TPP: Who Benefits? By Erick San Juan

 TPP: Who Benefits? By Erick San Juan

After the meeting of Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministers in Singapore in December 2013, the parties have not advanced significantly in working out the agreement on TPP. The US delegation doesn’t seem or intend to make concessions while many countries participating in negotiations like Malaysia and Vietnam are going to be firm in their positions on a set of fundamental issues most of which have rather socio-political than economic meaning.

The parties concerned have not managed to break a deadlock on several disputed issues. Among these are : 1) the US has not agreed to open sugar and milk markets to their partners and it actually undermines the idea of comprehensiveness of TPP. 2) A number of problems associated with getting access to goods markets remain unresolved. For example, if Malaysia provides zero export duty on palm oil, as it is demanded by the US, it will result in its national budget loss around $600 million. And the US refuses to discuss a possibility of any exceptions. 3) There are no rules agreed for producing goods. 4) There are no regulations agreed for state-owned companies. 5) Negotiations on drug patents and drug pricing are hardly progressing. 6) Controversial issue was proposed by the US scheme of settlement of investment disputes which gives a company the right to claim government’s compensation for its loss profit caused by the government agencies action. 7) A number of problems are connected to Japan’s accession to TPP. There is still no bilateral cars and other manufactured products trade treaty signed between the US and Japan. And even the US Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg is not impressed with the Philippines entry to TPP.

US Congress is dissatisfied with the fact that only a few negotiators and registered corporate lobbyists have direct access to the text of the agreement to be worked out while US representatives can only get second-hand information regarding the issue. This has forced 150 members from the US Congress to declare their refusal to ensure the White House Trade Promotion Authority. And if the Authority is ensured, the White House in turn will have its own obligation to the majority of Democrats and part of the Republicans.

These conditions will narrow the opportunity for the Obama Administration’s domestic political maneuver. But not ensuring the authority will give rise to necessity of detailed discussion in the US Congress of each of the 29 chapters of the agreement. This could postpone the ratification of the treaty indefinitely.

In such situation, one can’t exclude some ASEAN countries and Japan will continue to stubbornly defend their national interests. Some of them like Malaysia are considering the option of output from the negotiations on TPP in 2014. The US aspires to end the talks before summer because of the Congressional elections that will be held in November. That is why in the near future, the US will intensify its efforts to achieve its goals by all means. And one shouldn’t expect any exceptions for ASEAN countries.

In such conditions, the countries that have doubts about whether to accede to TPP treaty or not should postpone making a final decision until the post-election period in the US to look closely into the advantages and disadvantages of future agreements.

Remember when the US government announced its ‘pivot to Asia’, the major element in this strategy is the TPP. A good copy for the big brother’s intrusion in the lives of sovereign states in the region. The mere fact that history of alliances and coalition among nations all boils down to economics under the umbrella of security through military partnership, the strategy for military modernization of small nations is actually under the auspices of economic survival, not for the small nations but for the big nation’s military-industrial-complex and similar corporations.

The bottomline is, who will benefit in such partnership like the TPP when right from the start secrecy is the name of the game. It is good that when 'wikileaks' exposed the true picture that shrouds the TPP, nations took a second look of the said agreement. It is only through transparency and honest to goodness partnership can nations be willing to bring their whole citizenry into such undertaking. As for us Filipinos, the talk over changing the constitution in its economic provisions and the law on the use of the internet are all heading towards the possible integration of the country in this economic farce that will shortchange us in the process.
 

CSD: Peaceful Asia? By Erick San Juan

 CSD: Peaceful Asia? By Erick San Juan


For Peter Lee in his article ‘Japan hawks ruffle dovish feathers’ - for some key stakeholders, there's more money in tensions than in peace. That's certainly the case for the defense industry and the national security apparatus, regardless of what civilian providers of goods and services might think. For people and organizations that work for the war side of the street, "Peaceful Asia" is boring and unprofitable.

