Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Thursday, March 19, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.19.2020

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.18.2020

Monday, March 16, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.16.2020

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.10.2020

Monday, March 9, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.9.2020

Saturday, March 7, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.7.2020

Friday, March 6, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.6.2020

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.5.2020

Wednesday, March 4, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.4.2020

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 3.3.2020

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 2.27.2020

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 2.26.2020

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update 2.25.2020

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Bush, Obama & Trump Middle East Policy is one in the same

I have attempted to stay out of the fray regarding what has just happened in Syria.  It is almost as if Obama is still in Office and as if Trump has turned into Obama in the same fashion Obama turned into Bush. For all I know Trump is putting together a secret “kill list” like his predecessor and continuing Obama’s drone strike assassination program. I have read some interesting perspectives on this topic and agree with many of them.  For example, Norman Solomon’s suggesting that all this incessant Russian bashing may have been used to ‘bait’ Trump to bomb Syria, with or without evidence. I also agree with MIT professor of Science, Technology, and International Security Dr. Theodore Postol in his assessment of the White House report noting that it provides no evidence that the Sarin came from or was dropped from an Airplane and that without being on the ground at the time such a position is impossible to prove given Assad’s advantage in his battle against IS and other western supported terrorist proxies. For lack of a better statement, to use the words of Mike Whitney, “You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak.” Or as the free-thinking cats at MOA have pointed out, the White House “assessment” begins with "The United States is confident that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapon attack, ..." noting that “The U.S…. does not have"proof" - it is just "confident".” And returning to Dr. Postol, he was also correct in 2013 when he disproved the Obama Administration uninformed position that Assad was responsible for a chemical nerve agent attack in Damascus.  My question is will Trump be another Obama with respect to Foreign policy in West Asia and use his war powers even out there past Obama? Will he engage in even more unjustified and clandestine wars in the same way Bush and Obama did by targeting even more majority-Muslim countries?

Let us begin with some historical perspective. The west has had its eye on Syria for decades now.  Although many would assert it started with a 1949 coup attemp timplemented by the CIA just 3 years after Syria became an independent country, I would suggest it started after WW1 in 1919 and continued up until the Franco-Syrian war initially. Specifically, after the implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 - which cut up what was left of the Ottoman Empire between France and Britain. The war itself happened in 1920 ending in a victory for the French and the formation of a new pro-French government. This resulted in Syria being divided in to several regions according to religion. This is an important historical event because it appears the object of current western interference and the call for regime change in the nation has a similar objective.

In addition, history shows us that the objective of these efforts was to dominate and control the rich natural resources (oil and natural gas) in the region. As early as 1957 President Eisenhower and British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan were making plans to establish and support financially the establishment of what they called a “Free Syria Committee” for the singular purpose of regime change in Syria to try and control the oil fields of not only Syria but also Iraq. There was no real geopolitical reason for this other than the desire of the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to build a Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (TAPLINE) from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean via Syria through to Turkey. This required a “Syrian right-of-way” to be agreed upon without input from the Syrian people of course.

Unfortunately, the efforts of the west resulted in making a divide between Shiite and Sunni that has been going on since the seventh century even worse especially if one considers that Shiites are the majority in Iran and Iraq, and are the largest Muslim group in Lebanon and their lands include what many consider the richest oil fields in the entirety of the Middle East. 

These efforts have only increased and intensified over the past few decades with regime change in Syria being priority. First a unified Syria stands in the way of policy objectives in the region to numerous and nuanced to discuss (US interests both in Lebanon and preventing the establishment of an Iraq’s pipeline to the Mediterranean for example). We know this because recently unclassified documents show that the CIA even made plans to use Iraq, Israel and Turkey as proxies in 1983 to pressure the Syrian government by using covert military actions just to establish a pipeline. Although this didn’t manifest, it did not prevent the CIA from continuing to try for in 1986 they drew up some more ideas to overthrow Syria by provoking sectarian tensions (does this sound familiar?). The same policy goals were desired again in 1991 and in 2001.

What we see now - with the supposed “civil war” in Syria - has been years in the making and the recent efforts of ISIS and other terrorist extremist (all supported by the West and Saudi Arabia) may have finally come to fruition after hard work put in by the British government according to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas who is on record saying that he got it from the horse’s mouth that “top British officials” were in the process of arming Sunni nationals “to invade Syria” in 2009 – two years before the anti-Assad protest. Then there is what then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in 2012: that the best way to help Israel deal with Iranis to help overthrow Bashar Assad.

