Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[Ray]

I haven't the burden of being a nation, but I live less than 60km from the South China Sea and less than 800 from the China mainland, which I suppose makes me a neighbour of sorts. I can't say I feel threatened at this point.

Indeed you haven’t been burdened being a nation.

I believe you were a Peace Corps worker. With due regards and without being indelicate, I take it thus that you are not a Filipino by birth. If that assumption is right, I would be surprised that one can imbibe the local psyche and mindset in such a short span of time. However, a person of foreign descent, living in another country, even if he is naturalised, does not have the same apprehensions as a local since the foreigner has the route out to his native land in case of security problems.

I am aware that there are many Filipinos who are against allowing the US to set foot on Filipino soil. However, a Govt takes decisions based on geopolitical and geostrategic realities. Yet, in a democracy, no Govt can divorce itself from the local sentiments either. Hence, deliberations and decision are not quite transparent, and instead is implemented in a roundabout manner, and sometimes even with secret understanding that are not in the public domain.

If indeed there was no threat perceived by Philippines, the timing of the naval exercise with the US could have been deferred for an opportune time when the ‘heat’ had cooled off in the South China Sea. But no, it was held with much fanfare, bringing forth angry responses from China. If indeed, as some would say, these exercises were ‘routine’, it would not have drawn such hostile response from China.

Therefore, that there is threat perceived by the Philippines Govt is no figment of imagination.

US TO ROTATE UP TO 4,000 TROOPS IN PHILIPPINES http://bonginvirginia.blogspot.in/20...troops-in.html

It is obvious that there is a threat perceived in the Philippine or else why are they now eating crow allowing US military presence, when on September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate outrightly rejected the ratification of the treaty that allowed the presence of US troops?

Not only that, the second naval vessel is being transferred to the Philippines. One does not ‘transfer’ ships without some sort of a military understanding. I believe that there are request to modernise their air force too!

Obviously, the Philippines perceives a threat from China and hence Philippines has backdown from its high horse of not allowing US to set foot in the Philippines, there being no other way out!

[Dayuhan]

I would be surprised that one can imbibe the local psyche and mindset in such a short span of time.

It'll be 33 years in September, minus a few spent elsewhere. Not exactly a short time. In my observation there is no "local psyche and mindset". There are many, sometimes overlapping, sometimes radically different, often contradictory.

However, a person of foreign descent, living in another country, even if he is naturalised, does not have the same apprehensions as a local since the foreigner has the route out to his native land in case of security problems.

Yes, I can leave, as can most Filipino officials. Extended presence in the region does not make one entirely of the region, but it provides a clue.

I am aware that there are many Filipinos who are against allowing the US to set foot on Filipino soil. However, a Govt takes decisions based on geopolitical and geostrategic realities. Yet, in a democracy, no Govt can divorce itself from the local sentiments either. Hence, deliberations and decision are not quite transparent, and instead is implemented in a roundabout manner, and sometimes even with secret understanding that are not in the public domain.

US forces have been setting foot on Philippine soil almost continuously since the departure of the bases, in one form or another. The objection isn't to "setting foot", the objection is to permanent occupancy of facilities, with all that goes with it. It's a complicated objection, and I doubt that you want to hear a detailed analysis, however well informed, of why the bases were removed.

If indeed there was no threat perceived by Philippines, the timing of the naval exercise with the US could have been deferred for an opportune time when the ‘heat’ had cooled off in the South China Sea. But no, it was held with much fanfare, bringing forth angry responses from China. If indeed, as some would say, these exercises were ‘routine’, it would not have drawn such hostile response from China.

Therefore, that there is threat perceived by the Philippines Govt is no figment of imagination.

There is a perception of threat, or perhaps more accurately a perception of potential threat. That perception is weighed against various other considerations.

The large exercises occur every year, and have for decades. Occasional smaller exercises are also held on a regular basis. There is always an objection from China. The media don't report this as a story unless there's some context that makes it interesting. The Chinese know the schedule. They're perfectly capable of creating an incident... a wee intrusion, or harassment of a fishing boat, timed to make a scheduled exercise look like an overreaction.

It is obvious that there is a threat perceived in the Philippine or else why are they now eating crow allowing US military presence, when on September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate outrightly rejected the ratification of the treaty that allowed the presence of US troops?

Not everybody in the Philippines wanted the bases removed. The Philippine military certainly didn't, nor did their allies in politics. Under the circumstances at the time they couldn't successfully oppose it, though many tried. Are they now "eating crow" by changing their minds, or are they playing up the Chinese threat to regain a posture they never wanted to lose? Little is obvious in Philippine politics, or I suppose in most politics.

Not only that, the second naval vessel is being transferred to the Philippines. One does not ‘transfer’ ships without some sort of a military understanding. I believe that there are request to modernise their air force too!

There's been a military understanding for decades, since Philippine independence, and old US hardware is routinely given to the Philippines. There's been some effort to change that - some helicopters were recently purchased from a Polish manufacturer - but the Philippine military remains essentially dependent on second hand US goods. They would dearly love to modernize the air force, but they really can't afford it. I personally think they'd do better building a functioning air defence system and investing in maritime surveillance and fast patrol boats with missile and anti-aircraft capability than by buying F-16s, but my opinion is pretty irrelevant!

Obviously, the Philippines perceives a threat from China and hence Philippines has backdown from its high horse of not allowing US to set foot in the Philippines, there being no other way out!

