SCS Issue: Can be managed but not resolved? By Erick San Juan

SCS Issue: Can be managed but not resolved? By Erick San Juan

A UN tribunal ruling could trigger the next round of brinkmanship in the South China Sea as early as next week. But don’t expect the ruling to end the dispute, especially since the Chinese have already vowed to ignore an adverse ruling.

“It’s…not likely to be resolved this year or by one international ruling, no matter how brilliant the arbitrators are,” said Patrick Cronin of the Center for a New American Security. “So it’s going to be a long term issue for the next administration.” (UN Ruling Won’t End South China Sea Dispute: Navy Studies Next Clash by Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr. 6-20-2016)

Anytime soon the much awaited United Nations tribunal’s decision will be released and this will come in time of the biennial large-scale multinational power projection/sea control exercise called Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) 2016.

Conducted biennially (every even year) under the leadership of the US Third Fleet, RIMPAC is a multinational, combined sea mobility exercise in which the ROK, US, Australia, Canada, Chile, England, and Japan have participated since 1971. RIMPAC is designed to enhance the tactical capabilities and cooperation of participating nations in various aspects of maritime operations at sea.

The exercise is held with the objective of increasing mutual cooperation and enhancing the combined operations capabilities among the countries around the rim of the Pacific Ocean so that they can ensure the safety of major sea lines of communication (SLOCs) and improve their combined response capabilities in the event of conflict on the sea.

China's debut in the world's largest naval exercise is a "leap of trust" as it teams with the United States and U.S. allies at a time of heightened regional tension over territorial disputes in 2014.

Despite growing tensions between China and United States and its allies over the “militarization” of the South China Sea, China's navy confirmed last June 2 that it will take part in RIMPAC, one of the world’s largest military exercises. China sent five ships to join the Pacific Rim military exercises, that began on June 1 and will last until August 1, near the Hawaiian Islands. China's Defense Ministry said that a fleet of its naval vessels is heading for Hawaii to join US-led multinational naval drills. The ministry said the fleet arrived at waters south of Japan's Daito Islands on Saturday and joined 2 US Navy destroyers there. The 5 Chinese vessels, including a missile destroyer and a frigate, will engage in electronic communication training with the US Navy en route. They are scheduled to arrive in Hawaii on June 29th.

According to official reports, 45 ships, five submarines and 200 aircraft from 27 nations, with 25,000 military personnel, will take part in the event, staging fire, anti-piracy, search and rescue, and, notably, Aegis missile-interception drills. Three Aegis-equipped fleets, from the US, Japan and South Korea, will practice intelligence coordination amid growing concerns of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. This year's exercise includes forces from Australia, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, China, Peru, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, the United Kingdom and the United States. Russia took part in RIMPAC in 2012, but canceled its participation in 2014, due to interrupted military cooperation between Moscow and Washington over ongoing territorial disputes in Ukraine. (globalsecurity.org)

There will be live ammunitions during the said exercise and our fear that there might be a miscalculation or a false flag op in the process might lead to an escalation of tension and hell will break loose, a convenient excuse? And who will benefit?

The following are from analysts that will somehow give us ideas on the possible scenario after the release of the UN Tribunal decision.

According to Cronin, “There’s some hope after the UNCLOS ruling that we’re going to be at least managing the tensions. China could certainly escalate if they desired, but lately, he said, “the Chinese have been looking to ratchet down the tensions even while they’ve tried to move their influence forward.” In other words, don’t expect fighting, but don’t expect acquiescence to the UN ruling either.

“Patrick Cronin is right: The ruling solves nothing, nor was it meant to,” Gregory Poling of the Center for Strategic & International Security. “It will add additional pressure on Beijing, and it will help define the boundaries of any future negotiations — likely years away — but it cannot resolve the disputes.”

