Philippines and China – USA Gov Policy

China’s President Xi jinpings’ November visit to the Philippines should concern the U.S. and its allies.

Xinghua, the official government news agency of China, reports that “China and the Philippines agreed … to upgrade their ties to comprehensive strategic cooperation… The Philippine side is ready to deepen the relations of comprehensive strategic cooperation with China on the basis of mutual respect, mutual understanding and sovereign equality, strengthen cooperation in trade, investment, agriculture, defense, health, drug control, improvement of livelihood, infrastructure construction and energy, as well as expand cultural and people-to-people exchanges in education and human resources.”

Philstar, a key Philippine news source, reports that a “memorandum of understanding (MOU) on joint oil and gas development in the West Philippine Sea was signed. The joint exploration for oil and gas in the West Philippine Sea between the Philippines and China would not affect sovereign rights and claims of the two countries over the disputed waters, according to a draft framework agreement released by Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV yesterday. The MOU was among 29 agreements signed by Manila and Beijing at the start of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s two-day state visit in the Philippines.”

President Duterte has moved his nation away from the U.S. and closer to China. According to the official Philippine government news agency “Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday said the relationship between China and the Philippines has “turned around” since Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte assumed office in 2016. Xi made this remark in his toast during the state banquet in his honor which was hosted by President Duterte at the Rizal Hall of Malacañang.’After President Duterte took office, our two sides have worked together to remove many obstacles. Our relationship has been turned around and put on the right trajectory,’ Xi said in his speech.’”

There is significant dissent within the Philippine government to President Duterte’s efforts to move closer to Beijing, a reflection of his anger which reached a high point during the Obama Administration. Philstar reports that “The Duterte government must heed the general sentiments of Filipinos to defend the country’s sovereignty and territorial rights in the West Philippine Sea (WPS), former solicitor general Florin Hilbay said yesterday. Sen. Risa Hontiveros aired a similar concern as she urged President Duterte to stop kowtowing to China and start asserting Philippine sovereignty”

Robert Kaplan, a former member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, notes that “China’s increasing geopolitical sway over Manila is helped by the fact that China is the Philippines third largest trading partner. There is also the extreme wealth and influence of China’s émigré community in the Philippines.”

Relations between Manila, a long-time U.S. ally, and Washington deteriorated dramatically during the Obama Administration. The failure of the Obama Administration to respond to China’s 2013 aggression towards the Philippines was a crucial factor in the alienation.
While stress and anxiety can undoubtedly cause impotence, this doesn’t equate to a rise in online viagra prescription Sales. Other therapies for erection problems: Your physician may recommend a vacuum pump, placing pellets into your urethra, cialis soft canada slovak-republic.org injections of medicines into your male organ, or surgery. Again, it is uncertain how these remedies http://www.slovak-republic.org/folk/architecture/ buy vardenafil levitra in fact interrupt early ejaculation. Physical debilities in cheap cialis viagra senior men are mainly due to anxiety and depression.
The facts are harsh and undeniable. China took possession of almost every off-shore Philippine oceanic economic claim, although some access has been allowed. From the 2011 attack on Philippine fishing boats within Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone and throughout the Obama Administration, America was essentially been missing in action in response to the aggression. Overall, the United States has barely lifted a finger to assist one of its oldest regional allies, failing even to lodge diplomatic protests at some of China’s most serious offenses.

The National Interest noted during China’s invasion that “The Obama administration continues to equivocate on the question of whether the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty … covers Philippine-claimed land features in the South China Sea.”

In 2016, the World Court ruled that China’s move against the Philippines was illegal. The Obama Administration continued to do nothing. In October of that year, Philippine President Rodrigo threatened to “break up” with the US and said President Barack Obama can “go to hell.”

The growing strength of China’s navy compared to the United States in the region is a particular worry. Seth Cropsey, former U.S. Navy Deputy Undersecretary, warns that “Subtract or diminish American seapower in a strategically critical oceanic region and power relationships readjust, stability diminishes, and established alliances shake.”

Photo: President Xi arrives in Philippines (Philippine government news agency)

The failure of the Obama Administration to respond to China’s aggression both in general and towards the Philippines in particular may have been a crucial factor in the alienation that took place between Washington and Manila.