Sounds familiar in the world of those sustaining their military industrial complexes or simply wanted to divert from other issues confronting domestic problems. I am referring to China and the United States but it seems Japan has its own agenda for creating a war scenario too.

Beijing’s two-front military confrontations in the offing both in East China Sea with Japan and in the South China Sea with the Philippines (and other claimants) has recently created tensions. And with the forthcoming visit of US President Barack Obama in the region particularly in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines, stirred up another round of speculations.

Although several pundits believe that in the end it is possible that the conflict will spark between China and Japan that might lead to another global war, dragging with them regional partners in the process.

Remember that basically the issues on the territorial disputes has something to do with historical rights of the countries involved. As much as each nation wanted peaceful resolution on the problem, tensions from provocation,  propaganda and counter-propaganda had made it more difficult to achieve such peace in the region.

From establishing an air defense zone to visit to ‘forbidden’ shrine, and a lot of rhetoric and saber rattling, this continuous provocations might lead to mutually assured destruction if not handled with cooler heads. One such recent act by Japan is something to watch out especially by China.

As the Diet kicked off an ordinary session on Friday (January 24), Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in his policy speech that he will tackle the issue of the exercise of the right to collective self-defense on the basis of a report to be issued by a panel of experts, which is a private advisory body for him. For the first time in his current tenure, he mentioned the issue in a Diet speech. Although he did not use a direct expression, his intention is clear: to change the government’s long-standing constitutional interpretation. Under the war-renouncing Article 9 of their Constitution, Japan cannot exercise the right to collective self-defense.

If the Abe government achieves its goal, it will pave the way for Japan to engage in military operations abroad with other countries, especially the United States. Such a change would completely alter postwar Japan’s basic posture of “defense-only defense,” which is designed to ensure it will not repeat the mistake of walking the path to war as it did in the last century — with tragic results for both the region and Japan. The “defense-only defense” posture helped Japan regain the international community’s trust in the postwar period.
Japan’s embracing of the right to collective self-defense would cause friction with neighboring countries and perceived to destabilize the regional security environment. It is deplorable that Abe is trying to discard this stance, which has allowed the nation to prosper, on the strength of a report of a private advisory body. The Diet should stop Abe’s effort, which is tantamount to revising the Constitution without following the standard procedure for doing so. (Source japantimes.co.jp editorial - Abe’s dangerous path, 1/27/2014)

For a long time, the United States has been keen to enable certain joint US/Japanese operations under the current pacifist constitution, with the Japanese side moving beyond its traditional "only defend Japan" restrictions to provide benign, non-aggressive services such as minesweeping, reconnaissance and ballistic missile defense, especially for new regional security missions only tangentially related to the defense of Japan. Scenarios for increased Japanese participation in joint activities, while still within the bounds of the current constitution, have been painstakingly parsed by American and Japanese  strategists.

Collective Self Defense would add another facet to this kind of operation. A joint flotilla could be sailing around outside Japanese waters, protecting sea lanes and what not, with the Japanese vessels sweeping mines, launching helicopters and surveillance planes, etc, in full pacifist constitution mode. Then, if things get ugly - for instance, if a US vessel and equipment of an unnamed Asian power get into a scrape - then it's showtime! And the Japanese ships are free to blast away to protect the US ship, protect themselves, launch pre-emptive strikes - the list of kinetic operations possible under the label of collective self-defense is probably quite extensive.

With this sort of scenario in mind, perhaps US planners might believe that "collective self defense" kills two birds with one stone. First, it will allow Japanese forces to be more easily and effectively integrated into new US regional missions beyond genuinely defensive ones. Second, it will keep Japanese forces in a "defensive" posture, so the United States and countries around the region don't have to worry about the Japanese military going off on independent military adventures.

In other words, the "collective self defense" will give the US the best of both worlds: Japan pulls its military weight in the alliance, but Japan's military ambitions remain under the thumb of the pacifist constitution. (US blind to barbs in Japan defense plan by Peter Lee, 2/13/14)

But not for long, for Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe “using the right to collective self-defense can be tolerated by reinterpreting the Constitution without amending it.”

