified’ the incident as not true or it is not what it was meant to be.

Speaking in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying sought to make light of Duterte's comments, noting he and Xi had agreed to "strengthen communication" on important bilateral issues.

"During the meeting, leaders of the two countries exchanged views in depth on future development of China-Philippines relations and relevant issues. Both sides agree to strengthen communication on important issues related to the development of bilateral relations, and to proceed in a healthy, stable and correct path of good neighborly relations and cooperation," Hua said.

"In the future, China is willing to make joint efforts with the Philippines to implement important consensus reached by both heads of state, to properly handle disputes between the two countries through peaceful, friendly and cooperative (methods), to continuously deepen and expand pragmatic cooperation in various fields and to push forward a healthy and stable development of China-Philippines relations," Hua added.

According to some reports, even our very own Ambassador to China denied Beijing’s bullying. Philippine Ambassador to China Chito Sta. Romana, who joined the first Bilateral Consultation Mechanism (BCM) between Manila and Beijing last week, said there was no threat from the Chinese side during the talks.

But pundits believe that as our Philippine ambassador to China, Chito should have waited for China's ambassador to speak to clarify the incident. "Parang sya ang mouthpiece of China"
 
"But by own experience in the bilateral talks, [there were] no threats, no bullying, everything was frank but friendly, candid but productive," he told ANC.
 
"The whole idea...therefore that China was bullying us and threatening us just doesn’t pass," Sta. Romana added.

Although the above-mentioned statements clarified that there was no threat, still we have to be wary in dealing with China because Beijing said time and again that they will not honor the ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration and that they will settle any disputes only through bilateral talks.
 
Again, the politicians and the ordinary Filipinos are divided on how to deal with this development in the Manila-Beijing relations. Actually, if we will going to base on the Filipino culture’s view on friendship, it is a big no-no that friends treat each other wrongly like giving threats when they feel that their interest is at stake.
 
On the other hand, it's not only PRRD but some nationalists have already doubts that the US will come to our rescue if China will attack us.
 
Some pundits believe that China’s war threat is baseless due to the fact that China just launched its Belt and Road Initiative and going to war or just merely a war threat is not in their immediate agenda. Peace for development is their top priority for now.
 
But war or no war threat, the reality is China with its soft power using the One Belt One Road op is actually building an empire to export its surplus, giving soft loans and in the process creating the debt trap. And for those who cannot pay in cash will pay in kind like some land and rich mineral resources. Translation- possibly making the indebted Philippines a province of China without firing a single shot. Be vigilant!
 
 

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Who Do We Believe? By Erick San Juan

Tightening the Belt on a Bumpy Road? Who do we believe?

The recently concluded Belt and Road Forum as initiated by and held in Beijing, China promised a lot to boost economies of countries included in the modern silk road. But many economic and political analysts believe that in the long run it is China that will benefit the most in such a huge endeavor.

Billions of dollars in infrastructure will reportedly be given as soft loans under the guise of soft power op to gain confidence among leaders from Europe to Africa and Asia. The much needed materials for infrastructure are already in excess capacity of construction materials from China. Projects outside China are very much needed for these materials and investing on the Belt and Road initiative will favor China’s goods to reach the countries in the silk road.

Although reality check, problems may arise in the modern silk road. Unlike before, everything was smooth sailing so to speak. But now several factors have to be considered like terrorism plus the age-old piracy and of course geopolitical aspect as what is happening in the East and South China Sea.

Some other points have to be considered as what was pointed out by Bloomberg’s editorial – “The risk, for China no less than participating countries, is that vaulting ambitions could doom the project’s chances of success. What’s held back infrastructure development in Asia isn’t so much a lack of funding but a dearth of viable projects. Inevitably, as it has within China, politically motivated lending will produce more white elephants, burdening host countries with unsustainable debt burdens."

