Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[Ray]

Ray,

Again, I think you're trying to push events in the Philippines into a China-dominated paradigm where they really don't belong... the situation between the Philippines and China is only one part of a complicated picture, and by no means the most important part. I'm trying to make that point without resorting to extended expositions on modern Philippine political history, which would be a digression from the thread topic and which are a matter of very little interest to most people here and most people anywhere.

While you may be right about the dynamic of domestic politics, the issue of external threat generally concerns the Govt, MPs, and a few of the intelligentsia who concern themselves in these issues.

The remainder population may have a general idea, but are too concerned with their daily rota and problems of existence that they are only concerned when they are attacked. Till then, they are complacent and hope that the Govt Is looking after their interests.

The livelihood of fishermen, who are blocked or challenged by China, would cause the common man concern, because the issue will be nearer their comprehension level. Violation of the EEZ they would hardly understand and so it will not be on the radar of concern.

Not totally delighted, but not totally heartbroken either. With the end of the Cold War and a general move toward military retrenchment the loss was seen as manageable.

With the closure of the Cold War era, the whole world put their guard down.

However, with new ‘threats’ emerging, rekindling of the fears of a new Cold War is gradually coming into being, and more so in Asia, since the ‘wrangling’ has shifted from the Europe to the Far East and the Indian Ocean. I would be surprised if the Govts of the region, given China’s belligerent posture and hegemonic aspirations would not be worried about this development.

One must not forget that these countries of the Asia Pacific region have experienced colonialism and imperialism (except Thailand and Japan). They realise , for good or for worse, that one will have to assert herself through every means including loose alliances or firm alliances, lest they are once again shackled to a new ruler or be subjugated to the whims and fancies of a bigger nation even if not made a vassal.

A minority of what? The Philippine Senate voted 12-11 to reject the proposed treaty. During the negotiations for the treaty it was made clear that the Senate regarded the compensation offer as inadequate and would reject it, but the offer was not raised.

A minority view.

If the Senate voted 12 -11, it just proves that it was a close call and the rejection was a near miss prompted not by security concerns but because of, what was felt, was an ‘inadequate’ offer, if I have understood you correctly.

Again, a majority of what? A majority of the Senate was all that was required... actually even there a majority wasn't needed, as passage of a treaty requires a 2/3 majority.

Whether that majority in the Senate reflected a majority of the popular view is open to question, but most of those who observe closely believe that it did not. After the treaty was rejected, President Aquino (who supported ratification of the treaty) tried to get the decision overturned through a referendum. The effort bogged down in legal issues (the Constitution provides for legislation to be overturned by referendum, but makes no such provision for a treaty), and was eventually abandoned. Again nobody knows for sure, but the consensus seems to be that a referendum to overturn the decision would probably have passed.

So if the decsion didn't reflect a popular majority, how did it get made? Bunch of reasons really, but two stand out.

First, that Senate was the first post-Marcos Senate, and was dominated by opponents of Marcos, many of whom were deeply suspicious of the US, on account of extended US support for Marcos. Their stand on the bases was a minor or non-existent consideration in their election; they were elected because they were opponents of the hated dictator. They also turned out to be against the bases, or at least in favor of getting a much larger compensation package.

A second factor was the emergence of a quite unlikely coalition, which probably didn't represent a popular majority but still carried considerable political weight. The left had always wanted the bases out, but never had the political clout to do anything about it. They ended up being supported by a broad social conservative coalition, including the Catholic Church and much of the conservative business community. This included many elements one would normally expect to support the US, but was turned against by the sprawling prostitution ghettos around the bases and the pretty accurate) perception of arrogance and racism from base authorities, particularly involving crimes committed by Americans against Filipinos.

OK.

So it means that domestic political overrode the necessity of security, and more so, the world was cooling down from the tensions of the Cold War.

Again, which "they" are you talking about here? And why would anyone see "no way out"? Are you assuming a perception of imminent threat from China? If so, on what is that assumption based?

‘They’ means the Philippines.

If there is a way out, could you inform us as to what is the way out?