So it seems that President Trump is no different than Obama or Bush or his democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and their desire to use any excuse to make bankers and oil giants the benefactors of the wealth to be generated by a divided Syria without Assad at the helm.  Chemical weapons like WMDs in Iraq, was contrived as an excuse to justify their goals.  I mean we know that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels in 2013in order to frame the Syrian government. We also know that independent Humanitarian organizations have documented that ISIS has used chemical weapons, including Sarin, chlorine and sulfur mustard agents, at least 52 times on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq since 2014.

We also know that just like the Bush Administration, Hillary Clinton and Obama cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government to fund and arm clandestine operations designed to take down Iran and its ally Syria  by encouraging Sunni extremist groups that not only champion a militant view of Islam but are also are anti-America and sympathetic to ISIS and Al Qaeda. All which seem to be from extremist Islamic fundamentalist groups with origins in or connections to Saudi Arabia. 
In all sincerity, the west, as in Yemen, is backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Sunni’s who are an openly admitted group that considers the U.S. and of Israel as lifelong enemies. By bombing Assad, we are basically s one writer put it serving as the ISIS/Al Qaeda Air force. This in my opinion, is no different that when Barack Obama invaded Libya without Congressional approval in 2011.  Trump clearly is no different and seems to take his marching orders from the neoconservatives and neoliberals who won’t be happy until a major U.S. military intervention happens in Syria (and other places) even if it means a confrontation with Russia and/or China. You may question my analysis but for what it is worth, NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster is no dissimilar than Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, or Nuland’s husband – Robert Kagen on this matter.

Again as I asked in the beginning of this essay, is Trump any different than Bush or Obama? I suspect not. As one writer pointed out: “I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody.  To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat.  Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).  Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have.  He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras.  Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support.  And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack.  Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV.”


I remember the Gulf of Tonkin and other major U.S. lies to justify war like the one in 1970 when our government lied to the American people and said, “We didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia” when in fact we did. Former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, was correct in his assessment equally when he said like Libya, Syria will "implode" if President Assad was removed from office period. Not to mention bombing Syria does nothing to provide humanitarian relief and merely distracts the world from the West supported atrocities in Yemen, Mosul and the South Sudan.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Obama’s China and Russian Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

As the Obama Administration prepares to leave the Whitehouse, a major contradiction in his policy approach when comparing Russia with China exist. From hacking to perceived military threats it appears that there are two standards involved in President Barack Obama’s decision making.

Although with respect to China and the sparing pertaining to who will control the waterways of the South China Sea (a waterway through which trillions of dollars in oil, gas and other trade go through annually) or the massive Office of Personnel Management (OBM) hack, we as a nation have taken no actions similar in magnitude as we have with Russia based on opinions and beliefs regarding alleged hacking of private individuals and corporations when compared to China. Why?

Unlike with Russia and their moves around the Balkans and with the Ukraine, in which the U.S. has engaged in war games and recently amassed hundreds of military vehicles and thousands of troops, the Obama administration has softened the drama of the Navy missions through the South China Sea by insisting that the U.S. is just traveling through international waters.

Like China, Russia actively seeks to avoid a direct conflict with the United States.  However unlike Russia, China’s saber rattling is loud, very loud and Beijing is sending its messages, brash messages for the Obama administration in many forms, rather it be building up military installations in the Spratly Islands or the Scarborough Shoal in the South China sea, expanding their strategic footprint in the Asia-Pacific region, or their growing investment in expanding and modernizing their military. But what did the Obama Administration do? Nothing. At least when compared to the ephemeral threat that Russia fosters, they required war game maneuvers on the edge of its borders.

The U.S. sees the South China Sea as international waters. However from President Obama to National Security Advisor Susan Rice, given the importance the administration states, it merits no response at all. But it can only be expected for their response to the massive hacking into the OBM by China engendered a similar lack of response. When the Obama administration openly acknowledged that the Chinese frequently attempts to steal American trade secrets and considers such actions as acts “of aggression” no diplomats were expelled. This although we know that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior have evidence that indicates several networks were compromised by hackers in the OPM's and Interior's networks by state sponsored Chinese actors. More than 20 million federal employees were exposed including military and intelligence personnel by simple "doxing” by allegedly a cyber-espionage group including but not limited to data on retirement plans, work schedule, finger prints and personal identifying data.  Sadly from networks with problems in security and weaknesses that were known of and had existed for the tenure of the Obama Administration. Especially given that these older systems (that are written in COBOL) couldn't be updated to support encryption. Even more comical is that the Chinese use simple Windows Power Shell attacks to insert remote access tools (RATs) on Windows desktops and servers .