Far from resolving disputes, agreed fellow CSIS scholar Bonnie Glaser, “the ruling is likely to increase tensions at least in the near term. In a sense it already has, as China has rejected the ruling, and many countries of the world have taken sides, with the US seeking to rally nations in support of international law and a rules based order — i.e. against China’s rejection.”

“In the short term, we’ll probably see China engage in some new escalation to punish Manila and signal that it will not be bound by the ruling,” Poling said. For example, said Glaser, “China may establish baselines for its territorial claims in the Spratlys, a precursor to announcing an ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone).”

Besides the legal and maritime maneuverings, Poling said, “we will also see the start of the next phase of the battle over competing narratives, this time focused on how many countries Manila and friends can get to voice public support for the ruling as legally binding and demand China complies. The question will be, whether or not they can maintain that pressure from a broad swath of countries over the long term” in the face of Chinese diplomatic and economic pressure.

“The South China Sea territorial disputes are likely to persist for a long time,” said Glaser. “The question is whether they can be managed, not resolved.” (Source: Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.)

In these exciting times, in the midst of the biggest military exercise, let us all be prepared and hope for something better as we await the UN tribunal ruling. And with the incoming president, with his wisdom, we pray that the SCS dispute can still be managed and war can be avoided.

New Opportunities by Erick San Juan

New Opportunities by Erick San Juan

"Are you with us or are you not with us?"

A question raised by President-elect Rodrigo Duterte to US Ambassador Philip Goldberg in a recent meeting in Davao City. And Amb. Goldberg answered, "Only if you are attacked."

Is this a valid answer coming from a long-time ally? I believe so, as an observer of events, we have written about this on how far the US can extend its helping hand when our country will be needing the Big Brother’s help.

Yes, for a time we have doubts on Washington’s sincerity in extending its support to us if ever we will encounter a military clash with our neighbors specifically with China on the South China Sea issue. This is because of the close economic ties between US and China and its bilateral meetings on military matters in the Pacific region.

Even though we have several treaties with the US on defense and security, as we know, these treaties are lopsided and we are at the losing end and yet our leaders seem not to bother to correct such wrongs.

Now that the country’s incoming president asked that crucial question, it is a good start to check our relationship with Uncle Sam. And during the campaign President Elect Duterte said that we have to change some of our foreign policy and be less dependent with the US.

As the incoming president, and it is a little over a week to take the seat of the highest office of the land, incoming President Duterte has to wait for some of the ongoing developments in the country. One such issue is the upcoming decision that will come from the Permanent Court of Arbitration from The Hague on the territorial dispute on the South China Sea.

As what my friend Prof. Rommel C. Banlaoi wrote in his commentary in RSIS (Rajaratnam School of International Studies) – “The Duterte presidency could open many opportunities for the improvement of Philippines-China political relations. But Duterte has to be cognizant of two major challenges that might affect his administration’s achievement of that goal: The first is the result of the international arbitration of the South China Sea dispute between the Philippine government and China. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague is expected to render its decision soon. Should the International Arbitral Tribunal not offer the Philippines a total legal victory on the case, even a partial legal victory can yield some political purposes domestically and internationally."

Duterte has the option of using the result of the arbitration as his main political
leverage in resuming bilateral talks with China. But there is a strong likelihood that
Duterte will not pursue this option, as China will not want to see him raising the
arbitration case in the process of resuming any bilateral discussions on the South China Sea disputes.

As a confidence building measure, it is likely that Duterte will keep mum on the
arbitration result and set it aside for the time being while his administration exerts
efforts to repair the Philippines’ damaged political ties with China. But there is no way for the Duterte administration to withdraw from the arbitration process because of domestic and international considerations.

Domestically, the arbitration case has the approval not only of the Filipino public but also of key national leaders involving past presidents, the senate president, the speaker of the house, justices of the supreme court and concerned department
secretaries. Internationally, the international arbitration case has the support of the
Philippines’ security ally, the United States, and other strategic partners in regional
security like Japan, Australia, South Korea, and key members of the European Union and Asean. Especially now that the ASEAN integration is in the offing. The globalists are very optimistic of the Asean economic and geo-political unification. No spoiler state will be tolerated.