The Philippine elite feels more threatened by domestic rebellion than they do by the Chinese... could they be using the China threat to pull in assistance and a presence that they hope can be converted to support against what they see to be a more immediate threat?

Always many factors involved.

I would expect an increase in exercises and in transient visits. I would not expect any permanent facility that could be called a "base".

I wish the blog you linked to had cited a source on this:

The US Department of Defense now plans to rotate as many as 4,000 Marines to Australia, Hawaii and the Philippines, including forward operating bases in Sulu and Zamboanga City, according to various news reports.

I seriously hope nobody is stupid enough to be seriously contemplating that.

[Ray]

I suspect (pure gut reaction) that the end game is a South & East Asian Nation Group, continental-insular, that would look something like this (inside the orange-brown perimeter):

Attachment 1578

Should the US "put together" this Group ? Not in my Worldview. Should the US be a member of this Group ? Not in my Worldview. But, the US and that Group could Cooperate in Friendship, as they say.

Just a couple of comments on my map. Australia-NZ are in a separate blue box. Why ? They are colonialized nations where the predominant culture relates back to Europe, but adapted to local conditions and a mix of immigrant groups. The same might be said of the Americas. However, Australia-NZ have obvious direct links to the South & East Asian Group. So, Australia-NZ would be expected to have a different Worldview from, say, the US; but, the common cultural links are still strong (so blue lines for them as well).

The South & East Asian Group either were not colonized by European states, or the colonizations did not take; thus, in the latter case, sovereignty came back to the indigenous peoples.

My take and mine alone.

Regards

Mike

The US is already at organising such a 'grouping'.

Unlike before where the US directed such grouping by organising them into an Alliance, headed by the US, this time around, they have done it is a very subtle way.

Sensitive to the requirement of preserving 'nationalism' of each country, the US is not directing any country. Instead, the US is merely 'assisting' all to realise the 'effectiveness' of achieving a common strategic perspective and the US is merely 'acquiescing' to be around the area to help and be effective 'just in case'!

This brilliant strategy of the US would not have come into place if China did not transmogrify from the Peaceful Rise (having built up a cogent defence force in the time of the Peaceful Rise by lulling all and sundry including the US) to its new aggressive hegemonic pursuits. The Chinese belligerency has spooked all to close ranks. Interestingly, the closing of ranks is bilateral and not multilateral as yet.

The fact that inspite of security issues being bilateral, it is worth noting that the ranks that participate in Naval Exercises with the US in these waters keep increasing. Of course, it is not against any nation, but merely honing the issue of 'interoperability'.

Australia and NZ are the wet blankets. Maybe there is some method in the madness in this too!

My views.

[Ray]

One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

Mere presence, having an 'escape route' does not give the real apprehension of the sons of the soil.

For instance, the Green Card holders in the US, who preferred not to opt for US citizenship, found it odd that the US was so obsessed with the threat of the USSR.

But the Americans were convinced that there was a threat from the USSR.

There are many non US citizens living for years in the US, who feel that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a daft thing to do.

But the Americans, who actually faced the threat, possibly do not think so and that is why Bush was elected twice!

Second generation British of Pakistani origin perpetuated horrors in the UK. They were convinced that they were right.

But the other British citizens did not share their views.

Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

[Dayuhan]

One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

And yet you tell me with great confidence, from India, that:

It is obvious that there is a threat perceived in the Philippine or else why are they now eating crow allowing US military presence, when on September 13, 1991, the Philippine Senate outrightly rejected the ratification of the treaty that allowed the presence of US troops?

On what basis do you make this assessment?

There are many non US citizens living for years in the US, who feel that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a daft thing to do.

But the Americans, who actually faced the threat, possibly do not think so and that is why Bush was elected twice!

Possibly a minor point, but the first time he was elected pretty much nobody thought there was a threat from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

Can anyone claim to have "ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people" in any land, native or not? There are a pretty diverse range of psyches and mindsets in most lands.

I can tell you with some confidence that most Filipinos feel far more threatened (with good reason) by the mendacity, corruption and ineptness of their own politicians than they do by China, and that the Filipino elite feels more threatened (with equally good reason) by domestic threats than by anything the Chinese might do. That's pretty obvious just from observing the discourse on both sides.

Discussion of an expanded US military presence, by both those who favor it and those who oppose it, tends to revolve far more around local issues than around the supposed China threat. Of course the situation with China is part of the discourse, but it's not a dominant part and there's little to indicate that any part of the populace feels imminently threatened. Of course various groups are trying to use the "China threat" card to their advantage, both in relations with the US and in domestic politics, but that is based as much on opportunism as on perceived threat.

The US is already at organising such a 'grouping'...

...This brilliant strategy of the US would not have come into place if China did not transmogrify from the Peaceful Rise (having built up a cogent defence force in the time of the Peaceful Rise by lulling all and sundry including the US) to its new aggressive hegemonic pursuits. The Chinese belligerency has spooked all to close ranks. Interestingly, the closing of ranks is bilateral and not multilateral as yet.

I'm not at all convinced that what's happening is the result of brilliant strategy on the part of the US (some here would think that an oxymoron). I don't think it's centrally directed at all, just a matter of a number of nations reacting to a changing situation in the way they see fit.