But even with evidence, the current Administration did not expel Chinese diplomates nor retaliate on the record openly as was the case with Russia. It seems (as illogical as it is) that the administration of President Barack Obama is both hesitant and wary to do anything that might instigate an armed conflict with China. Although we know that  doxing (sending out private or identifiable information about an individual or organization via malware) is more severe than spear-phishing ( trying to get dumb fcks to volunteer by clicking on an unknowing malicious link to extract sensitive info like usernames, passwords, and/or credit card  particulars), the Obama Administration did zilch.

All we do with respect to Beijing is to allow them to operate in the South China Sea while we just talk shit. When the Navy or the Pacific Command say check them Chinese tricks Obama be like naw, don’t be tripping. Even when China scrambled fighter jets to track U.S. ships in the South China Sea Obama say it ain’t no biggie - and don’t mention or add them Chinese ICBM test.

Honestly, I feel a war with Beijing is more a likely outcome than one with Russia. But instead of making preemptive military moves against China, we send tanks and other equipment to Germany to move them deeper into Eastern Europe, including more than 3,000 US soldiers in Poland and additional troops in Norway. Obama states that his actions are in response to Russia's intervention in Ukraine and to comfort NATO allies. This is questionable given President Obama's decision to waive legal restrictions on US provision ofdefense articles to allies in Syria by sending MANPADS to Syrian opposition forces.  

 Obama’s deployment of troops in Europe is the largest US military fortification we have seen likely since the Reagan Administration.  His position is that he needs to show a position of strength against Putin, as well as respond to unproved tampering in US elections.  The problem is that there was no hacking in U.S. elections, rather hacking if it happened at all, into the email account of a private citizen whom emailed his password which was “password” and a private corporation – the Democratic National Committee. More importantly, the argument seems to be giving the American people more information about Hilary Clinton, her campaign and the DNC, is a threat to our democracy when I would assert otherwise.  Is the administration suggesting that the American people didn’t need to know as much as possible about the Clinton machine and that we would be better served know less? I hope not, for that, in addition to Obama’s foreign policy inconsistency is a much greater threat, especially seeing that he is doing such on his way out of office.

Friday, December 9, 2016

TV Watchers Miss the Taiwan & Pakistan Big Picture

There were several kerfuffle’s that the alphabet networks and their mindless audience pushed as being calamitous actions taken by Donald Trump this past week.  The two that caught my attention occurred while listening to NPR and applied to Taiwan and Pakistan. Seems that Mr. Trump accepting calls from the democratically elected Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and responding to a similar call from Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were appalling, shocking and destabilizing, averring that the President Elect supposedly upended the traditional convention on how to deal with Chinese geopolitics, consequently destroying nearly 40 years of standard US diplomacy regarding Taiwan, and our relations with India via Pakistan.

This response was predictable based on how the MSM media has dealt with Trump and hung on his each and every word and tweet. Those critical of Trump say that his actions are just thoughtless blundering mistakes and signs of his ineptness in foreign policy. This was not the case. These single-minded individual elite’s infer that this is a reflection of Trump being a political novice.  I take the contrarian view and assert it is the complete opposite.

The US relationship with China has continuously been all over the place since the end of the Nixon Administration.  Likewise, we can only thank Obama with his droning and unauthorized raids in Pakistan (Bin Laden included) as only bring about more political destabilization with respect to diplomatic actions with the nation. It is as if the pundits do not see how their speculations on behalf of ratings and sensationalization, are being overstated.

Let’s start with Taiwan and China. After the Ford administration, upon taking office, President Jimmy Carter was in such a big hurry to normalize relations with China that in 1978 Congress got involved to make sure that America’s mutual defense treaty with Taiwan would not fall by the wayside. So under the leadership of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, a bipartisan congressional alliance proposed the Taiwan Relations Act after Carter ignored their concerns. In essence congress indicated that the United States would not hesitate to aid Taiwan if it was invaded by China going against terms of diplomacy established in 1949. Carter like today’s media pundits were afraid this would upset and hurt China’s feelings.