The indications and the manner in which the US is being roped in and joining various loose coalitions as the joint patrol with the Vietnamese are the assumptions. It is obvious that if the Philippines felt there was no threat from China, it would be rather odd that one starts patrolling the South China Sea with another country when it had never done so before the threat posed by China.

If indeed there was no threat from China, why patrol the seas and that too with another nation? It could have well been business as usual and status quo ante before the threat of China came into being.

Again, basing of US troops in the Philippines is not under discussion. There is discussion (though no specific proposal has been offered here) of expanding the presence under the current Visiting Forces Agreement, which places a number of restrictions on movement and activity. That does not necessarily relate to China, as the Philippine Government faces far more imminent military threats from within.

It is rather interesting a thought that a country that sent the US packing should bring in the presence of US troops for quelling ‘internal threats’ to the Philippines Govt? Is the US some ‘guns on hire’ to foist a Govt of another country from internal threats?

Is that "real threat" in, or are you assuming that is and viewing developments in that light without placing them in local context.

The indicators point to that direction.

I would be surprised that the Philippines is getting US warships to combat ‘internal threats’, more so, when she is entering into Agreements with other countries to undertake joint patrols and immediately succeeding from the joint exercise with the US Navy, which thereafter did an naval exercise with Vietnam.

They very fact that both the Navies of the region (Philippines and Vietnam) undertook exercises with the US Navy one after the other, the Philippines Navy acquiring US Naval vessels and then entering into an Agreement with Vietnam to undertake Joint Patrolling, does indicate that this is the aftermath of Lessons Learnt after the Naval Exercises with the US Navy.

The fact that there was sharp criticism from China is another indicator that the exercises were aimed against China.

It would be extraordinary that Philippines does not find China a threat and yet provokes China to get verbally ballistic!

There are about 600 US soldiers here; that number goes up and down depending on movements and on scheduled exercises. They are on a specific mission to train and support Philippine troops engaged in operations against the ASG and other insurgent/bandit/terrorist/etc elements in Basilan and Jolo. They are not legally permitted to engage in combat. Bringing in a larger contingent without such a specific mission would be very controversial. Philippine officials may have discussed this with their US counterparts, but they have not released any such proposal locally. Port calls and exercises happen regularly and have for years.

One is well aware what these so called ‘training missions’ are all about. One does not allow training missions if one does not have security concerns.

There is no embargo on ‘training missions’ to have multiple aims.

[Ray]

It's widely assumed that US exercises with Philippine and regional forces are a response to specific incidents involving China. This is generally not the case. The exercises are scheduled far in advance and the Chinese know when they are happening. More likely that the Chinese are tossing up incidents to fit the schedule and make it look like the US is doing a knee-jerk reaction.

These exercises do not address single incidents.

These exercises are aimed at a general strategic aim.

One does not undertake exercises just for the sake of exercising its forces to keep them trim. All exercises have aims. India does annual exercises with the US and other navies ‘for anti piracy interoperability’. That is eye wash. One does not do anti piracy ops in areas that are not infested with pirates!

Actually they're pretty shrewd. China is in no way the biggest military problem they face, and the actual nature of the "threat" is not one that will be affected by the presence of some US troops. The US has certain issues with supporting the Government's efforts to suppress its multiple cyclic insurgencies, so playing the China card is more likely to get stuff than playing the insurgency card.

Bringing in a US presence to be a threat in being to the Moro Muslim rebellion is like a red rag being shown to a bull!

So, the Philippines Govt wants to raise the hornets’ nest?

I find it naïve and too simplistic an explanation since I wonder if that meets the US strategic interest too! I would think that if the Moros were to be eliminated and not aggravated, 600 US soldier would not do the trick.

At best, the stationing of US troops (whatever be the strength) is basically to have a ‘core group’ on which a larger force can build up on, if and when the necessity arises. Till then, they remain a ‘threat in being’ and a warning of greater things to come!

I think you're making certain assumptions about the nature of the perceived threat, and I'm not sure those assumptions are consistent with what's actually going on locally.