I suspect that you're somewhat overstating the extent of a rise in both Chinese belligerency and the reaction from the US and local powers. Exercises in the area have been going on for a long time; they tended to be somewhat larger back in the days when Clark and Subic were operating. The pushing and shoving with the Chinese has been going on sporadically for a long time as well. Just because there's more media notice now doesn't mean things have fundamentally changed. The one thing that is substantially different is the Vietnam/US engagement, but of course that traces back to a whole host of factors, and the Vietnamese have more reason to fear China than most in SE Asia do.

[Bob's World]

I generally agree with Dayuhan's assessment.

I don't sense much panic among those nations feeling the growing embrace of China's growing sphere of influence. Currently there is far more good than bad, as China works to buy favor and extend their tentacles outward. As wise observers and policy commentators, such as Walter Lippmann in his day, have noted, it is reasonable to expect major powers to establish and nurture a sphere of influence as a component of their national security.

China's sphere has been compressed for a long time. Russia's sphere collapsed about them and the expansion of NATO to codify that collapse is very provocative on the part of the West. Other major powers who have had their sphere's compressed considerably in recent years certainly includes Japan, England, France, Turkey, Germany and Iran to name but a few more modern ones. The US has expanded its own sphere to fill space where others have retracted. To see that current high-water mark as some enduring "norm" would be very foolish. It happened, but it is not natural, and therefore not sustainable in any cost effective way. It is not necessary either, and a reasonable adjustment to make room for the growing influence of rising powers is in no way an American "defeat," but rather simply a return to more normal balances of influence between many regional hubs of power and influence.

That said, the US remains an attractive partner and counter for many smaller nations who find themselves within such spheres of regional influence. As Ibn Saud reportedly explained to FDR in the course of striking his deal with the US to accept US influence in exchange for a guarantee of the preservation of his family's control over Arabia in the waning days of WWII, "frankly, we really don't want any foreign influence here, but you Americans are far less likely to colonize us than some European power, and besides...you are so very far away."

The world is an increasingly smaller place, but for many the observations of Ibn Saud still ring true. The US is often the lesser evil when it comes to external influence, and besides, we are still so very far away.

In the post Cold War era, as the Soviet threat faded, the US found its presence and influence faced with growing resistance for this very reason. We had gone from being the lesser of two evils to being an unwanted house guest who had overstayed our welcome. And like many such house guests, we had grown so comfortable in our stay that we were oblivious to the growing clues that it was time to go home. Or at least substantially modify the terms of our presence. In the Middle East the governments wanted us to stay by in large, but among the populaces who were growing increasingly frustrated with the impunity of these governments, unrest began to grow. This was and remains an unrest that destabilizes that region. Certainly the Israel issue and the enduring dispute between Shia and Sunni remain, but overlaid on this is political friction of a US presence and influence that has been too intrusive for too long. High time to find a more appropriate position there.

In the Pacific an opposite effect is occurring. As China rises, so too does US influence in the region. in fact, there is nothing better for the growth of US influence in the Asia Pacific region than China's continued rise. We did not suddenly become "more liked" by the government of Myanmar, rather we became more necessary in the eyes of that government to help balance their relationship with China, and presumably India. Likewise with the Philippines.

The US tends to place far too much emphasis on the importance of shared or conflicting ideologies, or values or forms of governance, and not nearly enough on the role of shared or conflicting interests. That is part of the unique character of America. That said, it is an aspect of our character we need to become a bit more pragmatic about, and become much more focused on finding interest-based positions to build our foreign policies around. Once we make that shift, I suspect everyone will find it much more settling than having to deal with the moody, emotional giant we have been over the past 70 odd years.

We just need to relax, and embrace that immutable reality: More often than not, we are the lesser of two evils. That should be enough.

[Ray]

And yet you tell me with great confidence, from India, that:

With that much of confidence as a person as Mark Tulley, or William Dalrymple, who have lived their lives in India and care for India, and while concerned about the Sino Indian situation, are not as concerned as Indians.

On what basis do you make this assessment?

If the Filipinos were that uppity about their national identity, sovereignty and their 'independent' space wherein they threw the US out without any hesitation, then what could be the reason that they are now allowing US troops on their soil, euphemistically covered as 'rotational'?

If that is not eating crow, what is?

Imagine India which 'threw out' the British allowing British troops on their soil on 'rotational' basis. Whatever would they do that for, unless they are incapable of defending themselves and require the British to help them on their way?!

Possibly a minor point, but the first time he was elected pretty much nobody thought there was a threat from Iraq or Afghanistan.

And the second time?

When the bodybags were coming in, in torrents?

Can anyone claim to have "ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people" in any land, native or not? There are a pretty diverse range of psyches and mindsets in most lands.

Sure.

Does an Anglo Saxon mind think like a Han?

Can a Anglo Saxon mind think like a Filipino?

If so, then there would be no requirement for diplomatic dialogues. All would be on the same grid!

I can tell you with some confidence that most Filipinos feel far more threatened (with good reason) by the mendacity, corruption and ineptness of their own politicians than they do by China, and that the Filipino elite feels more threatened (with equally good reason) by domestic threats than by anything the Chinese might do. That's pretty obvious just from observing the discourse on both sides.

Nothing earth shaking at what you say.

What is more important?

Survival from daily problems created by domestic policy errors or Foreign Policy errors?

What concerns the Americans first? Jobs or if Iran is to be attacked?

Isn't that obvious?