But if bilateral talks with China fail to bear fruit that will redound to the benefit of the Filipino people, particularly on Filipino fishermen who are greatly affected by sea disputes, Duterte can use the arbitration decision as a fall back option. Thus, China also needs to exert its own efforts in fixing its broken political relationship with the Philippines as it takes two to tango, so to speak.

The second is the implementation of the Enhance Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US. The Duterte administration is duty bound to implement EDCA
considering that the Philippine Supreme Court already declared its constitutionality.
Moreover, the Philippines remains as a security ally of the US which views EDCA as a tool to enhance this alliance. While Duterte will not put any obstacle to the EDCA’s implementation, his administration will avoid the previous administration’s excessive pro-Americanism of embracing Philippine-American alliance at the expense of Philippines-China political ties.”

The incoming president has to play his cards well so as not to hurt any feelings from the diplomatic circle but the most important factor is his commitment to the Filipino people above everything else.

For now, we are in a wait and see mode but as far as President elect Duterte’s pronouncements on very crucial issues is concern, the Filipinos are satisfied compared to the (almost) past administration.

May God grant him wisdom to lead this country towards greatness and be respected by the rest of the world in the process.

Orlando Carnage: A False Flag Op? by Erick San Juan

Orlando Carnage: A False Flag Op? by Erick San Juan

Was the Orlando shootings last Sunday an act of terrorism or another false flag operation?

In the heat of the election season in the United States and such ‘shooting incident’ will occur, thinking class will surely include in the list the possibility that the latest incident can be labeled as another covert operation. But who benefits?

A logical analysis from Stephen Lendman published at Global Research online which says – “It’s too soon to know whether Sunday’s Orlando incident was terrorism or false flag deception.

Yet it has distinct earmarks of the latter, likely the latest example of domestic state terror, another fear-mongering pretext for out-of-control militarism, endless wars of choice, and domestic repression, America more a police state than free society on a slippery slope toward full-blown tyranny.

Muslims are alleged Washington’s few evil geniuses target of choice, falsely blamed for numerous state-sponsored domestic crimes – 9/11 the mother of all false flags. It's a pity that the American public is reportedly made to believe the Islamophobia scare bogey., according to the editorial of Manila Times today June 15, 2016.

Convincing evidence indicates the alleged Boston bombers, San Bernardino bombers, Sandy Hook shooter, a shoe bomber, an underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, shampoo bombers, synagogue bombers, and numerous other convenient patsies blamed for similar incidents were victims of elaborate hoaxes, state-sponsored false flag deception.

Pre-dawn Sunday, alleged heavily armed gunman Omar Mateen managed to kill or wound over 100 individuals at Orlando’s Pulse LGBT nightclub before city SWAT police killed him.

According to Townhall.com, Omar Mateen, an American with Afghan bloodline worked with the Department of Homeland Security and was employed by G4S Security Company as a licensed professional security guard with the capability to carry firearms on duty and passed all the security clearance and background checks. G4S security was contracted by the DHS to protect federal buildings, nuclear facilities, etc. All his firearms are legal and with permits.

Dead men tell no tales. All we know is what authorities say and the mainstream media repeat without due diligence checking.”

Another dead end? Until another so-called investigation will unearth evidences or clues that can lead to the real mastermind of the shooting. But for the meantime, the world has to be wary of the possible consequences this event has created or will create in the process. Just like the impact that was created after the September 11, 2001 or what is known as 9/11 terror attack in the heart of the mainland U.S.A.

One of the impact was analyzed by Mike Larson (editor of Safe Money Report) in his article Terror Hits Home in Worst U.S. Mass Shooting on Record, he writes : “As a financial analyst and writer, it’s also my job to put acts like these into a broader context — particularly with regards to what it means for markets. I said earlier this year that Europe’s economy could suffer in the wake of recent terrorist attacks there, and that those attacks were just in a list of reasons to avoid over-committing capital to the region.