The facts are harsh and undeniable. China is now in possession of almost every off shore Philippine oceanic economic claim, although following the recent anti-American statements by President Duterte it appears that some access has been allowed. From the 2011 attack on Philippine fishing boats within Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone and up to the present, America has essentially been missing in action in response to the aggression. Overall, the United States has barely lifted a finger to assist one of its oldest regional allies, failing even to lodge diplomatic protests at some of China’s most serious offenses.

Beijing’s actions have not been subtle. Chinese military vessels have threatened civilian Philippine fishing vessels.

While there have been past episodes of pique between Washington and Manila (in 1991, the U.S. was told to leave its naval base in Subic Bay) the current tilt towards China may prove to be the most serious split between the two nations. President Duterte has stated that he wants all U.S. troops to leave his nation within two years. American armed forces currently reside within five Philippine-run camps. They are rotated in the nation and are not considered permanently based there.

Speaking at a meeting in China’s Great Hall of the People, Duterte stated, according to the Malaya Business Insight publication, “Your honors, in this venue I announce my separation from the United States…So I will be dependent on you for all time…America has lost now…No more American influence. No more American [military] exercises. It’s time to say goodbye, my friend.”

According to the Russian news source RT Beijing and Manila discussed a number of measures, including joint access to the resource-rich offshore areas which the world court at the Hague belong to the Philippines but which China has illegally occupied. RT also reports that “The Philippines will pursue ‘independent’ foreign and military policies separate from US interests in the region, the country’s president said, announcing that in order to avoid any confrontations with China he would halt joint Filipino navy patrols with the US. The Asian country may now also look toward China and Russia in order to acquire new weapons so that it can improve its capabilities tackling insurgencies and terrorism in the country.

While disinviting U.S. troops is not unprecedented, the potential realignment with China is. It is particularly unusual in light of Beijing’s almost universally condemned aggression against the Philippines. However, during a recent state visit to Japan, Duterte assured Tokyo that he would not militarily align his nation with China.

There appears to be a specific element of anger involved in Duterte’s actions, aimed directly at President Obama. He has frequently launched diatribe-filled statements at the White House.
Some of the companies and foreign pharmacies are now delivering generic super cialis the medicine in time of need. The reason is that it is viagra order online . Tadalafil Online is the generic name for the trade name drug purchase levitra and has been very popular for treating different erection problems. If you’re someone who belongs to this age group, someone who is trying to do tens and hundreds of devensec.com sildenafil australia tasks and keeping themselves packed for most of the hours in the day.
It remains to be seen how real the split becomes. Despite Duterte’s rhetoric, notes the Wall Street Journal, “Filipinos remain staunchly pro-American, with a recent Social Weather Stations survey finding 76% have ‘much trust’ in the U.S., versus 22% for China. Filipinos know about Beijing’s South China Sea abuses, and they know that when Typhoon Haiyan struck in 2013 the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier and $20 million in aid while China initially chipped in $100,000.” There is also a question whether he can fulfill his anti-U.S. military goal. There has been no move on Manila’s part to abandon the two nation’s 65-year-old mutual defense pact or the two-year-old agreement to rotate U.S. troops in local military facilities.”

The National Interest notes that “The Obama administration continues to equivocate on the question of whether the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty … covers Philippine-claimed land features in the South China Sea.” But technical interpretations of treaties are not the point in question. There is a disturbing pattern in U.S. foreign policy during the Obama presidency and the tenure of both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry at the State Department, one that seems counter-intuitive to American interests.

Russia was given a beneficial nuclear arms treaty at the start of the Obama Administration, and only very weak sanctions were imposed when it invaded Ukraine. No penalty has been attached for its violation of an intermediate-range nuclear missile pact. No action has been taken in response to Moscow’s militarization of the Arctic, or it’s turning Nicaragua into a landing base for its nuclear bombers.

Similarly, no action has been taken in response to China’s clearly illegal and aggressive actions, including those directly affecting U.S. allies.

Iran, despite its role as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, has been given vast sums of cash.

More examples could be provided, but the point is already obvious: The U.S., through the pacifism of the Obama Administration, is in danger of losing its allies, as the expansionist actions of Russia, China and Iran go unanswered.

President Duterte appears to be open to improving relations with Washington following the results of the 2016 U.S. election.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.