Discussion of an expanded US military presence, by both those who favor it and those who oppose it, tends to revolve far more around local issues than around the supposed China threat. Of course the situation with China is part of the discourse, but it's not a dominant part and there's little to indicate that any part of the populace feels imminently threatened. Of course various groups are trying to use the "China threat" card to their advantage, both in relations with the US and in domestic politics, but that is based as much on opportunism as on perceived threat.

The threat of external forces can never be dominant, when domestic life is at strife.

Isn't that obvious?

Do Indians put the threat from China, before worrying about the Budget that will burden them further?

Do Americans put the threat of Iran before thinking if the economy will return to normal and they can live their lives again in the way they are accustomed to?

I'm not at all convinced that what's happening is the result of brilliant strategy on the part of the US (some here would think that an oxymoron). I don't think it's centrally directed at all, just a matter of a number of nations reacting to a changing situation in the way they see fit.

That is the brilliance of the US strategy of late.

Like China's Peaceful Rise, they are not appearing belligerent or appearing to be ganging up as is the popular perception of the past.

US has quietly broken the OPEC cartel and now they are breaking up the Middle East in a quiet and calm way. Has any US govt been able to break up the Muslim solidarity till now or even get Gaddafi to eat crow? They have cleverly sold their favourites like the Egyptian dictator, given the impression that the US is 'pro people', generated the latent desires of the population of the Middle East, and has gone whole hog to encourage uprisings.

Of course, not all the uprisings will go the US' way for the moment, the second phase will balance it all.

It is all very well to abuse the US Govt as a bunch of chumps, but I see a method in the madness and it is fools who underestimate the US.

I suspect that you're somewhat overstating the extent of a rise in both Chinese belligerency and the reaction from the US and local powers. Exercises in the area have been going on for a long time; they tended to be somewhat larger back in the days when Clark and Subic were operating. The pushing and shoving with the Chinese has been going on sporadically for a long time as well. Just because there's more media notice now doesn't mean things have fundamentally changed. The one thing that is substantially different is the Vietnam/US engagement, but of course that traces back to a whole host of factors, and the Vietnamese have more reason to fear China than most in SE Asia do.

The pushing and shoving is not the same old pushing and shoving.

The US has it mission and they are doing it real well without the usual US signature and instead a very diplomatic manner that misses the eye and that is the greatness of the current foreign policy success of the US.

A very matured way indeed!

[Dayuhan]

With that much of confidence as a person as Mark Tulley, or William Dalrymple, who have lived their lives in India and care for India, and while concerned about the Sino Indian situation, are not as concerned as Indians.

Is concern a function of ethnicity or a function of assessment of threat relative to other concerns? I doubt there's a uniform level of concern even among Indians... some would be very concerned, some unconcerned, and a wide spectrum in between.

If the Filipinos were that uppity about their national identity, sovereignty and their 'independent' space wherein they threw the US out without any hesitation, then what could be the reason that they are now allowing US troops on their soil, euphemistically covered as 'rotational'?

If that is not eating crow, what is?

Speaking of "the Filipinos" is too simplistic to be relevant. "The Filipinos" didn't throw the US out, the faction that opposed the presence of large permanent facilities gained ascendency over the faction that supported that presence. There's still a general consensus that large permanent facilities are not wanted. US troops have been on Philippine soil on a rotational basis for over a decade, since well before the current round of the China flap started... nothing at all new about that and no reason to say Filipinos are suddenly "eating crow" over it.

It's worth remembering that Clark Air Base was not closed by Filipinos, but by geology: the Pinatubo eruption forced the abandonment of the base. It was actually kind of amusing: for years the US had been saying that a phaseout would take a decade, when the planet decided to pop a zit the Air Force was gone in 3 days. The negotiations over Subic ended when the Philippine government demanded a price higher than the US was willing to pay: without Clark and without the Cold War the value of the place had dropped significantly. It wasn't quite that they "they threw the US out without any hesitation", more that they overrated their negotiating position.

Nobody has floated the idea of rotating 4k Marines through here locally, and I don't bet anyone wants to try: it would be a very difficult topic politically. The idea of putting them in forward bases in Sulu and Zamboanga seems most unlikely to me. Certainly there's been no local discussion of any such thing, and I doubt the US would even want to do it. Messy idea.

Imagine India which 'threw out' the British allowing British troops on their soil on 'rotational' basis. Whatever would they do that for, unless they are incapable of defending themselves and require the British to help them on their way?!

They might do it as a trade to get something they want from the US. If the US wants to move some troops here and the Philippine government thinks it can get some hardware, aid, or other concessions, they'll make a deal, to the limited extent that local politics will let them get away with it. Less about defending them from China than about seizing an opportunity to make some advantageous deals.

Almost nobody thinks that China would invade under any circumstances. What's expected is more pushing and shoving over fishing territories, and (much more hypothetically) occasional pushing and shoving over resource related exploration/production. It's already pretty well established that the US is not going to defend Filipino fishing fleets or offshore claims, so there's really not much to be gained beyond negotiating leverage with all parties concerned.

And the second time?

When the bodybags were coming in, in torrents?

There's a stage of war where the American popular response is "we must rally together and stick behind the leader". At a later stage this becomes "this is stupid and pointless, throw the bastard out".

Does an Anglo Saxon mind think like a Han?

Can a Anglo Saxon mind think like a Filipino?