I actually think the economic impact will be more muted here. Tragic “lone wolf” attacks, like the one in Orlando, can happen at any time. They may have a short-term impact on tourism.

But the U.S. is still perceived as a safer destination, in part because we are much farther removed geographically from some of the world’s worst hot-spots. It also doesn’t seem that terrorist groups like ISIS have the same kind of on-the-ground personnel and support networks here that they have in the Middle East or Europe.

If anything, this kind of news will likely reinforce the resolve of whichever presidential candidate wins this fall to boost defense spending. The goal? Take the fight to our enemies on their home turf, so they can’t hit us as hard in our own back yard.”

Sounds familiar? Another one of those ‘history repeating itself’ scenario because of the impending (or some say – ongoing) financial collapse, another war is needed just like what happened in the past two world wars.

Such war that will keep the war machines or the M-I-C, military industrial complex working and prop up a dying economy by reviving a dead foreign enemy that started this global war on terror (GWOT).

SCS: Cooperation or Confrontation?

SCS: Cooperation or Confrontation?
By Erick San Juan


‘Cooperate where we can; confront when we must.’

Strong words from U.S. Pacific Command commander Navy Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr. last June 4 at the recent 15th annual International Institute for Strategic Studies Asia Security Summit, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, in Singapore.

Harris said, “We want to cooperate with China in all domains as much as possible, so we have to have a view, and I have a view of cooperation where we can, but we have to confront them if we must."

“I would rather that we didn't have to, but we have to operate from a position of strength against all outcomes, and that's why you have the Pacific Command, among other things, out there.” (Report by Karen Parrish DoD News, Defense Media Activity)

And on the side of China, Adm. Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of the Chinese military’s Joint Staff Department, dismissed what he characterized as U.S. interference in Asian security issues, and rebuffed accusations that Beijing risked isolating itself through its assertive behavior and expansive claims in the South China Sea.

“We were not isolated in the past, we are not isolated now, and we will not be isolated in the future,” Adm. Sun said at the  same Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual gathering of Asian and Western defense officials. Instead, he criticized other countries for retaining a “Cold War mentality” when dealing with China, saying they may only “end up isolating themselves.”

This reaction came about when U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Saturday told the conference that China risked erecting a “Great Wall of self-isolation.” He urged Beijing to abide by international law and respect the outcome of The Hague arbitration case, which was filed by the Philippine government in 2013 in a bid to curtail China’s territorial assertions in the South China Sea. The ruling is expected within weeks.

China’s denunciations of the tribunal and its legal authority dominated the discussions at the Shangri-La Dialogue. Several Asian and Western defense chiefs—including those from Japan, Malaysia, Britain and France—urged compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or Unclos, under which the tribunal was established, though only a few of them referred directly to China.

“The timing of this conference was very sensitive for China, coming just ahead of the tribunal ruling", said Bonnie Glaser, senior adviser for Asia at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The Chinese were very much on the defensive.”

A senior Chinese delegate admitted as much, saying they face an uphill task in overcoming foreign propaganda against Beijing. “International public opinion is still being controlled by the Western world,” said Maj. Gen. Jin Yinan, a professor at China’s National Defense University. “In such unfavorable circumstances, we must still do our best to use public forums to explain China’s position.” (Source: Maritime Spat Simmers as U.S., China Talk by Chun Han Wong)

There seems to be a never-ending word war between the United States and China when it comes to the disputed territories in the South China Sea. Such confrontational exchange of fiery words were also carried over at the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue which started Monday (June 6) in Beijing.