I am not looking at local issue but the external issues and the indicators as I have already explained.

Fickle, yes... most people are. Totally idiotic, no, though sometimes emotion has to settle before people start seeing through the bull####.

I think the American Govt is neither fickle nor idiotic, nor do I feel that those who voted the Govt in are so. I find the US and its govt very focussed in their aims, even if the aims are not internationally appreciated. The US reminds me of the Canadian Mounties motto – Mounties always get their man!

You may not appreciate it because you are in the Philippines which has a history of closeness to the US. I see what is happening in India and what has happened in Vietnam! India does not want to surrender its sovereignty, and yet she is voting with the US against her interests. Vietnam, a avowed enemy of the US, has sunk her pride and ‘aligned’ with the US.

So, to feel that the US is a lost soul meandering in the dark, is not right!

Truth or stereotype? Most assumptions about "national character" are stereotype based and few survive extended exposure to a culture and it's people.

Maybe.
I go by report of the US on business with the Japanese.
Now, if the US chaps are wrong, then I am wrong and you alone are right!

When did I say it was useless? People with divergent interests can always discuss ways to balance their interests, and can seek win-win solutions to that divergence.

The way you address issues indicates so!

Only if you assume that the desire for military aid is a response to a threat from China. There's little basis for such an assumption, given the far more imminent threats in the picture.

Surely it is not to act as if one is the new bloke on the block!

I don't expect to see a major confrontation any time soon. Little to justify it on either side, barring major political events in China.’

No one has said there will be a major confrontation.

China is still not equipped to take on the US and its allies and friends.

I don't need to Google, been following that situation closely for many years.

I would say you are lucky that you are aware of the news and views of all, to include the countries that are China’s neighbour without Googling.

And why would Muslims not see light? How is some vast and devious American strategy needed to explain why people who see a neighbor toss out a dictator might get the idea of tossing out their own? If you're going to seriously propose that the Arab Spring was the result of American Design, you'll need to produce some tangible evidence to support that conclusion, thought it's really a matter for another thread.

One would then have to start from the time and manner how the Pope toppled the apple cart in Poland and how enemies of the US were slowly squeezed out and then how the focus shifted to another lot that were causing great anxiety to the US.

But as you rightly said, it is for another thread.

[Bob's World]

Small countries in critical locations or possessing critical resources appreciate very well that larger countries will exercise their interests with them in some way or another. Balancing larger powers to find the least intrusive and disruptive mix of that external influence is the best one in that position can hope for.

The US is often perceived as a favorable partner to balance the growing influence of some other state. The US is also apt to mistake that desire for our ability to help balance a situation as "friendship" and treat the relationship like a friendship rather than more pragmatically like a business relationship. No one stays too late after a business meeting concludes, but we've all been guilty of, or a victim of, a friend not knowing when it's time to go home; or being too eager to press the latest thing he or she is excited about upon you so that you too can share in that goodness.

A practical assumption is that as China rises in power in Asia, there will be a commensurate rise in US influence. India is too close, and Europeans too much baggage. The US has her own baggage though, and accumulating more all the time.

American foreign policy too often tends to seem a lot more like high school relationships than mature business partnerships. At a certain level that might be charming, but damn it gets us into a lot of avoidable dramas.

The worst thing the US could do is attempt to revitalize the Cold War and attempt to "contain" China. The smartest thing is to recognize that the boat of US influence rises on the sea of Chinese power. Enjoy the ride. Far more than anything the US could say or do, the rise of China opens doors for US influence across Asia-Pacific. Just so long as we don't assume that means everyone wants to be our friend and have us move in. They aren't, and they don't.

[Ray]

The critical issue for the US is whether they are ready to lose their slot as the Nation that still calls the shot.

If they are to be Neville Chamberlain, then who can stop them!

[Bob's World]

My experience in Asia is that nation's there are very much about calling their own "shots."

What has gotten the US in trouble in the region is thinking that we should be calling shots that aren't ours to call. Far better we allow and support the appropriate parties in calling those shots, using our own power and influence to provide a counter-balance to rising Chinese power.