By the Time Bill Clinton was in office, a ‘One China’ policy and de-recognition of Taiwan was in full effect and since his Administration; we have not been honest in our foreign policy objectives. So in simple terms, the current reaction to Trump’s actions in regards to China-Taiwan may be unhelpful and may hurt the fledgling Taiwan democracy and should be considered more important than papers and air time advertisement media outlets sell.

All we can take away from this is that Trump is making good onhis tough talk on China and that he will shake the ways of old off and not be restrained by the bureaucratic practices of the old political establishment guard. Just by going against 37 years of China-US diplomatic protocol of the“One China” policy the US accepts and respects without query. No US President or President-elect has ever called a Taiwanese leader in recent decades. Trump’s independence is what the story should be about not to mention two things are abrogated from the popular analysis: (1) Chiang Kai-shek is no longer the leader of Taiwan and (2) Trump isn’t the first president or president-elect since 1979 to have communicated directly with a president of Taiwan noting that if memory serves me correctly Reagan did the same thing when he was president elect.

Fact is politicians on both sides of the isle have been reconsidering albeit very quietly the US-China-Taiwan relationship since 1989 (Tiananmen Square) and the question if they really want Taiwan to unify with China. In fact I bet I could find support if I really wanted to be super-duper accurate that since Tiananmen Square, the US have been selling more and more weapons to Taiwan, but this is mere speculation on my part. The point is Trump has not only shown himself thus far  to be an effective negotiator, he has also been continuously underestimated every step of the way so far by folk whom think they know it all in the media and has proven that there is more than one way to skin a cat metaphorically.

Adding Pakistan to the mix, we see the same thing if we are truly objective before we are outraged.  It is clear that President-elect Donald Trump may be amenable to similar eccentric methods regarding bilateral ties with the nation and Pakistani Prime Minister. In this case, the media analysts have called Trump’s actions on one end ridiculous and the other distressing.  Based on what I read all he said was that he thought Sharif was “a terrific guy” and wanted to visit what he described as a fantastic country with great people speaking of Pakistan. What all of this suggest is that Trump is not the traditional status quo political cat to the disdain of the traditional American political elite and mainstream media. All he wants is for the US to be a part in trying to secure peace between India and Pakistan.  What’s wrong with that?

The problem is that the reaction of the US media may be the biggest issue with respect to both  China and Taiwan, and Pakistan and India by blowing all of this out of proportion in their desire to “get Trump” by any means necessary. Fact is that US foreign policy is fluid and changes and over stating events as the aforementioned can do more harm than good. It is as if Trump taking a phone call is more problematic for the Chinese than Obama selling four missile carrying frigates and billions in other weaponry to Taiwan.  Then there is the fact that Trump isn’t even in office yet and has not even laid out any foreign policy. So just calm down and wait for something tangible to report on and not personal bias in the form of made-up fears.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Trump is Correct: TPP isn’t a Fair or Free Trade Agreement

Since the democratic and republican primaries, trade has become a central issue mainly due to the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  Although Hillary Clinton jumped on the bandwagon, her insincerity did not add to much credibility to her position or even inform others on her position to international trade deals in particular the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), given her documented back and forth between supporting and being against the agreements.

I learned of the TPP years ago but only read of its details when portions of the massive 12 nation trade deal was released by WikiLeaks.  This was verified by a release of the document by member signee New Zeland some few months later. For some reason, it is considered a good deal and represents all associated with “free trade.” Unfortunately, TPP is never discussed in nuance – in respect to free trade versus fair trade. Many feel that since President Elect Donald Trump has vowed to scrap TPP and readdress previous deals such as NAFTA that free trade will take a major hit and will strike a strong blow against US economic prosperity and the average citizen.  However in my simple view, this is and will not be the case.

The market the TPP addressed represented 40 percent of the global economy and from reading it, one can reasonably question two pertinent points of order: 1) does it place foreign interest over US interest and 2] does it place global international corporate interest before US corporate interest? In addition, no one seems to ask if the TPP portends significant economic benefits and/or whom are these benefits for? I ask this because now, both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and other democrats have reversed course and are saying it would be bad to renegotiate it since Trump plans to table the deal.