"Strategists might rationalize these losses as the price for support and stability along China’s periphery. But the costs may not be so easy to sustain. Fitch Ratings has already warned of the risk to banks’ balance sheets as loans sour. Exporting China’s investment-heavy development model will also ease pressure on inefficient state-owned enterprises to reform and slash overcapacity. And with China blocking capital outflows and holding onto reserves in order to bolster the yuan, there’s simply less money to waste on bad projects.

Nor is there any reason to think that building more roads and pipelines will in itself achieve China’s larger stated goals: to promote economic growth and hence political stability. Pouring money into development projects could just as easily encourage graft in countries along the route, fuel anti-Chinese fervor and encourage sabotage attacks. China’s historic preference for dealing with authoritarian governments—and raising few questions about their governance—can breed resentment among ordinary citizens, risking future problems.

China’s experience with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, one of the main Belt-and-Road funders, is instructive. The institution’s flashy launch in 2014 inspired fears that Chinese leaders were seeking to overturn the global financial order. These fears were misplaced. Run by a cadre of international professionals and adhering to high standards, the AIIB is, according to one estimate, unlikely to lend much more than $2 billion annually for its first five years. That will limit its influence, but also its losses.

China needs to apply the same rigor to Belt-and-Road projects, which should be scrutinized not only for their headline numbers but their long-term viability. Lenders need to be transparent about financing terms and considerate of borrowers’ ability to repay. Project officers should consult with local farmers, merchants and NGOs, not just bureaucrats, or worse, corrupt leaders; environmental concerns should be aired and addressed. And along with infrastructure, China should be promoting greater openness in economies along the route."

"Most of all, China needs to treat the Belt and Road with care and a clear-eyed appreciation of risk. That will likely result in fewer, less high-profile projects. But they—and China—will be the stronger for it.”

Some pundits also fear the debt trap that developing countries may fall into in order to go with the flow of building huge projects in the process. Like in our case there is so much to loose if we will find out one day that our debt to China is so big that we will be compelled under China’s conditions especially in our sovereign territories.

Even DLSU Professor Richard Heydarian warned of getting loans from China. Forbes.com also warned that the projected Philippine debt of $167 billion to help finance ambitious programs under Dutertenomics could baloon to $452 billion in 10 years and could lead to debt bondage to China.

Remember the China's Northrail project during PGMA's watch, it balooned to P1 billion despite the project was scrapped.

When China’s political clout and 'soft touch op' will be used as leverage, are we really ready to thread the bumpy silk road when China will tighten the belt for us to pay our debts?

Just asking.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Philippines Will Soon be a Province of China? By Erick San Juan

Philippines Will Soon be a Province of China? By Erick San Juan

The Duterte administration has gone a long way in its nine months in office traveling and has already visited 16 countries and garnered around $34 billion in ‘pledges’ which are combined aid and investments from China and Japan alone. These travels had cost us $5.5 million or about PhP270 million  according to Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III. That is supposedly a small investment with big return value. (Source: PCIJ)

The bulk of the pledged investment loans came from China which is in line with China’s President Xi Jinping’s One Belt, One Road Initiative that will take place in May 14 and 15 in Beijing. Pres. Rody Duterte will attend the meeting after his visit in Cambodia and Hongkong. What is this initiative all about?

"Previously known as “One Belt, One Road”, the initiative is being spearheaded by the Chinese government to improve trade and economic integration across Asia, Europe, and Africa. The strategy uses free-trade agreements and infrastructure projects – including roads, ports and railways – to create a modern Silk Road spanning some 65 countries, which have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of US$21 trillion. It includes both an economic land “belt” through Eurasia, and a maritime “road” to connect coastal Chinese cities to Africa and the Mediterranean."

Through China’s ‘initiative’ countries from different continents can be linked via massive infrastructure projects like high speed trains by land or sea. But according to former National Security Adviser Roilo Golez, it is not as simple as it may seem for those countries that will join the Belt Road Initiative.

“Methinks PRRD will make the Philippines a part of China’s ‘Belt and Road’ plan, make the Philippines its Southeast terminus. This would make the Philippines potentially a part of China's economic orbit which would generate immense economic benefits to the Philippines but would have serious geopolitical and security implications for the country. The overall effect on the country's well being must be carefully studied by the country's economic, security, defense, political, geopolitical and geostrategic braintrust and not decided by only a limited group."

"Should such membership in China's economic orbit come to pass, it would have deep geopolitical and security implications as well as impact on our Exclusive Economic Zone claims especially our one million square kilometer West Philippine Sea, 90% of which China claims, and even extend China's influence on the development and protection of our huge 13 million hectare Benham Rise."

"Such economic engagement would have serious implications on China's achieving its Strategic Triangle Goal and China's geo-strategic move to break out of the First Island Chain towards the Second Island Chain and consequently control of the Western Pacific. This would prejudice the security and geopolitical position of our treaty ally United States and its allies Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand and of course Taiwan."

"Considering the Belt and Road Plan's impact on the Indo Pacific and global balance of power, especially on the status of the US as the hegemon,  I do not expect the US to simply sit out and watch the economic and geopolitical consequences to unfold without talking counteraction.” (Golez)

Blinded by the economic gains that one country can get from joining the B&RI, that they overlooked the geopolitical implications in the long run. This is what I have been saying all along as a warning that we are the planned future province of China.

Another analysis taken from the article of Malou Mangahas of PCIJ - "Trojan-horse trap?" These days, the Duterte administration is willing to bet that China can turn around its dismal record of projects in the Philippines. But some Filipino scholars on China say the Philippines should be more cautious when dealing with its giant neighbor.

“These are people, companies that felt that just because they have political connections, they can bribe, they can bring all their hanky-panky in our country,” commented U.P. political science assistant professor Jaime Naval. “Huwag naman tayo pagisa sa sarili nating bansa (We shouldn’t let ourselves be taken advantage of in our own country).”

China is “also very astute like the West and we have to be as astute as them,” said Naval, a China and ASEAN specialist. “They’re not giving because they love us, they’re giving because they take something back.”

He recalled reading a study that asserted that “for every one renminbi that China gives as ODA, it gets back six renminbi.” Said Naval: “It’s a political tool. It’s a given. I accept that. But we should not be naive that China is benevolent, that it hasn’t wrung us dry.”

“There’s a big difference between ODA coming from China and ODA coming from Europe, and U.S., and Japan,” Naval continued. He said that while “ODA from these developed countries are normally on health and education and certain advocacies that have something to do with the politics of the land and democracy…when it’s an ODA from China, it is extractive. There will be digging for minerals, they will get lumber, they will be harvesting natural resources.”

Dr. Renato de Castro, who holds the Charles Lui Chi Keung Professorial Chair in China Studies at De la Salle University, for his part observed, “With Chinese deals,‘yung binigay ng mga Greeks, sabi nga…’beware of the Greeks giving gifts, it’s a trap.’ You become dependent on Chinese aid. You become dependent on Chinese market. That’s why we become strategically and politically vulnerable to Chinese agenda.”

In de Castro’s view, “you don’t allow someone whom you have a territorial dispute (with) to dominate… this is very dangerous kasi we still have territorial disputes with China so that will give China a leverage in resolving those disputes. That would favor China (and) solve those disputes on Chinese terms, because China has economic leverage.”  (With research and reporting by Karol Ilagan, PCIJ, May 2017)

That’s what make it too complicated in our case (and with the other claimants in the disputed area in the SCS) because we have something that might be taken away from us because we became ‘too friendly’ with China. In giving too much attention with our economic gains, we overlooked the shortfalls like giving up our territories.

Wake up guys!


Tuesday, May 9, 2017

War Bells Are Ringing by Erick San Juan

War Bells Are Ringing by Erick San Juan


Mobilization of military hardwares and preparation being done by soldiers are signs that there is an impending war and in the words of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi – “If war breaks out, the consequences would be unimaginable.”

The reason for the ringing of alarm bells of a coming war is that major players are on the war games and the world is nervously waiting on who will hit the button and implement the “first strike policy” or will do a preemptive strike on the stubborn leader of North Korea.

The "extraordinary" mobilization of bomber aircraft was reportedly acknowledged by China's foreign ministry, giving no further details.

The general assumption is that China is taking a defensive position in case the US administration of President Donald Trump follows through on its repeated threats of carrying out pre-emptive strikes on North Korea's nuclear facilities.

Traditionally, an ally of the communist government in Pyongyang, Beijing is widely assumed to be protecting its junior partner by flexing a deterrence force against the US. China has openly urged the US not to take unilateral military action against North Korea over the latter's controversial nuclear program.

Beijing has been calling for a diplomatic solution to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula, a crisis which seems to be intensifying following a dire warning this week from US Vice President Mike Pence that the "sword is ready," which was met with reciprocal threats from North Korea that it would "reduce the US to ashes."

Despite calls for diplomacy from China, it is also clear that Beijing is becoming exasperated with North Korea, known formally as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. China is perplexed by what it sees as the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-Un forming an "epicenter of instability" on its borders.

Earlier this month, there was even an editorial carried by Chinese state-run media warning that China might be forced to launch its own military strikes on North Korea if it comes down to the "bottom line" of preserving stability and security in the region. (Source: Finian Cunningham, Would China Strike North Korea?)

So is it going to be China against North Korea or China versus the US? Just asking.

And the tension among the key players in this war game was intensified in the exchange of words at the UN Security Council meeting wherein China always wanted to resolve the NoKor issue about nuclear missile production and testing through dialogue between US and NoKor thus stopping the US and South Korea military exercises near the Korean Peninsula in the process to ease the tension further. The use of force is not necessary when they can solve the matter through a dialogue.
As reported by Reuters that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was dismayed by Wang Yi’s tough words is confirmed by his response – “We will not negotiate our way back to the negotiating table with North Korea, we will not reward their violations of past resolutions, we will not reward their bad behavior with talks.”

Wang Yi however received strong support from his Russian ally, with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov reported by Reuters to have addressed the UN Security Council as follows – “Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov cautioned on Friday that the use of force would be “completely unacceptable.”

“The combative rhetoric coupled with reckless muscle-flexing has led to a situation where the whole world seriously is now wondering whether there’s going to be a war or not,” he told the council. “One ill thought out or misinterpreted step could lead to the most frightening and lamentable consequences.”

Gatilov said North Korea felt threatened by regular joint U.S. and South Korean military exercises and the deployment of a U.S. aircraft carrier group to waters off the Korean peninsula.
Both China and Russia also repeated their opposition to the deployment of a U.S. anti-missile system in South Korea. Gatilov described it as a “destabilizing effort,” while Wang said it damaged trust among the parties on the North Korea issue.

These arguments between Tillerson, Wang Yi and Gatilov in the UN Security Council, and the toughly worded commentary in the People’s Daily, illustrate the folly of the confrontational course the Trump administration has followed towards North Korea over the last few weeks.

Instead of isolating North Korea from China, and getting China to impose tougher sanctions on North Korea, China – exactly as I predicted – is blaming the US as much as North Korea for creating the crisis, and is not only resisting US demands for further sanctions, but is actually increasing its support for North Korea.” (Source: Alexander Mercouris Editor-in-Chief at The Duran newsletter online)
The North Korea dilemma for the UN and the rest of the world is still in the process of who will be strong enough to hold its reign so as not to start a stronger provocation that may lead us all to another world war.

Although there was an analysis in the past that the next global war will start in the Korean Peninsula aggravated by alliances of the major world powers, methinks that as long as cooler heads treat the situation with utmost diplomacy and reason, humanity can still enjoy a peaceful world... for the meantime.

But many in the know are worried about the global military industrial complex top secret agenda of the war cycle. I was told that "if the program is on, sometimes you can delay it but nobody can stop it."

God forbid!