South China Sea: Get Serious, Lose the Hypocrisy

Yes, there are important issues in the South China Sea. But US people must begin by refusing to buy into US government hypocrisy on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Chigua (China name) / Mabini (Philippine name) on January 24, 2015.
(It is also known as "Johnson South Reef.")

Buried in the article in The New York Times this past week about the South China Sea conflict -- a conflict the US and others want to see judged under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) -- is this sentence:

The United States signed the United Nations treaty but never ratified it.

In other words, the US government and the US mainstream media see fit to tell the US reading public all the ways that China should be behaving differently in light of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) even though that is a body of law that the US is not a party to.

(Sort of the same way the US government and the US mainstream media tsk-tsk China for creating military installations on a few sandbars in the area when the US is itself re-instituting its extensive system of bases throughout the nearby Philippines, not to mention its network of bases throughout the area of the Asia-Pacific bordering China.)

The US has adopted the role of "enforcer" by traversing the waters involved with its navy. It seeks to remind China constantly of the US interpretation of China's rights (and the limits on those rights) under UNCLOS -- i.e. under that treaty that the US is not, itself, a party to.

The issues in the South China Sea are extremely important. US people need to use that situation as an invitation to get interested in the larger context of how the US behaves in that region and in the world.


Related posts

In much of the 20th century, conflict and war centered on oil resources and the Middle East. Will the 21st century see conflict and war center on fisheries, particularly in the Pacific?

(See Pacific Fisheries' Futile Conflict: How about sharing?)












As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?)







My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.

(See 21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement)

Pacific Fisheries' Futile Conflict: How about sharing?

In much of the 20th century, conflict and war centered on oil resources and the Middle East. Will the 21st century see conflict and war center on fisheries, particularly in the Pacific?

The UN International Day for Peace 2016 has been tied to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Life Below Water is goal #14. With Barack Obama visiting Asia, and the G7 meeting in Japan, it's a good time to see how Life Below Water ties to issues of war and peace.

I was intrigued by an op-ed by outgoing Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou in the Wall Street Journal.  It was a closely argued piece on the appropriate way to observe (and adjudicate) economic rights in the Pacific. (See "Taiwan's Stake in the Western Pacific") This was Ma's swan song -- it appeared on the eve of his retirement from the presidency, and the (historic) swearing in of the Taiwan's new (woman) president.

I know that these ocean rights are important. But really? Why ask people to consider a point-by-point analysis of the respective merits of Taiping Island and Okinotori Reef claims by Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan?

I've lived in Taiwan. I knew there were a lot of fish in Taiwan.
I just never stopped to think about where the fish came from.

It made me stop and think: Ma felt this was the most important topic to talk about as he walked out the door. In effect, Ma was saying: Hey! Pay attention to these fishing rights! They will be the most important thing of all to us in the years to come!

(N.B.: not "the Mainland"!)

Consider: "Oceans serve as the world’s largest source of protein, with more than 3 billion people depending on the oceans as their primary source of protein." (See Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources) Won't that percentage grow steadily as more and more people turn away from beef, pork, and other land-based and farmed sources of animal protein?

So this is causing me to think differently about a topic I've written about before: the growing tensions in the South China Sea. In a previous post, I emphasized oil and gas rights there, and wrote: "[A]ren't the assets that lie under the South China Sea precisely the kind of oil and gas properties that are rapidly becoming valueless in light of the carbon bubble?  Given that the oil companies already have five times as many reserves as they can ever put to use without breaking the planet, aren't those South China Sea hydrocarbons destined to stay beneath the sea where they belong?" (See SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?)

Now I'm waking up.

"It's the fish, stupid." 

It's not just a question of one country or another being entitled. It's a question of how we are going to share this . . . and how we're going to make sure we don't mess it up.

Red indicates extreme over-fishing. (Source: Trashpatch.org interactive map)

A good place to start is to examine UNCLOS -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It "defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources."  It is the authority that nations are referring to in dealing with the current conflicts in the South China Sea, for instance.

