Obama beefs up Philippines with military pact gives US access to air, sea bases

Obama's Manila visit beefs up Philippines 

 US President Barack Obama is now in Manila, the last stop of his Asia tour, after his visit to Japan, South Korea and Malaysia. This is Obama's first visit to the Philippines in more than six years since he took office in January 2009. He hopes to reiterate and reinforce the US "pivot to Asia" strategy that has been struggling to gain footing.

Against the background of a drastically changing geopolitical landscape in the Asia-Pacific region with growing Chinese influence, the US is keen to rally its Asian allies to maintain and promote its status as an Asia-Pacific country.

The Philippines is among the most aggressive claimants of the South China Sea, and Washington keeps reassuring this state, which is a stronghold on the "first island chain" around China.

Apart from counterbalancing an increasingly assertive China by intensifying strategic cooperation with and pledging economic assistance to China's surrounding countries, Washington also attempts to remold its image in the mind of its Asian allies, in particular when its European allies are losing confidence in the world's greatest power because of the Ukraine crisis.

Now that London is behaving half-heartedly, Paris and Berlin have shown reluctance to impose harsher sanctions against Moscow over its integration of Crimea, Obama intends to exhibit his firm commitment to reassuring all allied nations by aiding the Philippines, a treaty ally that is both economically and militarily backward.

Defense and security issues are dominating Obama's journey in Manila and economic concerns are another area on his agenda.

Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and US Ambassador Philip Goldberg on Monday morning signed a 10-year deal, allowing a bigger US military presence in the Philippines and better access of US troops to the country's military bases, ports and airfields.

The Philippines was once home to two of the largest US naval and air force bases outside the continental US territory till the early 1990s. Now in light of China's increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea, the White House is sparing no effort to beef up its military presence in one of the critical links around Beijing.

More than 100 left-wing activists demonstrated at the US embassy in Manila to oppose Obama's visit and the military accord on April 23, despite the expectations from the Philippine military, business sector and local media for more US military equipment including advanced ships and aircraft .But it should be noted that the small-scale protest is a routine affair and therefore Aquino's government is unlikely to pay special heed to it.

Also on the agenda for Obama's Manila visit is economic cooperation and financial assistance.

The New York Times commented that given the wide spectrum of security difficulties the US is facing in Asia, promoting trading collaboration might be the best way for Obama to build credibility in his "rebalancing toward Asia" policy.

There is no denying that economic interaction with its Asian partners will help increase the US capital export.

Nevertheless, for the Philippines enmeshed in long-term economic debilitation, the number of cooperation programs the White House will offer may be quite limited.

Manila is in no way comparable to Tokyo or Seoul, the most vital economic pillars among the US' Asian allies, a pragmatic Washington will not invest too much.

Obama's pledges of economic packages, if there are any, will be more a show than substantial assistance.

Consequently, the Philippines will get little practical interests except some psychological comfort from its US ally, since Obama also refrains from drawing another red line on possible military action against Beijing.

Washington has deliberately been scheming to attract Manila to its geopolitical game in the Southeast Asia in a bid to continue the territorial rows over the South China Sea and counterbalance China's rise.

Compiled by Global Times reporter Wang Xiaonan, based on an interview with Ji Qiufeng, professor of international relations at the School of History, Nanjing University.
 

Philippine pact gives US access to air, sea bases

US President Barack Obama chats with Philippine counterpart Benigno Aquino as he signs the guest book at the Malacanang Palace in Manila on Monday.[Photo / Agencies]

Obama backs Manila's decision to seek int'l arbitration of territorial dispute

Washington secured a key part of its pivot to the Asia-Pacific region with a decadelong defense pact with Manila on Monday, as observers said the militarization of the region is playing with fire and makes a diplomatic settlement much harder.

The US-Philippine Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement was signed on Monday at the Defense Ministry in Manila shortly before Obama's arrival on the last stop of his four-country Asian tour.

The pact gives US forces temporary access to selected bases and allows them to base fighter jets and ships in the Philippines, as "part of a rebalancing of US resources towards fast-growing Asia and the Pacific", Reuters said.