If so, then there would be no requirement for diplomatic dialogues. All would be on the same grid!

Filipinos think all kinds of ways, so do Anglo-Saxons and Hans. That has less to do with some genetically enforced mode of thought than by the backgrounds of the individuals involved. An urban Filipino businessman or professional thinks very much like an urban American businessman or professional; they have more in common than either would have with a farmer from their own country. There is no such thing as "how Filipinos think", they think all kinds of ways. True of most people once you look beyond stereotypes. It would be silly for anyone, even a Filipino, to claim to know "how Filipinos think". I have a fairly good grasp of the spectrum of opinion here and the current state of balance/imbalance among various points on that spectrum.

Diplomatic dialogues aren't necessary because different cultures have inherently different thought processes, they're necessary because people in different places have divergent interests.

Nothing earth shaking at what you say.

Wasn't meant to shake the earth, only to point out that the rise of China is a quite minor consideration to most Filipinos.

That is the brilliance of the US strategy of late.

Like China's Peaceful Rise, they are not appearing belligerent or appearing to be ganging up as is the popular perception of the past.

Again, I see no special evidence that any of what's happening is driven by US strategy. I see nations responding to a situation in ways that suit their own perceived interests. The Philippine government is using the US concern with China to try and move up the US military aid totem pole.

The only country in SE Asia that's developing a serious military response to a perceived Chinese threat is Vietnam. That's predictable, and it's not driven by anything the US wants or does. The Vietnamese have a history with China, geographic proximity, a land border, and a long China Sea coastline. There's been a lot of attention paid to occasional military exercises with the US, but the Vietnamese are by no means settling into a US camp. Their arms purchases, notably anti-ship missiles, are generally from Russia. There's also a good deal of cooperation with India: Vietnam is negotiating to buy cruise missiles that are made in India (joint venture with Russians), and I've heard they'll be working with India for training crews for the 6 Kilo-class subs they're buying; there's also talk of energy deals with Indian companies.

The Vietnamese are actually being quite clever about it, as one might expect: they've no shortage of experience in conflict with much larger powers. They aren't setting up to fight the Chinese Navy, but they are laying out an asymmetric strategy to convince the Chinese that the cost of conflict would exceed the gain. None of this is driven by US strategy, it's the Vietnamese government responding to a perceived threat in the way they think will be most effective. Part of that response is closer relations with the US, but that's not the only part.

US has quietly broken the OPEC cartel and now they are breaking up the Middle East in a quiet and calm way. Has any US govt been able to break up the Muslim solidarity till now or even get Gaddafi to eat crow? They have cleverly sold their favourites like the Egyptian dictator, given the impression that the US is 'pro people', generated the latent desires of the population of the Middle East, and has gone whole hog to encourage uprisings.

OPEC was broken up (to the extent that it has been) by the 90s oil glut, not by the US.

I wish I could attribute the Arab Spring, the fall of Gaddafi, etc to US initiation, but I really can't: American politicians are neither that smart nor that competent, and they don't look that far ahead. Things happen, the US responds, usually clumsily.

[JMA]

One has to be a national of a country to realise their predicament.

Mere presence, having an 'escape route' does not give the real apprehension of the sons of the soil.

...

Living in a land that is not yours, helps in understanding the people of the land, but it does not mean one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!

Ray you are absolutely correct. In addition a knowledge of the languages and actually living amongst the people is essential.

Even then (as in parts of Africa) even speaking the local language but living in a separate community limits ones intimate knowledge of what the local people are thinking (which is quite often diverse anyway) and why (this is often the important aspect).

[Dayuhan]

Ray you are absolutely correct. In addition a knowledge of the languages and actually living amongst the people is essential.

Even then (as in parts of Africa) even speaking the local language but living in a separate community limits ones intimate knowledge of what the local people are thinking (which is quite often diverse anyway) and why (this is often the important aspect).

For once I agree completely with JMA... will wonders never cease. Speaking multiple languages and living among the people gives a perspective that living in an expat enclave or other restricted area never can, even for decades. In addition a knowledge of the history, national and local, is important... not just "the history" as recorded by distant scholars, but the multiple historical narratives perceived by various subsets of the populace.

Not that all of that would mean that "one had ingrained oneself in the psyche and mindset of all sections of the people in that land!", but it would be a start. How many people can honestly claim to have ingrained themselves in the psyche and mindset of all the people even in their own land?

It's also true citizens of a country who have spent all or most of their lives in one part of their own country often have a terribly limited understanding of people in other parts of that country. How well does an urban sophisticate in Manhattan understand an Oklahoma wheat farmer? Could an academic in Mumbai or Delhi claim a full understanding of the vast diversity of populaces and narratives that makes up India? In my neighborhood we get Filipino visitors from manila who are more clueless than any of the foreigners, who haven't the slightest grasp of local language of custom and carry some of the most absurd stereotypes about indigenous people.

[Ray]

Is concern a function of ethnicity or a function of assessment of threat relative to other concerns? I doubt there's a uniform level of concern even among Indians... some would be very concerned, some unconcerned, and a wide spectrum in between.

Indeed there are many strata in society. Joe the Plumber or even Sarah Palin would not understand Foreign Policy as would Hilary Clinton, Obama or John McCain.

But I am sure that even Joe the Plumber, because of the media would know how horrid USSR was, even if it was not true and instead propaganda and media hype!