The US has refused to ratify UNCLOS and so stands outside of it. Perhaps it's time for the world to tell the US that to come to the table and participate in the conversation about the future of life below water as an equal partner with the other nations of the world. And to leave their warships at home.


Related posts

It will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

(See PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?)












What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)





As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?)







My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.

(See 21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement)

21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement

As a "peace" enclave within California's concentrated military/defense economy, Berkeley and the East Bay have a role to play in the discussion about China.

BERKELEY: Looking west -- the bay, San Francisco . . . and beyond.

As I set out to understand California's entanglement in the military-industrial complex, I started where I live: Berkeley.

Reading a letter to the editor from our representative in Congress, Barbara Lee, a few days ago reminded me that the 13th district is kind of unusual: "As the National Defense Authorization Act comes up for a vote, I will once again co-lead a bipartisan amendment to audit the Pentagon." (Read more on Barbara Lee's position on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).)

Yup, this is different than the town I just came from. Chicago's star corporate citizen is mega military contractor Boeing.

Of course, Berkeley was ground zero for the antiwar movement during the '60s. But what's its relevance today?


A bridge to China

As a long-time student of China and the Chinese language, I am enchanted to find myself in a city whose university attracts lots of the very smartest students from China and other parts of Asia. (See "Berkeley - International Student Enrollment - Fall 2015") Many other Berkeley students who are US citizens claim Asian ethnicity. (See "Berkeley - Enrollment Data")

If California, and especially the Bay Area, is the historic link between the US and China, Berkeley is a particularly vital US-China hub right now.

We all say things like "youth are our future" . . . . What would happen if we encouraged a serious discussion between the diverse people in the Berkeley community (and from other communities) about the future of peace and security in the Pacific region?

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF:
Does this make ANY sense?

The discussion we need to have

I wrote recently about the growing tensions in the South China Sea.

As I read the Chinese language paper every day, it is clear to me that -- in the absence of sustained civic discourse on the security issues in the Pacific region -- our future is being shaped by military posturing.

I think a good way to re-direct the conversation would be to get a large number of young people who know and care about the situation in the region to get together and talk. It should include people from the various countries and territories concerned. It should be directed at the future we're all trying to build together. It should place a strong premium on listening. It should be open-ended.


Some possible starting points

The good thing about a university town is that it has many of the ingredients necessary to conduct forums.

Now this I understand . . . !
(Image: Android Authority)

Here are a few available in Berkeley that might assist the type of discussion I am suggesting:

* Student associations, including Chinese Students Association, Taiwanese American Student Association,
Hong Kong Student Association, . . . .

* University departments, including International Relations and  Institute of East Asian Studies

* Citizen groups, including United Nations Association - East Bay

* Relevant University affiliates, such as Office of International Relations and International House - UC Berkeley

My hope and belief is that a Berkeley forum on peace and prosperity in the Pacific would reveal a shared interest in de-escalating the South China Sea confrontation, and dramatically increase awareness of shared Pacific prospects for well-being.


Related Posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)

"Although we know the end from the very beginning," says Walker, "the story is no less compelling to watch." A man, gloriously alone (except for his own reflection) on an ice-covered lake; the soothing pastel colors of the distant sky; and what seems surely to be a circle he is digging around himself with a pick-axe. A perfect parable for our headlong rush toward climate crisis?

(See How Do You Say "Suicide Narcissus" in Chinese?)

SOUTH CHINA SEA FACE OFF: Does this make ANY sense?

"World War III's First Shot:
Will It Be Fired in the South China Sea?"

I pick up a Chinese language newspaper at the corner store in my Berkeley neighborhood every day, and almost every day there is an article about:

(a) US Navy activities challenging Chinese positions in the South China Sea; and/or

(b) China's activities to establish sovereignty in areas of the South China Sea; and/or

(c) China's military and naval buildup to try to get into the same league with the US.

The mainstream Western press has been reporting on these developments at an increasingly frequent rate.