The US goal in Asia, Obama said on Monday, was not to contain or counter a rising China. However he "backed Manila's efforts" to submit territorial problems with China to adjudication by international arbitration, AFP said.

The rhetoric has been charged recently between Beijing and Manila as the Philippines tried to boost its claims over China's Huangyan Island and Ren'ai Reef in the South China Sea and sought greater involvement from Washington.

"Manila's efforts have dovetailed with Washington's intention to shift to the economically booming Asian region, partly as a counterweight to China's growing clout," Associated Press said.

Rommel Banlaoi, an analyst at Manila's Center for Intelligence and National Security, told Reuters that relations between the Philippines and China will deteriorate further as China "is averse to any Philippine government initiative to involve the US in its security agenda".

"We are strengthening our relationship with the US at the expense of our relationship with China," he said.

Jia Duqiang, a Southeast Asian studies expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the pact serves as a component of "the Obama administration's ongoing plans to militarize issues that are rumbling in the Asia-Pacific region", and this is "actually playing with fire".

"We have seen Obama press the need for defense cooperation with US allies in almost every stop of his Asian trip, which illustrates Washington's unchanged double approach in its dealings with China — dialogue plus coercion," Jia said.

Responding to the pact on Monday, Beijing called for "relevant countries" to build more bridges to facilitate trust, regional peace, stability and prosperity.

"The US has said on different occasions that Washington has no intention of coercive moves against China, and it is necessary to examine the follow-up remarks and actions," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said at a news conference in Beijing on Monday.

The defense deal was signed and announced "when tensions between China and its neighbors have been rising" and it is "the biggest policy achievement" of Obama's trip to Asia, the Washington Post commented.

The Philippines was an American colony from 1898 to 1946, and their defense treaty, signed in 1951, is the oldest US treaty alliance in Asia. During the Cold War the US had a large military presence in the Philippines at Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Station.

But a greater US presence in the Philippines is a heated topic. Fiery debates in the Philippine Senate ultimately led to closing Subic Bay Naval Station, the last permanent US base in the country, in 1992.

Qu Xing, president of the China Institute of International Studies, warned that rising tension concerning the South China Sea has radicalized public sentiment in some countries, which makes rational discussion over the issue at the diplomatic table "much harder".

Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said a number of China-related remarks made by prominent US figures, including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who visited China earlier this month, have sent a clear signal that "Washington is backing the Philippines".

"These remarks run counter to the official US position that it does not take a position over the South China Sea issue," Wu said.

Obama said at a news conference on Monday, "We welcome China's peaceful rise. We have a constructive relationship with China."

But Jia from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the Philippines, more so than Japan or Vietnam, has fully endorsed the US strategy of containing China.

"Beijing should never have high expectations of Washington taking a fair approach over the South China Sea issue," Jia said. "The tension in the South China Sea will probably worsen because Washington is determined more than ever to contain China in this regard," Jia said.

- By Zhang Yunbi China Daily

Containment unlikely in Asian geopolitics 

Is it for containing China? This is a question that will be haunting the whole of East Asia during US President Obama's ongoing trip to this area. Tokyo and Manila hope it is, but the facts will prove it is only their wishful thinking.

Obama's four-country visit should have been done last October. But it was delayed because of the debt ceiling crisis and government shutdown. When voices about the US declining are rising dramatically, the top priority of Obama's trip is to reassure its Asian allies to keep their faith in Washington.

Washington keeps declaring that it doesn't pick sides in terms of the Sino-Japanese and Sino-Philippine territorial disputes. But it explicitly shows favor for Tokyo and Manila when frictions in these areas take place.

Washington tries to kill two birds with one stone by supporting its allies while avoiding irritating China, a delicate way to maintain the balance between business profits and political influence.

Obama putting off the October trip has already sent a signal that Asian allies must make way for US domestic affairs.

While in order to revive its declining economy, the US depends much more on China than these allies. Washington cannot bear a strategic confrontation of containment and counter-containment with China.