Speaking of "the Filipinos" is too simplistic to be relevant. "The Filipinos" didn't throw the US out, the faction that opposed the presence of large permanent facilities gained ascendency over the faction that supported that presence. There's still a general consensus that large permanent facilities are not wanted. US troops have been on Philippine soil on a rotational basis for over a decade, since well before the current round of the China flap started... nothing at all new about that and no reason to say Filipinos are suddenly "eating crow" over it.

If the Filipinos did not throw out the US from Subic Bay, the US left like purring cats totally delighted? If a faction that grew in ascendancy that wanted the US out, was that faction a minority view?

It is good to justify issues, but then one cannot just squeeze as the Gospel with a shoe horn in a tight shoe!

If the US was asked to leave, it was majority view. They are still opposed to the US return, but the Govt and others realise their is no way out. So, that is eating crow.

No other nation, except Japan, S Korea and now Australia are basing US troops even though they are on board with the US strategic thinking!!

Any reason why?

It's worth remembering that Clark Air Base was not closed by Filipinos, but by geology: the Pinatubo eruption forced the abandonment of the base. It was actually kind of amusing: for years the US had been saying that a phaseout would take a decade, when the planet decided to pop a zit the Air Force was gone in 3 days. The negotiations over Subic ended when the Philippine government demanded a price higher than the US was willing to pay: without Clark and without the Cold War the value of the place had dropped significantly. It wasn't quite that they "they threw the US out without any hesitation", more that they overrated their negotiating position.

Nothing is amusing.

Cold war maybe out.

The real threat of China is in!

Nobody has floated the idea of rotating 4k Marines through here locally, and I don't bet anyone wants to try: it would be a very difficult topic politically. The idea of putting them in forward bases in Sulu and Zamboanga seems most unlikely to me. Certainly there's been no local discussion of any such thing, and I doubt the US would even want to do it. Messy idea.

So, what is happening?

No US troops around?

They might do it as a trade to get something they want from the US. If the US wants to move some troops here and the Philippine government thinks it can get some hardware, aid, or other concessions, they'll make a deal, to the limited extent that local politics will let them get away with it. Less about defending them from China than about seizing an opportunity to make some advantageous deals.

You think that the Filipinos are daft.

They allow US troops on their land for hardware and not for protection against China?

Almost nobody thinks that China would invade under any circumstances. What's expected is more pushing and shoving over fishing territories, and (much more hypothetically) occasional pushing and shoving over resource related exploration/production. It's already pretty well established that the US is not going to defend Filipino fishing fleets or offshore claims, so there's really not much to be gained beyond negotiating leverage with all parties concerned.

Nation don't work just to get cracking when they are attacked.

They cater for what is known as 'threat in being'.

There's a stage of war where the American popular response is "we must rally together and stick behind the leader". At a later stage this becomes "this is stupid and pointless, throw the bastard out".

Are you saying that Americans are fickle and totally idiotic?



Filipinos think all kinds of ways, so do Anglo-Saxons and Hans. That has less to do with some genetically enforced mode of thought than by the backgrounds of the individuals involved. An urban Filipino businessman or professional thinks very much like an urban American businessman or professional; they have more in common than either would have with a farmer from their own country. There is no such thing as "how Filipinos think", they think all kinds of ways. True of most people once you look beyond stereotypes. It would be silly for anyone, even a Filipino, to claim to know "how Filipinos think". I have a fairly good grasp of the spectrum of opinion here and the current state of balance/imbalance among various points on that spectrum.

Diplomatic dialogues aren't necessary because different cultures have inherently different thought processes, they're necessary because people in different places have divergent interests.



Wasn't meant to shake the earth, only to point out that the rise of China is a quite minor consideration to most Filipinos.



Again, I see no special evidence that any of what's happening is driven by US strategy. I see nations responding to a situation in ways that suit their own perceived interests. The Philippine government is using the US concern with China to try and move up the US military aid totem pole.

The only country in SE Asia that's developing a serious military response to a perceived Chinese threat is Vietnam. That's predictable, and it's not driven by anything the US wants or does. The Vietnamese have a history with China, geographic proximity, a land border, and a long China Sea coastline. There's been a lot of attention paid to occasional military exercises with the US, but the Vietnamese are by no means settling into a US camp. Their arms purchases, notably anti-ship missiles, are generally from Russia. There's also a good deal of cooperation with India: Vietnam is negotiating to buy cruise missiles that are made in India (joint venture with Russians), and I've heard they'll be working with India for training crews for the 6 Kilo-class subs they're buying; there's also talk of energy deals with Indian companies.

The Vietnamese are actually being quite clever about it, as one might expect: they've no shortage of experience in conflict with much larger powers. They aren't setting up to fight the Chinese Navy, but they are laying out an asymmetric strategy to convince the Chinese that the cost of conflict would exceed the gain. None of this is driven by US strategy, it's the Vietnamese government responding to a perceived threat in the way they think will be most effective. Part of that response is closer relations with the US, but that's not the only part.



OPEC was broken up (to the extent that it has been) by the 90s oil glut, not by the US.

I wish I could attribute the Arab Spring, the fall of Gaddafi, etc to US initiation, but I really can't: American politicians are neither that smart nor that competent, and they don't look that far ahead. Things happen, the US responds, usually clumsily.[/QUOTE]

[Ray]

Is concern a function of ethnicity or a function of assessment of threat relative to other concerns? I doubt there's a uniform level of concern even among Indians... some would be very concerned, some unconcerned, and a wide spectrum in between.

