Joint India Indonesian Army Exercise Garud Shakti Concludes.

[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.

[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.