China's Asia policy keeps holding the strategic initiative with restraint. Washington and its allies' arrangements to contain China will probably end up in vain. They have no chips to bargain with China. In fact, both the US and its allies are calculating how to benefit from China's growth.

China's rise has become the biggest variable in the Asia-Pacific strategic framework. China shows to the world that it is committed to utilizing its power in a peaceful and restrained manner, and the US has also basically recognized a stronger China.

These two new developments are shaping a new Asia-Pacific order during China's rise. There will be a new balance in this area, and no countries are able to break it.

Obama's rebalance toward Asia is a rearrangement of the US presence in this area to maximize its interests. But the US is not powerful or ambitious enough to contain China in this area, or even strangle China before it rises to be a global power.

It is just an illusion for some Asian countries to contain China. In fact, there are many controversies concerning China's rise within the US-led alliance.

Japan and the Philippines want a tough stand against China, but are also worried that Asia might become the victim of a Cold War-like confrontation between the US and China.

Containing China is a plausible option for several Asian countries, but it will be proven impossible in the real Asian geopolitical game.

Obama should know that his actions and remarks during this trip will keep making headlines, but he had better not stir up a situation that is even beyond his own control.

Global Times  2014-4-23 23:53:17

Related:  The US and Japan are playing with fire in Asia

Related posts:

Obama's loss of balance, his Diaoyu Islands vow 'may backfire'

US president barack obama may have congratulated himself in private for apparently pulling off a difficult balancing act, but if so, he is...

Asia future at risk if Obama sends wrong signals to Japan

US President Barack Obama steps from the Air Force One as he arrives in Tokyo, Japan on April 23, 2014. Obama began a four-country trip...

US-Syria drums of war — a familiar beat

The only solution for the Syrian issue is a political one and a peace conference of all actors may stop further bloodshed.

A HORRENDOUS attack with chemical weapons is alleged to have killed 1,429 people in a Damascus suburb on Aug 21.

Use of such chemical weapons is a flagrant violation of international law and the culprits must be hounded and herded to the International Criminal Court.

However, it is not clear who the real perpetrators are.

The Syrian government alleges that US-supported rebels carried out the attack to turn global sentiment against Syria. Obama pins the blame on Assad and is using this as a justification for a threatened war that circumvents the UN, like Bush before him.

The claims of both sides must be investigated impartially by the UN and there should be no resort to unilateral punishment before all facts are established. It is not in accordance with due process for the accusers to arrogate to themselves the role of adjudicators.

In the meantime, one must note that in March, an Independent Commission of Inquiry of the UN headed by Carla del Ponte had concluded that the nerve agent sarin was used by US-supported rebels and not the Syrian government.

It is also noteworthy that the weapons inspection team of the UN was in Syria at the invitation of Assad who is unlikely to have resorted to such an abomination with the UN watching over his shoulders.

The US and UK have a long, catalogued history of murderous lies to construct the pretext for war.

In August 1945, the US concealed the fact that Japan was actively negotiating surrender and went ahead to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a brutal atomic attack.

The US invasion of Vietnam in August 1964 was founded on the deceitful lie that Vietnamese torpedo boats had attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. The war took the lives of millions of innocent Asians and 50,000 American combatants.

In 2003, lies and skewed facts about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction led to the pulverisation and conquest of Iraq. 

Similar deceitful warmongering led to the attacks and subjugation of Afghanistan and Libya. The Third World is now quite mindful of Western spin masters and their weapons of mass deception. 

Assad is on a winning wicket and Western allies are understandably eager to find any pretext to kill him like the way they did Saddam of Iraq and Gaddafi of Libya.

The US, EU and Israel are fomenting civil war in Syria that has so far killed 100,000 for various geopolitical reasons: to weaken Iran and Hezbollah who are the only remaining regional rivals of Israel; to thwart the proposed Iran-Syria oil pipeline; and to kill the plan to sell Iranian oil in currencies other than the almighty US dollar. The Syrian conflict is a proxy war by the US against Iran.