The scenario-building that the abovementioned developments in Abe’s military policy will not create the needed peaceful resolution to disputes but actually setting the stage for the next war. And the drummer beating the war drums is obviously will not back off.

VFA Sellout by Erick San Juan

VFA Sellout by Erick San Juan

It was only in January 25,2014 when the Philippine government and representatives from the 11,000-strong Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) agreed on the last chapter of peace talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The conclusion of the talks pave the way for the signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) that will allow the rebel group to set up an autonomous government to run parts of the poor, but resource-rich southern island of Mindanao -- in exchange for decommissioning their weapons. The said signing is the final and most challenging Annex on Normalization -- the fourth part of a peace roadmap that was set out in October 2012. (Source: Reuters)

Only a little over one week that the said pact was signed that another controversial issue was raised by the progressive block in the House of Representatives through Representative Carlos Zarate of the Bayan Muna. He based his allegations from the paper “In Assertion of Sovereignty: The Peace Process” authored by Cesar Pobre and Raymond Jose Quilop, a political science professor from the University of the Philippines who has been providing policy directions to the AFP over the last two decades through the Office of Strategic and Special Studies (OSS), a unit under the military based at Camp Aguinaldo.

According to the OSS, General Santos City in South Cotabato is being considered as the future site for a US base. Why is this so? Because  -  “One thought is about an American-led plot to lend a debt of gratitude by helping Mindanao become independent and get repaid in terms of grant of US rights to set up bases there.”

The book went on further that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has also a hand on this through USIP(United States Institute for Peace). It stated that the OSS book said Washington was considered a “major stakeholder” in the peace process and had actually used organizations that were believed to be fronting for the Central Intelligence Agency. One of these agencies is the US Institute for Peace (USIP) through the Philippine Facilitation Project.

The OSS, citing several sources, said the USIP’s “true objective is to infiltrate the MILF.”

“The US through the USIP guided the crafting of the [defunct] MOA-AD [memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain] to serve its tactical and strategic objectives in the country as well as in the Southeast Asian region,” it noted.

The allegations were denied by then US Ambassador Kristie Kenney who pointed out that the USIP acted on its own in preparing a study paper on the peace process that did not reflect Washington’s position, but “she did not mention, however, that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was among the ex-officio members of the institute.”  The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported  last February 3,2014 that Cong. Carlos Zarate of Bayan Muna condemned and called for an investigation of the alleged participation of US troops in the military operations against BIFF(Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters) in Maguindanao. US forces were seen providing medical assistance to wounded soldiers and two journalists who were hurt in a bomb attack. But Zarate said that the VFA(Visiting Forces Agreement) does not cover participation in any form of activities inside a military camp during an ongoing massive operation. He even cited the US involvement in the Vietnam War which started from providing "humanitarian" assistance, which he said was a clear euphemism for low-intensity conflict and intervention. Cong. Zarate concluded that the assistance in disguise strengthen the 'maneuvers' of the US government for a more permanent presence in the country.

We have written a lot about this move by Washington through Pentagon of actually having the bases already set up in the south (Mindanao) since Uncle Sam launched its global war on terror (GWOT) in 2001 after the September 11 terror attack. This was carried out successfully by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in joining the coalition of the willing in the war on terror. Remember that Mrs. Arroyo was given the title as the Asia coordinator in the said perceived bogus war by former US President George Bush Jr.

Whether we like it or not, our country will always be under the spell of the big brother’s whim through the collaborators in the government that will drag us all into a war not of our liking. Now that the said agreement on the Bangsamoro Political Entity is in its final stretch, the perception of allowing a US base in the said ‘new territory’ is not farfetched especially in theses exciting times where the Philippines is believed as the possible epicenter of the next global war. Unless the present administration together with the people in PNoy's loop will have the balls to say no to its master and be treated fairly as its ally and in the process be given what is due us.

