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.
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.Originally Posted by Ray
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.
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.
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?
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.
Is that "real threat" in, or are you assuming that is and viewing developments in that light without placing them in local context.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fickle, yes... most people are. Totally idiotic, no, though sometimes emotion has to settle before people start seeing through the bull####.
Truth or stereotype? Most assumptions about "national character" are stereotype based and few survive extended exposure to a culture and it's people.
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.
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.
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.
I don't need to Google, been following that situation closely for many years.
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.
Bookmarks