Indeed there are many strata in society. Joe the Plumber or even Sarah Palin would not understand Foreign Policy as would Hilary Clinton, Obama or John McCain.

But I am sure that even Joe the Plumber, because of the media would know how horrid USSR was, even if it was not true and instead propaganda and media hype!

Speaking of "the Filipinos" is too simplistic to be relevant. "The Filipinos" didn't throw the US out, the faction that opposed the presence of large permanent facilities gained ascendency over the faction that supported that presence. There's still a general consensus that large permanent facilities are not wanted. US troops have been on Philippine soil on a rotational basis for over a decade, since well before the current round of the China flap started... nothing at all new about that and no reason to say Filipinos are suddenly "eating crow" over it.

It the Filipinos did not throw out the US from Subic Bay, the US left like purring cats totally delighted? If a faction that grew in ascendancy that wanted the US out, was that faction a minority view?

It is good to justify issues, but then one cannot just squeeze as the Gospel with a shoe horn in a tight shoe!

If the US was asked to leave, it was majority view. They are still opposed to the US return, but the Govt and others realise their is no way out. So, that is eating crow.

No other nation, except Japan, S Korea and now Australia are basing US troops even though they are on board with the US strategic thinking!!

Any reason why?

It's worth remembering that Clark Air Base was not closed by Filipinos, but by geology: the Pinatubo eruption forced the abandonment of the base. It was actually kind of amusing: for years the US had been saying that a phaseout would take a decade, when the planet decided to pop a zit the Air Force was gone in 3 days. The negotiations over Subic ended when the Philippine government demanded a price higher than the US was willing to pay: without Clark and without the Cold War the value of the place had dropped significantly. It wasn't quite that they "they threw the US out without any hesitation", more that they overrated their negotiating position.

Nothing is amusing.

Cold war maybe out.

The real threat of China is in!

Nobody has floated the idea of rotating 4k Marines through here locally, and I don't bet anyone wants to try: it would be a very difficult topic politically. The idea of putting them in forward bases in Sulu and Zamboanga seems most unlikely to me. Certainly there's been no local discussion of any such thing, and I doubt the US would even want to do it. Messy idea.

So, what is happening?

No US troops around?

They might do it as a trade to get something they want from the US. If the US wants to move some troops here and the Philippine government thinks it can get some hardware, aid, or other concessions, they'll make a deal, to the limited extent that local politics will let them get away with it. Less about defending them from China than about seizing an opportunity to make some advantageous deals.

You think that the Filipinos are daft.

They allow US troops on their land for hardware and not for protection against China?

Almost nobody thinks that China would invade under any circumstances. What's expected is more pushing and shoving over fishing territories, and (much more hypothetically) occasional pushing and shoving over resource related exploration/production. It's already pretty well established that the US is not going to defend Filipino fishing fleets or offshore claims, so there's really not much to be gained beyond negotiating leverage with all parties concerned.

Nation don't work just to get cracking when they are attacked.

They cater for what is known as 'threat in being'.

There's a stage of war where the American popular response is "we must rally together and stick behind the leader". At a later stage this becomes "this is stupid and pointless, throw the bastard out".

Are you saying that Americans are fickle and totally idiotic?

Filipinos think all kinds of ways, so do Anglo-Saxons and Hans. That has less to do with some genetically enforced mode of thought than by the backgrounds of the individuals involved. An urban Filipino businessman or professional thinks very much like an urban American businessman or professional; they have more in common than either would have with a farmer from their own country. There is no such thing as "how Filipinos think", they think all kinds of ways. True of most people once you look beyond stereotypes. It would be silly for anyone, even a Filipino, to claim to know "how Filipinos think". I have a fairly good grasp of the spectrum of opinion here and the current state of balance/imbalance among various points on that spectrum.

If that is so, how come the Japanese business man does not think like anyone else but a Japanese?

Diplomatic dialogues aren't necessary because different cultures have inherently different thought processes, they're necessary because people in different places have divergent interests.

So, what do you feel is the reason there is these dialogues when it is useless?

Wasn't meant to shake the earth, only to point out that the rise of China is a quite minor consideration to most Filipinos.

Excellent!

Minor in that China claims its territory and fishing rights!

Again, I see no special evidence that any of what's happening is driven by US strategy. I see nations responding to a situation in ways that suit their own perceived interests. The Philippine government is using the US concern with China to try and move up the US military aid totem pole.

So, the truth surface inspite of your playing ping pong.

The bold part says it all!

The only country in SE Asia that's developing a serious military response to a perceived Chinese threat is Vietnam. That's predictable, and it's not driven by anything the US wants or does. The Vietnamese have a history with China, geographic proximity, a land border, and a long China Sea coastline. There's been a lot of attention paid to occasional military exercises with the US, but the Vietnamese are by no means settling into a US camp. Their arms purchases, notably anti-ship missiles, are generally from Russia. There's also a good deal of cooperation with India: Vietnam is negotiating to buy cruise missiles that are made in India (joint venture with Russians), and I've heard they'll be working with India for training crews for the 6 Kilo-class subs they're buying; there's also talk of energy deals with Indian companies.