The intent of the high-level talks, which President Barack Obama launched in 2009, is to try to find common ground. U.S. officials, for instance, have said they would seek Beijing’s help in pressuring North Korea over its nuclear program. Last week, though, Washington took additional steps to cut off Pyongyang from the global financial system—a move that could expose China, North Korea’s largest trading partner, to negative economic effects. (Ibid)

"China and the US need to increase mutual trust," Xi said at the opening of the annual strategic dialogue, calling for redoubling of efforts for the two powers to manage conflicts and avoid strategic misjudgment".

"Some disputes may not be resolved for the time being, but both sides should take a "pragmatic and constructive" attitude towards those issues.

"The vast Pacific should be a stage for cooperation, not an area for competition," he said.

Speaking for the US, Secretary of State John Kerry called for a "diplomatic solution" to the problem.

"We are looking for a peaceful resolution to the dispute in the South China Sea and oppose any country resolving claims through unilateral action", he said, referring to China's increasingly aggressive expansion in the area.

The Beijing dialogue is perhaps the most important meeting between the world's two largest economic and military powers, giving them a chance to seek agreement and iron out disputes on a range of issues related to security and economics.

The meeting is the eighth of its kind and is set to cover a number of key issues beyond the South China Sea, including climate change, cyber-security, terrorism, trade and economic cooperation. (Source: Agence France-Presse)

Despite the ‘confrontational overheated talks’ at the Shangri-la Dialogue, China’s leader Xi Jinping and US Secretary of State John Kerry tried their best to muster diplomacy and cool heads at the Beijing Dialogue. This is the other side of mutual agreement and cooperation that they have to face in order to live peacefully and avoid circumstances that might lead to confrontation.

Let us all hope for the best, for the meantime..

 

Living in Harmony by Erick San Juan

Living in Harmony by Erick San Juan

So far so good is the current situation of our fishermen near the Scarborough Shoal as the tension between Chinese vessels and our fishermen eases. Filipino fishermen with their bancas are now enjoying their daily catch peacefully minus the harassment from the Chinese.

President Rody Duterte asked Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua to allow local fishermen near the shoal when the two met on May 16 in Davso. Duterte told reporters. “If you will disallow troll fishing, commercial fishing, I would understand. But those bancas — don’t crush them — because the Filipino also needs to eat.”

A small favor requested by President-elect Duterte and granted by China.

But it would be quite different when it comes to the decision that the Permanent Arbitral Tribunal will release soon which China will not follow.

A reminder given by US President Barack Obama when he called Duterte that he must wait for the ruling of the United Nations arbitration court on the case filed by our country challenging China’s claims in the contested area in the South China Sea.

President Duterte assured Obama that “we will continue with our mutual interests, and that we are allied with the Western (world) on this issue on (the South) China Sea”.

“But I gave him an inkling that, well, I would agree to just go with you. But if it goes on still waters… there’s no wind to move the sail, I might opt to go bilateral,” he told a news program on GMA-News last May 17.

According to a report from The Guardian online, “Fears are growing that there will be a sharp rise in tensions in the South China Sea in the next few weeks after an international tribunal delivers a ruling on disputed islands and reefs that Beijing has said it will reject.

Western officials say they fear China will react to the ruling of the international tribunal for the law of the sea, which is expected to side with the Philippines, by raising the stakes in the busy trade route, expanding its land reclamation and construction activities to reefs in the Scarborough Shoal, close to Manila.

The White House is under pressure from the top US commander in the Pacific and some in Congress to take a tougher line with Beijing and carry out more military patrols close to China’s fortified islands, where there have already been close encounters between ships and planes from the two rival powers.

Beijing, which argues the tribunal has no jurisdiction on the matter, has warned the US against escalating the conflict, saying it will defend itself if necessary.

“Of course, when the ruling comes out, our friends in Philippines and in the United States will preach that the tribunal has binding power, and that China must obey the result. But surely we will be firm in saying that the results are illegal, that the tribunal has no binding power and China will not accept the ruling,” said Liu Zhenmin, the Chinese deputy foreign minister who has been a lead negotiator on the issue.