There is also the desire to consolidate an uncompromising version of corporatism that seeks total economic hegemony over the region. Observers have noted that “defence manufacturer” Lockheed Martin’s stock prices rose sharply since news proliferated of the chemical weapons attack!

Any attack on Syria by a “coalition of the willing” on so-called humanitarian grounds will be a gross violation of the UN Charter.

Except for the narrow exception of unilateral self-defence under Article 51, the Security Council of the UN is the only authority empowered by chapter VII, Articles 39-42 to use force against a nation that is guilty of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

American-style unilateralism and exceptionalism pose significant potential for abuse. This is evidenced by Nato’s destruction of Gaddafi’s regime in 2011 under the guise of a limited humanitarian operation. One must also note that the terror of war necessarily results in thousands of civilian casualties.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s description of the Damascus chemical attack as a “moral obscenity” is very touching but reeks of hypocrisy. It is well known that the US used napalm and agent orange in Vietnam; depleted uranium in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Bosnia; and white phosphorus bombs in Fallujah in 2004.

Saddam Hussein’s chemical attacks against Iran were with Washington’s full knowledge and support. In fact the chemical weapons, the feeder stock and equipment were supplied by the US, UK, Germany and Italy.

While the world has been focused on the horror in Damascus, US supported rebels have carried out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against 40,000 Syrian Kurds to force them to flee across the Tigris into Iraq.

There is not a word of Western condemnation of this atrocity.

The threatened missile attacks against Syria would cost thousands of innocent lives. In typical American style of justice, people will be butchered in order to save them from a dictator!

Weapon depots will explode, resulting in horrendous collateral damage. There is no certainty that Bashar Al-Assad will be toppled.

A broader conflict may result if Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran react against Israel and America’s bases in the Middle East.

US military intervention in Syria’s civil war will, therefore, be an enormous mistake. It will not promote US interests. The use of missiles can change the military balance but it cannot resolve the underlying historic, ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fuelling this conflict.

The only solution for the Syrian issue is a political one. A peace conference of all actors may stop further bloodshed.

President Obama must remember that you can start a war when you will; you can’t end it when you please!

Reflecting On The Law - contributed by Shad Saleem Faruqi
Shad Saleem Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM. The views expressed here are entirely his own.  

Related post:
The sheriff threatens to strike Syria

The sheriff threatens to strike Syria

 

People against war: Supporters of the anti-war group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition participate in a rally in Washington DC, in opposition to a possible US military strike in Syria. – EPA

For nearly all countries including the US, a military attack on Syria will only make things worse.

TEN years after US President George W. Bush attacked Iraq, his successor Barack Obama is set to do it with Syria.

A secular Muslim autocrat in West Asia, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) so he “had” to be removed. Back then, Senator Obama had accused Bush of an unjustifiable and unnecessary war based on a flimsy pretext.

Now a secular Muslim autocrat in West Asia, Syrian President Bashar Assad, stands accused of using chemical WMDs. No evidence against Bashar had been presented before Washington’s decision to punish Syria.

Obama’s supporters may say it is a little different this time – just a little, though not much. Saddam’s case involved accusations of WMD possession, while Bashar’s involves accusations of actual use.

But what real difference is there once the bombs begin to drop? The arguments and circumstantial “evidence” so far are insufficient to support even a misdemeanour in a civil court, let alone a serious action such as war.

Just as the so-called evidence against Saddam’s Iraq was false, the same may be said of the case against Syria so far.

At a time when the US needed to convince the international community to support action against Syria, no evidence against Bashar had been offered. It nonetheless seemed sufficient to get Washington on the warpath again.

The White House says there is no doubt that Syria had used chemical weapons, but doubts persist. The Syrian government insists it did no such thing.

The issue concerns allegations of chemical weapons use in an area controlled by rebel forces just outside Damascus on August 21. The result – about 1400 civilian deaths.

Critics of military action ask why Syria had agreed to a UN arms inspection if it had just used banned chemical weapons, why it should target civilians including children who were not against it, and why it should do so knowing the likely international consequences. They also question the reliability of the evidence linking the incidents to the Syrian government, and the credibility of the source of the alleged evidence itself.