The Vietnamese are actually being quite clever about it, as one might expect: they've no shortage of experience in conflict with much larger powers. They aren't setting up to fight the Chinese Navy, but they are laying out an asymmetric strategy to convince the Chinese that the cost of conflict would exceed the gain. None of this is driven by US strategy, it's the Vietnamese government responding to a perceived threat in the way they think will be most effective. Part of that response is closer relations with the US, but that's not the only part.

You are seeing the trailer.

Wait for the actual movie.

OPEC was broken up (to the extent that it has been) by the 90s oil glut, not by the US.

Why don't you google?

Don't take my word for it!

I wish I could attribute the Arab Spring, the fall of Gaddafi, etc to US initiation, but I really can't: American politicians are neither that smart nor that competent, and they don't look that far ahead. Things happen, the US responds, usually clumsily.

If you can't attribute it to the US, do let us know how it is happening like a Domino effect?

The Muslims have suddenly seen light?

[Dayuhan]

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.

It the Filipinos did not throw out the US from Subic Bay, the US left like purring cats totally delighted?

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.

If a faction that grew in ascendancy that wanted the US out, was that faction a minority view?

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.

If the US was asked to leave, it was majority view.

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.

They are still opposed to the US return, but the Govt and others realise their is no way out. So, that is eating crow.

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?

No other nation, except Japan, S Korea and now Australia are basing US troops even though they are on board with the US strategic thinking!!

Any reason why?

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.

Cold war maybe out.

The real threat of China is in!

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

So, what is happening?

No US troops around?

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.

You think that the Filipinos are daft.

They allow US troops on their land for hardware and not for protection against China?

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.

Nation don't work just to get cracking when they are attacked.

They cater for what is known as 'threat in being'.

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.

Are you saying that Americans are fickle and totally idiotic?

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

If that is so, how come the Japanese business man does not think like anyone else but a Japanese?

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

So, what do you feel is the reason there is these dialogues when it is useless?

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.

So, the truth surface inspite of your playing ping pong.

The bold part says it all!

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.

You are seeing the trailer.

Wait for the actual movie.

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.

Why don't you google?

Don't take my word for it!

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

If you can't attribute it to the US, do let us know how it is happening like a Domino effect?

The Muslims have suddenly seen light?

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.

[Ray]

PHL, Vietnam navies to jointly patrol Spratlys
Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:28 Rene Acosta / Reporter

THE Philippines and Vietnam have moved closer to jointly patrolling their claimed maritime territories in the disputed Spratly Group of Islands that are being aggressively claimed by China.

The standard operating procedure for the joint patrol by the country’s Navy and the Vietnam People’s Navy (VPN) of the Northeast Cay and Southwest Cay, both on the South China Sea, was signed by Vice Admiral Alex Pama, Navy flag officer in command and the Vietnam Navy’s commander in chief Adm. Nguyen Van Hien.

Lt. Col. Omar Tonsay, Navy spokesman, said Northeast Cay is occupied by the Philippines, and it is located 45 kilometers northeast of Pag-asa, the biggest island that is currently occupied by the country.

On the other hand, the Southwest Cay is occupied by Vietnam, and it is located 3 kilometers away from Northeast Cay....

Aside from the joint-maritime patrol, the Philippines and Vietnam also forged defense cooperation, with Pama and Hien signing an MOU on the “Enhancement of Mutual Cooperation and Information Sharing” between the two navies.

http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/na...atrol-spratlys

[Dayuhan]

Given the state of the Philippine Navy, I doubt that the Chinese are shaking in their boots... but the show must go on, and it will. Expect more push-and-shove around the edges, but not much more than that.

[Ray]

PLA researcher says U.S. aims to encircle China

Earlier this month, Obama told Asia-Pacific leaders that the United States was "here to stay," announced plans to set up a de facto military base in northern Australia and chided China for refusing to discuss its South China Sea disputes at regional forums.

"The United States is making much of its 'return to Asia', has been positioning pieces and forces on China's periphery, and the intent is very clear -- this is aimed at China, to contain China," Luo wrote in the commentary, which quickly spread across the Chinese Internet.....

But they do illustrate the undercurrents of nationalist ire with Washington that Beijing's policy-makers face.

Luo was among several PLA officer-pundits who lambasted U.S. policy earlier last year, before both governments moved to ease tensions over Taiwan, Tibet and other disputes.

Analysts have said that although the PLA is firmly under the thumb of China's Communist Party, officer-analysts have been given some leeway to strike a tougher tone in their comments.......

But Luo, at least, appears emboldened to speak out again.

He said the United States should keep focused on its "war on terror" against Islamist militants.

"China has not provoked U.S. interests, so what are you doing running to Asia to encircle China?," wrote Luo.

"If you shift your strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific, who will protect your own backyard. Don't you worry about a second September 11 incident?," he asked, referring to the devastating 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AR07Q20111128

The Chinese are shaking in their boots and biting their nails in agony at the way the US is encircling her by using proxies and standing behind them with all its might.

This part of Luo's harangue is so pathetic and it indicates that the fear of being encircled is giving rise to delirious incoherence in logical thought!

He said the United States should keep focused on its "war on terror" against Islamist militants.

"China has not provoked U.S. interests, so what are you doing running to Asia to encircle China?," wrote Luo.

"If you shift your strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific, who will protect your own backyard. Don't you worry about a second September 11 incident?," he asked, referring to the devastating 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

[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!