The fact is that there is room, opportunity, and certainly risk for several powerful states in the Asia-Pacific region. The key is finding the right balance to help prevent any from being tempted to overplay their hand. As I said, the US historically has been seen as excellent choice as a partner by states with growing concerns of powerful states that are much closer and more likely to make an aggressive play to control them. We already see US influence on the rise in the region. I predict this trend will continue.

[Dayuhan]

My experience in Asia is that nation's there are very much about calling their own "shots."

What has gotten the US in trouble in the region is thinking that we should be calling shots that aren't ours to call. Far better we allow and support the appropriate parties in calling those shots, using our own power and influence to provide a counter-balance to rising Chinese power.

I would also say that nations here are calling their own shots, and that they are not really aligning with the US or moving into a US camp, rather they are managing their relations across a spectrum of countries in line with their own perception of their own interests... which after all is what anyone would rationally expect.

I don't know how much "influence" the US could really be said to have in SE Asia, at least if we take the OED definition of "influence": the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something. I don't think we're having any such effect or that we have any such capacity: we're not changing the way anyone thinks or acts, and we're certainly not directing anyone's character, development or behaviour. We (and they) are simply finding areas where interests overlap and working to enhance those interests.

In short, our relations with SE Asian countries are moving into a peer-to-peer mode, more resembling relations with Europe than the old-school patron-client relationships that used to characterize relations with the developing world. That's probably least true in the Philippines, but even there we aren't calling any shots, far less so in the rest of the region.

I'm not at all sure that US influence (defined as above) is rising in the area: we do not have and are not gaining the capacity to persuade or compel any of these nations to do anything they don't want to do or weren't already doing. I also don't think it's accurate to think that the SE Asian nations are joining a US camp or falling in line with a US strategy. None of this is directed or orchestrated by the US; the nations involved are calling their own shots for their own reasons.

the US historically has been seen as excellent choice as a partner by states with growing concerns of powerful states that are much closer and more likely to make an aggressive play to control them. We already see US influence on the rise in the region. I predict this trend will continue.

China's a long way from making an aggressive play to control anyone in the area, and I'm not sure that's really the concern. Also most of these nations are not really looking to the US as a first choice partner, rather as one partner among several. The Vietnamese, those closest to the perceived problem, engage with the US, but are also engaging actively with India (including proposed joint ventures in offshore energy projects in disputed areas) and other SE Asian nations, while buying most of their arms from Russia. That's true elsewhere in the region as well: most states are not looking for a big brother to protect them, rather to build a network of supporting alliances. Assuming that it's all US-centric is, I think, a mistake.

[Bob's World]

most states are not looking for a big brother to protect them, rather to build a network of supporting alliances. Assuming that it's all US-centric is, I think, a mistake.

Agreed. I am merely talking to the US node of a multi-nodal equation. Every nation pursues their interests (or should), and there is indeed a balancing going on.

Building partners around shared interests and appreciating and balancing risks against conflict where interests diverge is simply smart business. A business I don't think the US does very well as we tend to put too much emphasis on the security model that played out during the Cold War, with the globe broke up into a couple of idologically divided camps competing against each other and for influence over the rest. We are too apt to ride an alliance or a grudge too long, and think in terms of friends and foes, rather than being more flexible, pragmatic, and interest-driven.

Arguably that was not the best model to establish post WWII either, but we did and we muddled through. Now? It continues to cast a shadow on US foreign policy and how we approach problems and relationships around the globe.

[Dayuhan]

Bringing in a US presence to be a threat in being to the Moro Muslim rebellion is like a red rag being shown to a bull!

So, the Philippines Govt wants to raise the hornets’ nest?

I find it naïve and too simplistic an explanation since I wonder if that meets the US strategic interest too! I would think that if the Moros were to be eliminated and not aggravated, 600 US soldier would not do the trick.