Unquestionably a lot is going on in the South China Sea. I think we can choke on the detail if we don't try to step back and gain perspective on the situation.

What's the right way to think about what's going on in the South China Sea? I wrote a short post on this several years ago ... but I think it's time to address the question a bit more thoroughly.


The "Law and Order" Paradigm

USA as global policeman -- ever since TR.
(More on The Federalist website.)

On the face of it, there should be no controversy. There are laws about this sort of thing, and everything should be decided according to international law, e.g. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

So it can be very easy for US people to cast the US and its navy as the "white hats" who stand ready to "police" the situation, keeping things fair for everyone. One problem: "the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law, it has not ratified it." Well, that's awkward . . . .

In other words, before we say "Who is China to think they should be entrusted with being the traffic cop in the South China Sea?" we should first ask the question, "Who is the US to think they should be?"


The "Befitting a Global Power" Paradigm

Teddy Roosevelt with his "big stick" in the Caribbean.

As I look at what China is doing in the South China Sea, I can't help thinking of a cartoon of Theodore Roosevelt treating the Caribbean Sea as a private lake belonging to the US.

[Not a bad time to make this comparison - President Obama just visited Cuba this week to attempt to reverse some of the effects of the past 50 years of antagonism between the US and Cuba.]

The US history of imperialism in its own backyard does not justify China in taking the same attitude; nonetheless, the fact that the US has really not come very far from its "We're a global power and what we say goes" attitude makes it a little difficult to wonder that China may think they should be following in the US' footsteps.

I think one thing we all need to do is notice the double standard that is applied to China. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. China can legitimately be asked to exhibit a 21st century form of non-militaristic global power when the US decides to even make a head fake in that same direction.

(By the way, there certainly must somewhere exist a really clever cartoon updating the Caribbean-as-US-lake concept, i.e. South-China-Sea-as-China-lake, but everything I've seen so far is predictably based on boring dragon and Great Wall imagery.)


The "Neoliberal" Paradigm

To many people, it probably seems that the issues in the South China Sea should just be viewed as a matter of property rights. Stuff (e.g. oil) is there for people to exploit, and everything has a price; in light of overlapping claims, the parties simply need to define rights and compensate each other accordingly.

In other words, "we should be happy with the solution, as long as it smells like capitalism."

Oil and gas in the South China Sea
(Source: Grenatec)

But aren't the assets that lie under the South China Sea precisely the kind of oil and gas properties that are rapidly becoming valueless in light of the carbon bubble?  Given that the oil companies already have five times as many reserves as they can ever put to use without breaking the planet, aren't those South China Sea hydrocarbons destined to stay beneath the sea where they belong?


"A Piece in the Larger Puzzle"

US Military in the West Pacific
(Source: Thomson-Reuters)

I can't help believing that, from a Chinese perspective, the question of whether it is "right" for China to grab (and militarily build up) bits of land in the South China Sea can only be considered in light of the precedent established by the US in grabbing (and militarily building up) bits of land in strategic locations through the Pacific (and worldwide).

Looking at a map of US military installations in the Western Pacific brings to mind the old quip, "How dare they put their country so close to our bases?"

Moreover, of at least equal importance to bases is the terrifying firepower of US carrier strike groups. Is it any wonder that China is building up its navy? Though it may never come close to the strength of the US navy, China's navy may have the ability to close the gap in its own part of the world.

Maybe the South China Sea is just a sideshow.

Maybe what we should really be talking about with China is a military stand-down, followed by a military build-down.

(To be continued . . . . )

Additional resources:

Map showing overlapping claims in the South China Sea



Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)





What people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century is that something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

(See The Imperialized Pacific: What We Need to Understand)





Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

The Secret to Understanding the "New" U.S. "Pivot to Asia"

One of two Chinese stone lions flanking the entry to
"10 Div Ave" -- the building housing the
Harvard-Yenching Library.

When I showed up on campus for my freshman year in college about 35 years ago, I quickly glommed onto the idea of giving East Asian Studies a try.

There were many reasons this seemed like a good idea.  Just a few of them:

* The U.S. had just withdrawn from Vietnam. I had grown up on a daily diet of news reports of the war. It seemed obvious to me that we had a lot to gain by approaching Asia from the standpoint of knowledge rather than that of belligerence.

* Mao Zedong had recently died, but not before initiating the opening to the U.S. In 1977, there was a feeling of great imminence about China.

* The idea of learning the Chinese and/or Japanese languages -- so recondite (at least to Westerners) -- was irresistible.

* When would I ever have the chance to take a deep dive into the unknown -- such as this -- again?

And so I dove in . . . .

Big Gulp

The organizing principle for the field of East Asian Studies was to get us students to focus on one or both of two major cultural areas -- China and Japan -- and (with luck) to wean us from some of our U.S- and Euro-centrism. The thinking was that these two "areas" -- China and Japan -- each provided an enormous body of new information for students to try to get navigate.

China's Response to the West:
A Documentary Survey 1839-1923
by Ssu-yu Teng and John K. Fairbank

In general, WWII experience was de-emphasized, though it might seem to be one of the nearest at hand to explore.  I think the concern was to avoid getting sucked in to the gravitational field of what Americans already thought they had figured out about that experience.

The trope of "the response to the West" by Japan or China was, in general, substituted for what frequently seemed to be our natural reflex: talking about "the U.S. experience in (fill in the blank)."

I'd like to say that I had a vague sense that something was missing, or not quite right about this framework. But the truth is that I was swimming in so much new information that it was all I could do to keep my head above water.

I noticed that certain topics -- such as Korea, or Vietnam, or the Philippines -- were not given much attention. Everyone I knew carried around mental lists of things they wanted to learn more about . . . someday . . . when they had whittled away further at their must-do list of characters to memorize and books to read and courses to take and trips to make.

In my senior year, for instance, I dove with great gusto into the John Fairbanks' Ch'ing Documents: An Introductory Syllabus, on the theory that it was essential that I be able to read court documents from the 19th century (in Chinese, in the formal bureaucratic lingo) in order to fully appreciate "China's response to the West."

The Missing "Area"

I have never stopped taking runs at getting my arms around "East Asian Studies." It seems that as I grow older, I run out of steam faster and faster.

But as I get older, I also seem to be more willing to challenge orthodoxy.

Emperor Hirohito: Coronation photo

I've been doing some reading which has been very provocative in light of my concerns about problems of war and peace. After books about the bombing of Hiroshima; dissidents in contemporary Japan; the maneuvering around Japan's August 15, 1945 surrender decision; and one about the discourse around race in Japan and the U.S. during WWII, I continued on to read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P. Bix. It was here that all the pieces seemed to come together for me.

The Bix book conveys the sense, through the eyes of Hirohito and others, of the increasing frequency with which developments were converging on that part of the world with each passing decade of the 20th century. Bix is centrally concerned with the responsibility of Hirohito for the war. Part of that involves seeing how deeply involved he was in understanding the activities, capabilities, and intentions of England, the U.S., Russia, and other countries as they related to the widespread geography of the Pacific region.

I felt challenged to see what people in Asia (and others) have seen for the past century: something is happening in the Pacific, and it's being driven in part by advances in naval (and, subsequently, aviation and electronics) technology, and in part by powerful nations (principally, but not limited to, the U.S.) proximate to the area.

It occurred to me that we can say there is a third "area" -- of equal importance relative to "China" and "Japan" -- that is the proper third leg of "East Asian Studies." That area is "the Pacific (as a field for empire in light of post-19th century technology)."

Clearly, this has a lot to do with the U.S. and its imperialism. But it also invites us to go beyond just seeing the U.S. as only factor at work in this area.

We've all been taught that the "Aha!" moment for many late 19th century political leaders was the advent of Alfred Thayer Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power upon History. But it had never before occurred to me to view that -- as many people likely did at the time -- in light specifically of the Pacific Ocean, including its geographic and political dimensions. 

Fall Semester 2014

I'm hoping that my new "troika" approach to East Asian Studies -- China, Japan, and the imperialized Pacific -- will help me make sense of developments in that part of the world.

So here are some of the "study assignments" I've given myself for the weeks and months ahead:

* what are the pros and cons of Chinese naval development?

* how is new technology changing the face of militarism in the Pacific?

* is the Pacific more than just a patchwork of bases?

* what would it take to make the Pacific a nuclear-weapons-free zone?

* does the Pacific need a "traffic cop"?

* is the Pacific ecosystem at risk?

. . . and more . . . .

I'm thrilled -- and a little scared -- to imagine what I might discover.

Can we adopt a new perspective on Pacific affairs?

Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

Just as it did in 2001, the U.S. has had another close dangerous encounter between one of its surveillance planes and a Chinese fighter in the air near the coast of China.

Like the 2001 event, it's making a lot of people ask what the hell the U.S. is doing provoking China where they live.

(See Boeing: Where There's Trouble . . . )

Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has filed unprecedented lawsuits against all nine nuclear-armed nations for their failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suits were filed against all nine nations at the International Court of Justice, with an additional complaint against the United States filed in U.S. Federal District Court.

 (See Now HERE'S an "Asia Pivot" I Can Believe In! (Marshall Islands Sues Nuclear "Haves") )

Just like a family that has extra rooms in its house which inevitably become filled with stuff, the U.S. has thousands of bases -- here, there, and everywhere -- that inevitably create the "need" to spend.

(See What Will "Strategic" Mean in Our Children's Lifetime?)

"Military Advisers" - The Third Rail of US Engagement in SE Asia

Hail the conquering hero! Barack Obama returns to the U.S. following the final leg of his Asia tour, to headlines announcing:

"U.S., Philippines accord to allow greater American military presence"

This probably "smells like victory" to an administration that seemed to stumble around the Pacific rim this past week, rather than enjoy a victory lap.

For alert Americans, the announcement is worrying. "As part of the deal with Manila, the U.S. is promising to step up military assistance and training with the Philippine military . . . . " The first question to ask is this: how many "military advisers" is the U.S. putting in the Philippines, and what is it leading to?

For me and for many in my generation, it is impossible to hear those words without pulling in the full specter of the Vietnam War.

February, 2010: "U.S., Philippine Troops Fight Insurgent Bomb Threat"
(American Forces Press Service)

March, 1964: "Vietnamese Colonel Cao Hao Hon with U.S. military advisor"
(Healery Library, UMass Boston)

The Philippines is engaged in a long-running effort to construct a polity built on equity and democratic participation. Until now, efforts at peacemaking and community building have been hindered by human rights abuses and crackdowns on dissent, conducted by the Philippines army. (See "Needed: Less Military Force, More Human Rights in the Philippines")

Moreover, the sea to the west of the Philippines is becoming highly-contested space. The potential for the escalation of U.S. involvement in any dispute there is extremely high.

Our first response to the "large-scale return of U.S. military forces" to the Philippines should be to get a full, public accounting of how U.S. military advisers are being used, and will be used in the future.

Related posts

Advocates for human rights in the Philippines, including the Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines, are asking us to speak out publicly on the need for the U.S. government to "own" its responsibility for human rights violations in the Philippines, and to take affirmative action to halt them. As President Obama begins his trip to Asia -- underlining the much-touted "pivot to Asia" -- it is an especially important time to draw attention to what is really happening in the Philippines.

(See Needed: Less Military Force, More Human Rights in the Philippines )

Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century.

(See SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs)

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

SOUTH CHINA SEA: No End of American Grand Designs

The third stop on Obama's Asia tour is Kuala Lumpur.  What could he possibly doing in Kuala Lumpur?

By now, most people have gotten wind of the fact that what Obama is up to in Asia is justifying U.S. involvement in every aspect of Asian affairs, particularly in the governance of the sea lanes that connect China, Japan, and their neighbors.

Up north, Obama weighed in on the decades-old standoff between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (north of Taiwan).

Down south, Obama could be expected to do something similar vis-a-vis a China-Philippines standoff over some islands (or "rocks") in the middle of the South China Sea.

However, it seems that the U.S. has grander plans, and it is tipping its hands.

Strategic analysts are pointing out that the South China Sea is an area through which a vast amount of the world's trade passes.  And some of them have made the modest suggestion that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to dominate it now, in much the same it dominated the Caribbean at the turn of the 19th century. (Cue images of Teddy Roosevelt and quotes from Admiral Mahan.) (See "The Sea at the Center" and "Straits of Malacca: Obama to Pursue Naval Base Demand")

Herein lies a peculiarly American tendency, for it is one thing to hatch grandiose visions; it is another to actually expect that you are somehow entitled to carry them out; and it is yet another thing entirely to think that you are ever and always the only one entitled to do so.

Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

Advocates for human rights in the Philippines, including the Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines, are asking us to speak out publicly on the need for the U.S. government to "own" its responsibility for human rights violations in the Philippines, and to take affirmative action to halt them. As President Obama begins his trip to Asia -- underlining the much-touted "pivot to Asia" -- it is an especially important time to draw attention to what is really happening in the Philippines.

(See Needed: Less Military Force, More Human Rights in the Philippines )

Many people will argue that it was only because the U.S. made a threat of force that Syria offered to enter into an agreement on chemical weapons. The sequence of events certainly suggests some relationship between the two.

(See "OR ELSE!" (What the U.S. threat of force against Syria teaches us) )










Related links

before ...

... and after

August, 2, 2015 - Interesting story on Chinese projects on rocks and islands in the South China Sea: "What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea" in The New York Times.  Of course, if the US were doing this, everyone would say, "Look how industrious we are!"

Needed: Less Military Force, More Human Rights in the Philippines

For several years now, I have been intensively involved in working to end the extrajudicial killings (EJK) carried out by the U.S., specifically those involving drones. My attention has been very focused on what the U.S. is doing in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Just a few weeks ago I attended the Ecumenical Advocacy Days in Washington, D.C. One of the things that I learned was the extent of human rights problems in the Philippines -- particularly the way the U.S. enables extrajudicial killings by the Philippine government through its material support for and political backing of the army and the administration.

Here is what other sources are saying about the Philippines:

"The Philippine government failed to match its rhetoric in support of human rights in 2013 with meaningful action to end impunity for extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances." (Human Rights Watch, January 21, 2014, "Philippines: Surge of Journalist Killings, Justice Failures")

"The Committee is concerned at the continued perpetration of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the State party. It is particularly concerned at the proliferation of private armies and vigilante groups that are partly responsible for these crimes as well as at the large number of illegal firearms. The Committee is also concerned at the arming and use of “force multipliers” for counter-insurgency and other purposes pursuant to Presidential Executive Order No. 546 (arts. 6, 7 and 9)."(UN Human Rights Committee, "Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the Philippines, adopted by the Committee at its 106th session (15 October - 2 November 2012)")

"The most significant human rights problems continued to be extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances undertaken by security forces; a dysfunctional criminal justice system notable for poor cooperation between police and investigators, few prosecutions, and lengthy procedural delays; and widespread official corruption and abuse of power." (U.S. State Department, "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: Philippines")

Now, advocates for human rights in the Philippines, including the Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines, are asking us to speak out publicly on the need for the U.S. government to "own" its responsibility for human rights violations in the Philippines, and to take affirmative action to halt them.

As President Obama begins his trip to Asia -- underlining the much-touted "pivot to Asia" -- it is an especially important time to draw attention to what is really happening in the Philippines.

Here is my letter to Senators Durbin and Kirk (Illinois).  (Please contact your senators.)


