Harbingers of the Next World War

Harbingers of the Next World War
By Erick San Juan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Terrorism in Disguise by Erick San Juan

Terrorism in Disguise by Erick San Juan


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One man used hope—the other used hate.

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

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

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

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

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

War by Design by Erick San Juan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is he risking a clash with Russia?

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

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

These are not insignificant questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change Myth by Erick San Juan

Climate Change Myth by Erick San Juan


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

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

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

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

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

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

As RT News reports:

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

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

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

At the summit he also stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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