At the same time, motives also exist for falsifying evidence to blame Syria, so that US military action would weaken or dislodge Bashar. The beneficiaries are within and outside Syria.

The strongest “evidence” against Damascus comes from Israel, specifically Unit 8200 of the Israeli Defense Forces that supposedly intercepted the Syrian military’s electronic communications. According to Prof. John Schindler at the US Naval War College, Israel then fed this information to Washington and London for follow-up action against Syria.

Bashar’s Syria is the latest Muslim country in West Asia to be undermined by Israel, following Iraq, Libya and Egypt. In quietly promoting Western military action against these countries, Israel need not spend a single dollar or risk a single soldier’s life.

Western countries inclined to military action often find they have to depend on Israel. They lack the kind of intelligence information on the ground that Israel has, regardless of whether that information is trustworthy.

This also happens to benefit various militant groups hoping to seize power after Bashar – up to a point. Israel expects them to disagree among themselves and neutralise one another as Syria disintegrates, leaving the door open to Israeli interests.

In a US poll on Friday, 52% of respondents believe that once Bashar falls, Syria would be split. Over the medium and long terms, Israel would be the only beneficiary of another dismembered Muslim nation.

Within Syria, the considerable but still limited military strength of the various opposition groups has meant an armed stalemate while Bashar remains in office. The only factor likely to make a difference is Western military intervention, if that could be “arranged”.

On Thursday, an Associated Press news report said Washington remained uncertain where Syria stored its chemical weapons. US intelligence officials acknowledged that proof of Syria’s use of these weapons was still unclear, and that they were even less certain of Bashar’s guilt than they were of Saddam’s.

On the same day, a report released by the British government revealed that London did not understand why the Syrian government would want to use chemical weapons as alleged. Yet Britain was prepared to support the US position that Syria was guilty, nonetheless.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of international opinion is set against military action. This includes the general populations in Britain and the US.

The US Congress is divided on the issue and insists that its prior approval is needed, while the British Parliament on Thursday voted to oppose military action. But US officials have said none of this would change their plans.

Russia says no evidence exists of chemical weapons use, much less to link the Syrian government to such use. China says the UN Security Council should not be pressured on deadlines to approve any action before UN inspections are complete.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appealed for calm and for enough time for UN weapons inspectors in Syria to complete their job. Their mission ends this weekend.

Former chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix, in a similar situation a decade ago when the US had already decided to attack Iraq, now questions the right of any country to attack Syria even if it had actually used chemical weapons.

Despite the international ban on chemical weapons, no international law obligates any power to attack a country for the use of WMDs. The US itself is not restrained against its first use of nuclear WMDs.

The official US line is that “punishing” Syria is not intended to topple Bashar. In the heat of hostilities, however, nobody can guarantee there would be no regime change, especially when US forces meet with resistance and risk international embarrassment for not achieving anything substantial.

The US case for an attack also claims the “immorality” of Syria’s alleged chemical weapons use. But the moral argument is defeated when an attack could result in more civilian deaths and suffering than the supposed use of chemical weapons.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that any action that escalates the Syrian conflict would only result in more civilian suffering. Unesco said the looting of Syria’s rich cultural heritage had already begun.

White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that logically, there was no doubt about the Syrian government’s guilt. But logic remains the biggest impediment to the US argument.

Attacking another country can be legitimate only in a case of self-defence or when approved by the UN Security Council. The latter requires endorsement by all the UNSC’s Permanent Five members.

A US attack cannot cite self-defence because Syria did not attack the US. Neither will there be UNSC approval, since Russia and China are likely to vote against.

Nonetheless, the US proceeded to attack Iraq in 2003 even after China abstained. Obama may now outdo Bush by attacking Syria when both Russia and China object.

US bombs may also hit chemical weapons stockpiles, releasing poison gas and killing many more people. But then only Syrians would be affected.

Obama’s standing in the Muslim world has declined considerably since its height with his 2009 Cairo speech. Where actions speak louder than words, that decline is also happening in the developing world in general.

BUNN NAGARA is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia