South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Dayuhan]

I would be immensely surprised if the people of Philippines who, as you say are concerned solely with corruption and inadequacies of their Govt and Moros, would sit still and not protest such needless spending on Defence. Their silence proves that they also feel that China is a threat. I am merely going by logic. You have to prove that this logic is wrong!

Nobody is concerned "solely" with anything. There's a hierarchy of concern, and the hierarchy is different among different individuals. As stated above, the actual proposed expenditures for defence are not large, and there's still considerable debate over where the money is to be sourced. There are many other concerns, many of them equally pressing, some of them more pressing.

When a threat looms all close ranks.

The Chinese hegemonic pursuits have not really regaled the ASEAN. They are treading softly, but they are watching with great concern the moves by China. Militarily, they are no match for China. But should China misstep, their united pacific stance would make China lose face and that would be a big blow to China.

Don't expect ASEAN to close ranks, except perhaps with a statement. Not likely to happen. The level of perceived threat is very different for different members: the Philippines and Vietnam ar emore concerned, Malaysia and Indonesia less so, Thailand and Singapore still less.

I took it that you, being the expert on Philippines, said that Moros were the No 1 threat.

But given the situation between the Philippines and China, and giving the due to your expert opinion that China is no threat, I stated that the Philippines must have downgraded the internal issues and given priority to Chinese activities or else why the brouhaha in the media and sudden US interest?

You persist in casting this as all or nothing, "#1 threat" or no threat at all, as if there were no middle ground. As I said above, I never said the Moros were the #1 threat, I said they were the primary focus of US/Philippine military cooperation. The Philippine government has long classified the NPA as a greater security threat than the Moros.

The media make a brouhaha when there's an incident. When there's an incident in the south, the brouhaha and the US concern are all about the Moros. When there's an incident on Scarborough shoal, the media all look at that. The media are fickle, and if you look at coverage in any particular moment without the historical and political context, you're likely to get a quite inaccurate impression.

I would feel that not being enslaved or pushed around with negative ramifications by a foreign power (China) would be the first priority, whether one was the elite or the poor beggarman!

Nobody's looking at a threat of being "enslaved". The threat is of losing access to some fishing areas and to potential energy deposits. While being pushed around is humiliating and arouses an emotional response, most people here have much more immediate concerns.

It is interesting to note that you feel that the Filipinos are great ones to manoeuvre foreign nations to give them freebies by false pretentions of threats.

Do I take it that the others are equally gullible to fall hook, line and sinker for that ploy? Are the US diplomats and intelligence agencies inept and incompetent as you make them out to be?

It's worked in the past. Ferdinand Marcos cast himself as the sole bulwark against impending Commie takeover (despite being the best thing that ever happened to the Communists), and the Americans obediently threw vast sums of money in his direction, providing unquestioning support for most of his reign. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo drew a substantial upgrade in US aid by casting herself as a loyal ally in the GWOT. There were real hopes in some circles that casting the Philippines as the first line of defense against the red horde would bring in a bunch of high end military equipment and a bunch of money, and there was some real disappointment when that did not materialize. Apparently the US diplomats and agencies are smarter than they once were.

You raise another interesting issue. To quote you – Where I live the Manila government and its armed forces are seen as a more immediate threat than the Chinese.

You have now got me more confused with this assertion.

Philippines is a democracy? Or is it a dictatorship like China? If it is a democracy, then why should it be a greater threat than China?

Again, lack of context leads to misunderstanding. Throughout the tribal regions in the north (where I live), the Manila government is seen as a colonial power, trying to push its way in and grab timber, minerals, hydropower. People here fought a substantial war against the government from the late 70s through the early 90s. The town I live in was under virtual military occupation for a number of years; civilians were killed and there were many human rights abuses. There's peace now, mostly because the military stays out or keeps a very low profile and the big resource exploitation projects have been cancelled, but the people still see the Philippine military as a threat and the fighting could easily resume.

That's not unique: a long history of corruption, elite domination, and human rights abuse leaves large numbers of Filipinos seeing their own government as a major threat - and certainly a more immediate threat than China.

China has to be fought, if Philippines has the Might. On the other hand in a democracy, the Philippines Govt can be chucked out by the ballot. So, how is it a greater threat than China? What is a greater threat – the bullet or the ballot?

You might want to read up a bit on the nature of Philippine "democracy". I can e-mail you an article on the subject that makes a good start point, if you like. The online version is behind a paywall.

You wrote that Philippine does not find the US a dependable ally.

I am sure you know who you meant by ‘Philippines’!

I think you underestimate the US as an ally and do you think the US speaks with a ‘forked tongue’?

What makes you feel that the US will not live up to its words as per the Treaty?

What I said was that many Filipinos do not see the US as a dependable ally, not that "Philippine does not find the US a dependable ally".

I think Filipinos would be wise not to depend on the US to do whatever Filipinos want them to do. The US will act according to its own perceived interests.

The US has already made it clear that they've no intention of providing weaponry competitive with any regional peer, and that they will not take sides in territorial disputes. The treaty, as discussed before, obligates nothing beyond response "in accordance with constitutional procedures", which guarantees nothing. If US constitutional procedure concludes that the appropriate response to an incident is a diplomatic protest, that's all they are obligated to do.

Whether or not that makes the US a "dependable ally" depends on what you were depending on them to do in the first place. I think the Filipinos can depend on the US to at according to perceived US interests at any given time, which is all you'd expect from anyone in the realm of international affairs.