April 22, 2014

The Honorable Richard Durbin
The Honorable Richard Kirk
Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk,

I am concerned about the State Department Foreign Military Financing (FMF) aid to the Philippines for fiscal year 2014 and FY 2015. On January 17, 2014 the President signed the first appropriations bill since FY2008 that does not have human rights restrictions on FMF for the Philippines specified in the appropriations law. For FY 2014 restrictions are not in the bill language but instead in the conference committee report, stating that the Appropriations Committees will decide on how much to release to the Philippine army after getting a report from the State Department. We are asking for messages from our Senators to Sen. Leahy, Chair of the State Department Foreign Operations Subcommittee, supporting continued human conditions on FMF funding for the Philippines.

Since the human rights conditions were put in place FY2008 the Government of the Philippines (GPH) has expressed concern about being designated as a human rights violator, and although there has been some decrease in the rate of killings and the government has setup a high level interagency committee to investigate the problem, progress has not been sufficient for the State Department to release all of the appropriated FMF in any year since 2008. According to the US State Department 2013 Human Rights Report few of the perpetrators have been arrested and there have been no convictions of high-ranking police or military officials and a culture of impunity persists.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the paramilitary units under their control continue to be involved in extrajudicial killings (EJK), enforced disappearances, and illegal arrests and in the last 12 months killings have increased. According to KARAPATAN, Philippine human rights NGO, in the first 3 months of this year 19 EJKs have been reported, and all can reasonably be attributed to the AFP and Philippine National Police.

The human rights abuses by security forces can generally be linked to the unresolved 45-year insurgency by the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). The victims are typically worker, peasant and environmental activists who have been accused of being communists and or members of the NPA and have failed to stop their activism in the face of the threats. A resolution of the conflict could go a long way to improve the human rights situation. The National Council of Churches of the Philippines (NCCP) has called for “...principled negotiations to thresh out the issues, unearth and address the root causes of the conflict. The peace negotiation is a way to just and lasting peace.” A framework for peace talks hosted by Norway is well established, however, in 2013 peace talks broke down.

The recent spate of killings and highly publicized arrests of CPP peace consultants (Benito and Wilma Austria Tiamzon and several others) signals the GPH is essentially closing the door on the peace process and is prefering a military solution to ending the conflict. We think the US could play a role in urging the GPH to re engage in the peace process.

Another impediment to peace is the State Department listing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)-National Democratic Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The listing was a very political act negotiated by the former president of the Philippines.

With the “Pivot to Asia” the US military will be soon be sending military personnel to AFP bases in the Philippines. Negotiations with the GPH are ongoing on the “Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation (AEDC)” and there has been speculation that it may be ready by the time President Obama arrives in Manila next week. It is important that members of Congress be aware of the situation in the Philippines with respect to human rights and take action where appropriate.

Please communicate to Senator Leahy’s staff of the State Department Foreign Operations Subcommittee expressing your concern that the subcommittee:

1) Carefully consider the State Department report on the human rights performance of the Philippine army and not release FMF funds for the army unless there is clear evidence of a substantial decrease in killings, vigorous prosecution of perpetrators and an end to impunity

2) To return human rights conditions to FMF in the bill for 2015

Please also communicate with Secretary of State John Kerry your concern about the breakdown in the peace process to end the ongoing insurgency and request that the CPP-NPA be removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organization as signal that the US would like to see progress on peace negotiations.

Sincerely,

Joe Scarry
Chicago, IL

Related posts

The problem: the U.S. "pivot to Asia."

The opportunity: asking ourselves, "What would we do differently if we revised our myths of Asia?"

(See U.S. Militarism in Asia: THINK DIFFERENT!)

We have had a window of opportunity -- nearly 70 years in which the constitution of Japan has explicitly renounced war, pointing the way for the rest of us. What have we imagined we were supposed to do?

(See Renouncing War: An Opportunity Not To Be Missed )






The crime of Extrajudicial Execution is described on the website for Mike Haas' book, George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes. Here, we will look at the specific legal basis for charging perpetrators as war criminals for Extrajudicial Executions, and list sources reporting relevant U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

(See VAU Afgh 101: Extrajudicial Executions )