I wouldn't make assumptions about sectarian conflict in the Philippines based on observations in the Middle East and South Asia, very different environment, very different conflict. The US presence in the south has been in place for over a decade and it has not in any way raised a hornet's nest or provoked more conflict. It's actually had a calming influence and has been well accepted by the local Muslim populaces, mainly due to the perception (accurate IMO) that the Philippine military and government behave better with Americans watching them. The larger Muslim groups see the US less as a rival than as a potential mediator that has in the past tried (albeit ineffectually) to persuade the Philippine government to take a less hard-line stance on many of their core issues.

It should be noted that there is not and has never been any intention to eliminate the Moros: the US forces have been scrupulously kept away from the MILF, the larger and more influential rebel group. The mission was more to disrupt one of the smaller group sand attempt to neutralize its connection to the AQ/JI trunk line, a mission that has been fairly successful, though attempts to resolve the underlying drivers of insurgency have been far less effective.

At best, the stationing of US troops (whatever be the strength) is basically to have a ‘core group’ on which a larger force can build up on, if and when the necessity arises. Till then, they remain a ‘threat in being’ and a warning of greater things to come!

A "threat in being" to whom? Certainly not to the Chinese.

I don't see the presence in the south as a core group on which a larger force can be built on: the location and environment would be most unattractive for basing a larger force. Port and airport facilities are grossly inadequate and there'd be all manner of security/force protection issues. if the Philippine government ever decided that it was necessary to invite more Americans in, I doubt it would be built on that base, more likely they'd be positioned in completely different locations. I don't think that's very likely to happen.

I am not looking at local issue but the external issues and the indicators as I have already explained.

Viewing external issues and indicators alone will give you a very inadequate understanding of the local issues and of why local decisions are made.

I think the American Govt is neither fickle nor idiotic, nor do I feel that those who voted the Govt in are so.

I wouldn't say the Government is idiotic, though they sometimes do idiotic things and often stray annoyingly close to idiocy. Fickle they certainly are, by design: fickleness is unavoidably built into the US political system.

You may not appreciate it because you are in the Philippines which has a history of closeness to the US. I see what is happening in India and what has happened in Vietnam! India does not want to surrender its sovereignty, and yet she is voting with the US against her interests. Vietnam, a avowed enemy of the US, has sunk her pride and ‘aligned’ with the US.

I wouldn't know about India, but I don't think the Vietnamese have "aligned with the US", nor do I think they've had to sink their pride to deal with the US. They are pragmatic; they won their war and have no reason to shy away from engagement if it suits their perceived interests, whether economic or military. If it suits them they'll deal with the US or anyone else, but they'll do it for their own reasons and at their own initiative and to the extent that they see fit. They are not in the US camp, they are in their own camp.

No one has said there will be a major confrontation.

China is still not equipped to take on the US and its allies and friends.

They also have no reason or need to "take on the US and its allies".

One would then have to start from the time and manner how the Pope toppled the apple cart in Poland and how enemies of the US were slowly squeezed out and then how the focus shifted to another lot that were causing great anxiety to the US.

But as you rightly said, it is for another thread.

For another thread perhaps, but it illustrates a point: just because things happen that suits the US doesn't mean that the US made those things happen. Eastern Europe and ultimately Russia rebelled against communism; that suited the US well, but it wasn't the outcome of a US strategy or of any US action. People simply got sick of submitting to a system that didn't provide for their needs and their desires. Communism didn't fall because the US brought it down, it fell because it sucks and people hate it. Similarly, people who take actions that seem to fit in with US objectives aren't necessarily pawns of US strategy, they aren't joining the US camp, or being directed by the US... they're simply following their own perceived interests, which happen, for now at least, to be at least tangentially compatible with those of the US.

[Ray]

As far as the Colour Revolution, Arab Spring etc. Now, if that is not of US’ making and it is merely happenstance, then God and Destiny is surely an American manufacture!

I would find it too simplistic to believe that ‘people got disgusted by the system’ and demanded a change!

Just one example to illustrate.

If indeed the Russians got disgusted with the system and changed, then how come Russia’s Communist Party, relegated to the political margins after the fall of the Soviet Union more than 20 years ago, has seen an astounding comeback in elections as voters rebuked Prime Minister Vladamir Putin’s 12-year reign?