John Mangun of the Business Mirror, an American stock market expert and a very pro-Filipino American journalist cited the State of the Union address last January of US President Barack Obama mentioning the Philippines, telling Americans and us that the US would always be ready to help a friend which made the Filipinos glow with honor. But Mangun doubts the sincerity of Obama. He concluded that the truth is, "those foreigners are not your friends and they actually do not like the Philippines."

 It's very clear that the US has their interests to protect but what about us? Can President Obama and the US Congress give us the same privilege they gave to Japan, like an immediate response and retaliation in case of an attack? Just asking!
 

Japan-China Psy-ops by Erick San Juan

 Japan-China Psy-ops by Erick San Juan

 

Political pundits believe that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe under the guise of making Japan ‘a normal state’ is systematically turning to the policy of re-militarization of the country and spreading nationalistic values especially among the youth of Japan’s society in the process. Along with the changes in their constitution towards gradual moving away from the postwar principles, attempting to forget some shameful pages in world history, Japan’s leader pays much attention to the restoration of the positions of the original Japanese confession – Shintoism. But ideas of Shintoism based on the myth of the divine origin of the Emperor and the Japanese nation have largely contributed to the growth of nationalism and militarism in prewar Japan and in great part has actually caused the beginning of the Second World War.

 

PM Shinzo Abe and many members of his administration are closely related to shintoists. Abe is one of the leaders of the biggest parliament association “Shinto” which comprises 240 MPs of both chambers of the country’s Parliament including 16 of the 19-member ministerial cabinet. For 84 years, Abe is the first Japanese leader to visit the main Shinto ceremony in Ise Grand Shrine which serves as the Emperor’s family sanctuary and to show the unanimity of religion and state power.

PM Abe is known, as always been in touch with the administration of all-Japan Shinto association combing more than 80,000 shrines.

 

In April, 2013 a pilgrimage of almost 170 Japanese lawmakers and cabinet ministers including my friend, Finance Minister Taro Aso (also former Prime Minister) visited the Yasukuni Shrine, honoring Japan's war dead, including 14 World War II leaders convicted of atrocities. Such visit has sparked protests from neighboring countries especially from China and South Korea. Although for the former PM Taro Aso, there is nothing new about this that could create a negative effect on foreign relations among neighboring countries.

 

But this is not the way China and South Korea view such homage to a shrine of which is a clear reminder of militaristic Japan especially the recent visit of PM Shinzo Abe to Yasukuni Shrine last December 2013 that has created another wave of protests from its Asian neighbors particularly China. Why is this so?

 

Here is what Wikipedia has to say - 'The government of the People's Republic of China has been the most vocal critic of the shrine and some Japanese observers have suggested that the issue of Yasukuni Shrine is just as heavily tied to China's internal politics as it is to the historical conduct of Japan's military and the perceived degree of its remorse for its actions. They state that tolerance on the part of Communist Party of China authorities for large-scale public protests in mainland China against the shrine contrasts strongly with the authority exercised against any kind of domestic political dissent.'

 

One controversy of political visits to the shrine is the constitutionality of visits by the Prime Minister. In the Japanese Constitution, the separation of state and religion is explicit. Because the clause was written for the express purpose of preventing the return of State Shintoism, many question the constitutionality of the Prime Minister visiting Yasukuni Shrine. Often the first question Japanese Prime Ministers are asked by journalists after a visit is, "Are you here as a private person or as Prime Minister?" In addition, whether the Prime Minister has signed the visitors' book indicating the position of signatory as shijin (private person) or shushō (Prime Minister) is diligently reported. All Prime Ministers have so far stated that their visit was private. However, although some leave the signature section blank or sign it as shijin, others sign it as shushō.

 

Prime Minister Koizumi recently gave a somewhat cryptic answer, stating that he visited the shrine as Junichiro Koizumi, the Prime Minister of Japan. Some consider such statement as a move towards making visits somewhat official; others consider that it is pointing out that the whole issue of shijin vs shushō is somewhat meaningless. Some journals and news reports, such as one made by Kyodo News Agency on August 15, 2006, question whether in the case of Koizumi's visits, which are consistently claimed by Koizumi to be private, can be considered individual in nature when they are part of a campaign pledge, which in nature is political. Currently, most of the Japanese public and most jurists have agreed that there have been no constitutional violations yet.

 

The latest homage of PM Abe to Yasukuni shrine has added more fuel to the already fiery tense relations with Beijing and even from its close ally, the US through its new ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy who also stated disappointment with Abe’s government.

 

Mr. Abe has shown, however, that he is willing to take on big political risks to steer the country away from its postwar pacifism. He ignored blistering criticism from political opponents as well as the news media and steamrollered through Parliament a law that would tighten government control over state secrets. The law was presented by the government as a mechanism to aid in the sharing of military intelligence with allies, and create an American-style National Security Council.

 

Mr. Abe has also increased military spending for the first time in a decade, and loosened self-imposed restrictions on exporting weapons. A new defense plan calls for the acquisition of drones and amphibious assault vehicles to prepare for the prospect of a prolonged rivalry with China.

 

Experts say that this year, Mr. Abe could start taking concrete steps to reinterpret, and ultimately revise, Japan’s 1947 pacifist Constitution, something he has described as a life goal. Proposed changes could allow the country to officially maintain a standing army for the first time since the war, and take on a larger global security role.

 

“The past year has given Mr. Abe confidence to start flying his own colors,” said Koji Murata, president of Doshisha University in Kyoto. “He is signaling to his supporters that he is a politician who will fight for his convictions.” (Source: Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times)

 

This also explains why a Japanese news report claimed that China has drafted another air defense identification zone (ADIZ) this time over the South China Sea including of course the contested areas. And Beijing is quick in making its pronouncement through the official Xinhua news agency that the Chinese government shrugged off a Japanese news article about its plan to replicate an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) it set up on the East China Sea in the more contentious South China Sea accusing Japan of heightening regional tensions with “rumors.”

 

Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said right-wing forces in Japan had repeatedly made such allegations with the intention of shifting international attention from the “plot” to change Japan’s pacifist constitution.

 

“We sternly warned these forces not to mislead public opinions with rumors and play up tensions for their own selfish benefit,” he said in a press release Saturday quoted by Xinhua.

 

If this saber rattling and word wars will continue between China and Japan, a regional conflict is not farfetched and it is quite obvious that with the alliances already in place, such conflict might lead to another world war.

Orchestrated Collapse by Erick San Juan

Orchestrated Collapse by Erick San Juan

From prophecynewswatch.com which was sent to me through e-mail stated that - Financial institutions the world over are sounding the alarm of the possibility of a massive default in China, come January 31, 2014. If this should happen, it could lead to a cascading collapse of China’s entire banking system, which could potentially result in "sky-high interest rates" and "a precipitous plunge in credit".

In other words, it could be a "Lehman Brothers moment" for Asia. And since the global financial system is more interconnected today than ever before, that would be very bad news for the United States and to the world as well.

Some may wonder why on January 31, the Chinese New Year?

From Tyler Durden’s article published at http://www.zerohedge.com – “CNY represents China’s official currency. It also stands for Chinese New Year, the biggest holiday for the country and the occasion for family reunions and celebration. But less familiar for many, however, the Year (?) itself actually stood for a beast which comes out every 365 days and eats everything along the way from bugs to humans. The holiday tradition started as a way for people to fend off the beast by getting together and lighting up the firecrackers.

At the same time, Chinese custom dictated that people should also pay their due to avoid becoming the beast’s target. In particular, it has been a tradition to settle all debt before the New Year. From the perspective of such folk culture, the trust product Credit Equals Gold #1, referred as CEQ1 hereafter, by China Credit Trust planned poorly for having the maturing date on the New Year, leaving a 3bn CNY beast running wild.”

With a picture like this that will happen on the 31st of this month, some analysts see things based on study of history that 2014 (after a hundred years since the First World War), it seems that the same present scenario is heading the world to another war. Actually some economists too expressed their analysis as follows (from Washington's blog):

    "A continuation of bailouts in Europe could ultimately spark another world war," says international investor Jim Rogers.

    “Add debt, the situation gets worse, and eventually it just collapses. Then everybody is looking for scapegoats. Politicians blame foreigners, and we’re in World War II or World War whatever.”

Marc Faber says that the American government will start new wars in response to the economic crisis:

    “The next thing the government will do to distract the attention of the people on bad economic conditions is they’ll start a war somewhere.”

    “If the global economy doesn’t recover, usually people go to war.”

We’re in the middle of a global currency war – i.e. a situation where nations all compete to devalue their currencies the most in order to boost exports. And Brazilian president-elect Rousseff said in 2010:

    'The last time there was a series of competitive devaluations … it ended in world war two.'

Jim Rickards agrees:

    Currency wars lead to trade wars, which often lead to hot wars. In 2009, Rickards participated in the Pentagon’s first-ever “financial” war games. While expressing confidence in America’s ability to defeat any other nation-state in battle, Rickards says the U.S. could get dragged into “asymmetric warfare,” if currency wars lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty.

As does Jim Rogers:

    'Trade wars always lead to wars.'

 Even in You Tube, most popular analysts like Gerald Celente. Glenn Beck, Jesse Ventura and others are all giving their self fulfilling prophesy. Even George Soros has predicted (orchestrated?) this possible impending collapse.
Forewarned is forearmed as the rest of the world may be preparing for the worst case scenario but sadly here in our country there is too much politicking already for the next election (if there is going to be one).

 “The writing is on the wall" or the future is predetermined by the actions taken by men as much as people repeating history, well in this case – another World War One or a Great War in the offing.

Let us pray that the Chinese New Year will bring better things but as always it is all up to us what life will bring us if we will all work harder and avoid the unnecessary war created by the greed and stupidity of the world’s elite.

Hegemony in the Offing by Erick San Juan

 Hegemony in the Offing by Erick San Juan

Despite many Chinese diplomatic assurances to the contrary, Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea is an attempt to re-establish traditional Chinese hegemony in the region.

As of January 1, 2014 China's Hainan province required all foreign fishing vessels to ask permission to enter more than half of the 3.5-million-square-kilometer South China Sea. The new regulations adopted by China's Hainan Province on implementing the country's fishing law replaced the previous regulations that went into effect in 1993.Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said there was nothing unusual about the new restrictions."As a maritime nation it is normal and routine for China to make rules to regulate the conservation and management of maritime biological resources," said Hua. "According to international laws, universal practice and domestic laws, the Chinese government bears the right and obligation to manage the biological and non-biological resources on relevant islands, reefs and in relevant waters.... If someone asserts that the technical amendments on a provincial fishing regulation which has been implemented for years will pose a threat to regional peace and stability, it's either due to lack of common sense or out of hidden intent".

But the United States says Chinese moves to restrict fishing in contested waters of the South China Sea are a "potentially dangerous" escalation in the maritime dispute. Chinese authorities say the rules are well within their sovereign rights.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki says the new restrictions run counter to efforts to resolve the disputes multilaterally.

"The passing of these restrictions on other countries' fishing activities in disputed portions of the South China Sea is a provocative and potentially dangerous act," said Psaki. (voanews.com) Even geopolitical analysts in the region believe that the absence of crisis settlement methods between China and neighboring Asian nation-states and the probability of conflict situation emerging in the region will increase not excluding the possibility of armed confrontation.

So the question asked by Elfren Cruz in his column in the Philippine Star – “How is it that the province of Hainan can claim jurisdiction over most of China’s claims of islets and atolls in the West Philippine Sea? Is this not the responsibility alone of the central government? Is it mere coincidence that Hainan province is also where a major Chinese naval base is located? This is the location of a dock for China’s only aircraft carrier and also the base for attack submarines.”

Hainan province is the second largest province of China which explains why their major naval base is located (if one will look into the map closely, it is very near Luzon.) Quite obviously, aside from the South China Sea’s untapped oil and gas reserves, the area is very rich with marine life including wide varieties of edible fish.
That is why the predominantly privately owned fishing companies based in China are hard to control by Beijing’s central government even if these companies are already engaged in overfishing.

Actually as China look for more fishing grounds, near or distant, collisions with neighboring countries happen more often especially with Vietnam and the Philippines.  Sadly, our experience with such maritime accident made our overseas workers victims whether they like it or not.

Protests from country claimants in the South China Sea about this latest fishing regulations has been sent and it is for Beijing government to take action and instruct Hainan province to ease the tensions created by such act. But back to the nagging question - why this regulation by a China’s province being imposed ‘provocatively’ in the contested area?

To shed light to this question, from Foreign Affairs, Professor David Lampton wrote an article entitled “ How China is Ruled: Why It’s Getting Harder for Beijing to Govern.” According to him, this difficulty arises from the fact that China’s central government is operating in an environment radically different from the one that existed at the beginning of Deng’s tenure. He writes that these are the primary reasons governing has become more difficult than in the past:

“First, individual Chinese leaders have become progressively weaker in relation to both one another and the rest of society. Second, Chinese society, as well as the economy and the bureaucracy has fractured, multiplying the number of constituencies. Third, China’s leadership must now confront a population with more resources, in terms of money, talent, and information than ever before.”

However, today: “The combination of more densely packed urban population, rapidly rising aspirations and the spread of knowledge, and the greater ease of coordinating social action means that China’s leaders will find it progressively more challenging to govern.”

The leadership style of Xi Jingping is also being closely observed to see how he will deal with this changing environment. It is, of course, too early to determine what his path will be. He is presently still trying to consolidate his power over Communist Party political machinery, and even more critical, over the People’s Liberation Army. (Elfren Cruz)

With China’s rising hegemony in the region and the assertiveness of its citizenry in imposing regulations that involves foreign fishing vessels, there will always be incidents that might trigger a regional conflict in the process especially with the United States who always advocates freedom of navigation in the area.

Remember that “throughout history, relations between dominant and rising states have been uneasy—and often violent. Established powers tend to regard themselves as the defenders of an international order that they helped to create and from which they continue to benefit; rising powers feel constrained, even cheated, by the status quo and struggle against it to take what they think is rightfully theirs.” (Aaron L. Friedberg, the national interest online)

 So who will blink first? The US is known for it's 'first strike policy' or doing preemptive strikes to neutralize the enemy. But China seems to do the same. China's action is now being perceived as a violator of international laws and an open threat to regional security and stability. Multilateral discussion on this issue must be addressed by the ASEAN and by the UN as soon as possible to avoid the 'inevitable' which the 'hidden hands' behind the scene are fanning to create a situation to justify such wars in the offing.
 

The True Picture by Erick San Juan

The True Picture by Erick San Juan

'Loose lips sink ships' is an American English idiom meaning "beware of unguarded talk". The phrase originated on propaganda posters during World War II. The phrase was created by the War Advertising Council and used on posters by the United States Office of War Information.

The gist of this particular slogan was that one should avoid speaking of ship movements, as this talk (if directed at or overheard by covert enemy agents) might allow the enemy to intercept and destroy the ships.

There were many similar slogans, but "Loose lips sink ships" remained in the American idiom for the remainder of the century and into the next, usually as an admonition to avoid careless talk in general. (http://en.wikipedia.org)

But in this age of high-tech information gathering and sharing especially through the internet and the widely use of several social networking sites, keeping mum on certain information that pertains to a country’s national security is no longer applicable, and some are using this avenue to mind conditioning or as deliberate leak of information.