“The US knows about its own history in south-east Asia. We will oppose the US if it stirs up any conflict in south-east Asia. But if scenarios of the Korean War or Vietnam war are replayed we will have to defend ourselves.”

Liu added that he did not think “things would go as badly as that”, but warned that any US attempt to contain China’s rising sea power was doomed to failure. “We have been saying to our American friends you cannot really circle China by having joint military exercises or building military bases – you were not able to do that 30 years ago, let alone now. China’s rise and development will not be held back by anyone,” he said.

The fear of many countries in the region is China’s firm stand on its claim in the South China Sea and the possible consequence that will arise most especially from the US policy must be considered seriously but with a lot of diplomacy. As what President-elect Duterte said that if all fails from such multilateral negotiations, he will resort to bilateral talks with Beijing, and this will not be favorable to the big brother.

Although both Vietnam and the Philippines affirmed its support as allies of the US,  “Washington should clarify in its respective dialogues with Manila and Hanoi the extent of the United States' obligations and commitments as well as the limits of likely U.S. involvement in future disputes. Clarity is necessary both to avoid a scenario in which regional actors are emboldened to aggressively confront China and to avert a setback to U.S. relations with regional nations due to perceptions of unfulfilled expectations.” (by Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Advisor for Asia, Center for Strategic and International Studies)

Clarifications as to the extent of Washington’s support will be crucial when push comes to shove between claimants and China.

Lets get our act together and live in harmony with our neighbors and allies.

GWOT and Saudi by Erick San Juan

There are new revelations that caught my attention just like the open secret information that
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States and that it is not directed against Al Qaeda.

Quite the opposite: The “Global War on Terrorism” uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

“Political Islam” and the imposition of an “Islamic State” (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy.

"America is the Terror State.

The GWOT is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest.

It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing regime change”. (By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky)

We have revisited 9-11 (in our last article) because of the brewing tension between the United States and Saudi Arabia on the 9-11 report which has 28 pages of classified information that will be released by the US through the US Congress after resolutions were filed. So far the declassification of the said ‘pages’ are still classified or the US Congress did not take action, yet.

But now, the table has turned and the Saudi government just accused the US government of blowing up World Trade Centers as pretext to perpetual war. (article by Jay Syrmopoulos)

He writes, “In response to the U.S. Senate's unanimous vote to allow 9/11 victims' families to sue Saudi Arabia in federal court, a report published in the London-based Al-Hayat daily, by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari, claims that the U.S. masterminded the terror attacks as a means of creating a nebulous "enemy" in order to garner public support for a global war on terror.

The report by al-Shammari, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), claims that long-standing American policy is "built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities," which the U.S. has now turned toward the Saudi regime after being successfully employed against first the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then Saddam Hussein and his secular Baathist controlled Iraq.

Al-Shammari claims the recent U.S. threats to "expose" documents implicating the Saudi government are simply the continuation of a U.S. policy, which he refers to as "victory by means of archive." He highlights that during the initial invasion of Iraq, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was left alive and in power to be used as "a bargaining chip," but upon deciding that he was "no longer an ace up their sleeve" Washington moved to topple his government and install a U.S.-backed ruling party.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are now the "ace up the sleeve" of the U.S. government, according to al-Shammari.
        "September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings... Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation - they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed 'victory by means of archives."

The impetus behind the attacks, writes al-Shammari, was to create "an obscure enemy - terrorism - which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes" and that would provide justification for any "dirty operation" in any nation.”

The word war on the real truth behind the 9-11 terror attacks in mainland USA is now raging and who will win in the end remains to be seen. But as what Prof. Michel Chossudovsky said the GWOT was designed for worldwide conquest through regime change and we have witnessed how this operation was implemented.

“Even Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

    ““Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago

    … let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

    “And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.”  (Originally published by Global Research in March 2013, video and transcript)

Our country was among the first to be part of that coalition against terrorists and in the process we became as the big brother’s lab to such operation and we saw that in the South with the Joint Special Operations Task Force in line with the GWOT. Until we have the EDCA and it is now the whole archipelago that the US converted as their military base. What else is new?