Take for example, the endless word wars via rhetoric and double talk of countries especially claimants in the disputed area in the South China Sea (SCS) plus the saber rattling between the United States versus China. Such exchanges of provocative words are the reactions to certain actions taken usually by both China and US that involve contested areas in the region.

Such actions usually pertain to the military buildup of both Beijing and Washington that were conveniently posted on the internet through online newspapers and definitely in their government-controlled media. The mere fact that these are deliberate leaks, there are still a lot that these two giants are not telling the media because it might just ‘sink ships’ in the process.

One such ‘secret’ is about the true picture of their economies, both countries are trying to hide the sad realities of the situation that their economies are in the brink of collapse or shall I say in the process of collapsing and such situation might lead to internal conflict among their citizenry.

Let us heed the words of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln in his letter to Col. William F. Elkins dated November 21, 1864 -  “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”  (thanks to my friend and loyal listener, Rels Octaviano for this quote)

May it be the global elites or the local elites, through corporations, these elites are enriching themselves unabated. Sounds familiar? Our country is actually not spared from this phenomenon.

Like I used to say, the G2 (China and US) needed war to avoid an internal confrontation (translation-civil war). But recently it was China that has been creating situation that spells provocation. Scenarios that have made its neighboring countries nervous from ADIZ to the much recent one - the new Chinese fishing restrictions in disputed waters in the South China Sea.

The legislature of China's Hainan province approved rules in November 2013 that took effect on January 1,2014 requiring foreign fishing vessels to obtain approval to enter waters under its jurisdiction.

Such a move, if broadly enforced, could worsen tensions in the region. Beijing claims almost the entire oil- and gas-rich South China Sea, rejecting rival claims to parts of it from the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam. (Reuters)

My observation was seconded by this article "Did Soros Just Predict a China Crash?" by William Pesek that in a Jan. 2 op-ed for Project Syndicate, George Soros didn't say whether he's hitting China. But he did connect the dots in a way that can't make President Xi Jinping happy. To Soros, the main risk facing the world isn't the euro, the U.S. Congress or a Japanese asset bubble, but a Chinese debt disaster that's unfolding in plain sight.

“There is an unresolved self-contradiction in China’s current policies: restarting the furnaces also reignites exponential debt growth, which cannot be sustained for much longer than a couple of years," Soros wrote.

Xi would be negligent to ignore Soros's warnings. He's hardly alone: Peking University professor Michael Pettis and Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates have been beating this drum for years. Silvercrest Asset Management's Patrick Chovanec worries about a “shadow” Chinese balance sheet that would be keeping policy makers awake around the globe, if Beijing's obsessive opacity weren't concealing the problem. (You can read his latest concerns in this Jan. 3, 2014 Bloomberg View op-ed.)

We remember George Soros, the billionaire who first shook a major government in September 1992, when he led an attack on the British pound. For his role in humiliating London and forcing former Prime Minister John Major's government to exit the European exchange-rate mechanism -- essentially the euro -- Soros reportedly netted $2 billion. Soros made a bundle off America's sub-prime debt crisis as well. Here in Asia, his legend has loomed large since 1997, when then-Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad accused him, bizarrely, of heading a Jewish conspiracy to spark an Asian crisis.

People haven't made lots of money betting against China. But Soros is absolutely right that there's a worrisome disconnect between China's pledges to move away from excessive investment and overborrowing and toward a services-based economy without sacrificing rapid growth. If Xi doesn't act now, Soros could possibly make more than $2 billion when things go awry and savage the global economy. Add a zero. (Ibid)

Like any country’s economy, if it is built in bubbles, the day will come that it will just burst and people will ask what hit them because they never heed the echoes of the past and so they will always repeat history. And the sad part is, history might not be kind to them in the end.