Let us always be reminded of the mistakes that happened in the past and the lessons gained from history. There is a programmed scenario that will trigger the next world war and it will be delayed but unfortunately the program is still on.

There’s a lot to hope for with the incoming new administration of Rodrigo Duterte but let us remain vigilant and keep our prayers intact and brace ourselves for whatever the next six years will hold for this nation.

911 Revisited by Erick San Juan

911 Revisited by Erick San Juan

On the 14th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Dr. Kevin Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, made the following remarks during an interview with Press TV - “A real investigation of 9/11 would destabilize the United States’ political system… and it could even lead to a civil war.

The truth about 9/11 is so horrific that if the American people actually were to learn that truth they would completely lose confidence in their system, because the truth of the matter is that a faction of power here in the United States – the neoconservative faction – orchestrated the events of the September 11, 2001 as a New Pearl Harbor designed to launch their agenda of world domination and a rollback of freedom in the United States,” he added.

Revisiting the timeline of events that led to the 9-11 terror attacks, what really happened some fourteen years ago as to what the “controversy surrounding the infamous “28 pages” on the possible Saudi connection with the terrorists that were excised from the joint Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is at fever pitch. But that controversy is a distraction from the real problems that Saudi Arabia’s policies pose to the United States and the entire Middle East region.

The political pressure to release the 28 pages has been growing for the past couple of years, with resolutions from both houses of Congress urging the president to declassify the information. But now legislation with bipartisan sponsorship has advanced in Congress that would deprive any foreign government of sovereign immunity in regard to responsibility for a terrorist attack on US soil and thus make it possible to sue the Saudi government in court for damages from the 9/11 attacks.” (The Classified 9/11 ’28 Pages’: A Diversion from Real US-Saudi Issues
by Gareth Porter)

But the question lies on the pressing matter for the US Congress to pass the said bill with President Barack Obama’s strong opposition. What is behind such opposition?

As the call for declassification and release of the Classified 9/11, 28 pages is getting stronger, this development prompted Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir to threaten to pull out as much as $750 billion in Saudi assets held in the United States. The Obama administration opposes the legislation, warning of “unintended consequences” – specifically that the US government could face lawsuits because of its actions abroad. Analysts of Saudi economic policy, however, do not take al-Jubeir’s threat very seriously since it would simply punish the Saudi economy.

Meanwhile, Obama in an interview with Charlie Rose of CBS News on 16 April, said that his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is reviewing the 28 pages “to make sure that whatever it is that is released is not gonna compromise some major national security interest of the United States.” Obama said Clapper was nearly finished so the issue might finally come to a head within the next few weeks.

But it is unlikely that the declassification of the redacted 28 pages would add any dramatic new revelation to the story of the Saudis and the hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Former Senator Bob Graham, who was head of the Senate side of the joint intelligence committee, has implied that the 28 pages containing incriminating evidence about the hijackers’ links to the Saudi government. But Graham’s smoking gun is more likely to be speculative leads rather than real evidence of Saudi government support for the hijackers.

Past suspicions of an official Saudi role in assisting the hijackers has focused on the two Saudi al-Qaeda operatives, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, who moved to the San Diego area in early February 2000 and were immediately assisted by a Saudi man who was suspected by Saudis in the San Diego area of working for the Saudi intelligence service.” (Ibid)

The cause of the declassification of the controversial 28 pages on the 9-11 report is so big that it could be the basis for the Americans to unite against their government and stage a civil war in the process.

The heat of the coming US elections will be heightened by crucial issues such as the classified 28 pages of the 9-11 report and the threat from the Saudi government to liquidate as much as $750 billion in Saudi Arabia’s US Treasury holdings.

Can the Obama administration have the time to put on hold this matter under his watch until the election of the new US president?

Lets wait and see.