For starters in the US, the TPP if implemented will lead to the creation of only a small amountof jobs. In reading the text, it is clear that there are no parameters that mandate or even suggest that the other eleven signees invest in the US but rather that the US and other nations invest in all nations in exclusion of the US. For example, not including the main body of the TPP agreement, it also includes 58 side agreements of which Japan alone enjoys 14 of these.  These specifically lay out distinctive conditions for Japan’s participation in the TPP for targeted economic sectors they feel are essential for their domestic economic advantage. Is this free trade? Is this fair trade? If it isn’t, it supports the contention of what one of the writers of a blog I regularly read when he stated: “free trade is an unwise policy that has a cascade of negative consequences” and that as a policy “inevitably produces poverty and economic instability, not prosperity.”

Thus from this purview, this Trans-Pacific Partnership will do nothing in reality to address the dwindling US middle class or increase stagnant wages experienced by the majority of US workers and most likely make their economic condition even worse. To begin with, the nations involved in this deal are not equal and vary in many respects.  National wealth, standards of living, wage differences and even currency valuation. In fact most of the TPP doesn’t even address trade but rather investment. The most significant parts of the TPP pertain to investment provisions that make it easier and beneficial for US corporations to put more loot in these nations in the form out sourcing jobs and production to these eleven nations more than serving to increase wages for US workers and job growth.

With most of the 25,000 plus categories of exported good, the US exported basically nothing to TPP nations over the past few years which mean US exporters and producers will remain at a virtual disadvantage to the other eleven participant nations.

Then there are wages. Macro and micro economic theory historically has documented that wages are a major part in the cost of producing goods. Karl Marx even wrote a book on this concept. Thus US corporate interest can only reap large profits via an overall decrease in wages by having these products produced in nations in which wages are substantially lower than they are in the US. This means if this is the definition of free trade, it only means a massive transfer of wealth from US workers to nations outside of the US. Thus meaning that the real and only winners being US transnational corporations and Wall Street. This is even without the consideration of currency manipulation. Since presently the dollar is freely traded in markets as the world’s reserve currency, it will never be in a position to compete with member TPP nations since most engage in some form of currency manipulation that give their products an inherent competitive advantage over US goods.

One doesn’t have to take my word for it. The Peterson Institute , Economic Research Service report and the World Bank show limited if any benefits from the TPP and indicate that gains (if any) to the US economy will be negligible in regards to GDP.  This is even supported by economists at Tufts University, which predict a net GDP loss for the US via TPP. Another study reports that increases in imports from these countries will result in significant job dislocations and wage declines in the U.S. which means US workers will have to settle forlower-quality jobs.

TPP from my analysis will only mean unequal growth for the US economy compared to the other member nations. Sure, the macroeconomic benefits of the deal are unquestioned, but from my point of view the issue should be the microeconomic impact in the US. If I remained honest, the TPP clearly is more about China than trade or economic development in the US the way in which President Obama describes it. For it will only impoverish the US working class even more, resulting in an even more downward trend on wages, meaning US workers would not even be in an economic condition to by these products. To put it as plainly as possible, the more we import, the more US jobs are displaced (see 2012 US–Korea free trade agreement. 

What proponents of the TPP (Obama Administration, IMF, World Bank, transnational corporations & Wall Street) forget is that you can’t have true free/fair trade without addressing at a minimum currency manipulation and Value Added Taxes (VATs) applied to American exports at the port of entry. But this makes too much sense and common sense in modern economic policy since the Clinton administration has long been thrown out of the window to benefit the top 1% instead of the average US family.


Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Obama Leading From Behind In The Philippines

Last week President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and Chinese President Xi Jinping held talks in Beijing. Although only in office for less than four months, Duterte's words and actions have managed to disrupt the traditional Washington and Manila subtleties and have actually added some spice to President Obama’s last few months in office not to mention his Asia strategy or pivot which was supposed to mark a shift in American foreign policy from the EU and Middle East to the Asian Pacific rim nations.

President Rodrigo Duterte delivers his first State of the Nation Address. INQUIRER PHOTO/JOAN BONDOC
President Obama began this effort somewhere around the time he had become embroiled in Syria and had failed to keep his word regarding a“Red Line” in the region.  More specifically we can point to the report from the June 2013, the Asia-Pacific Strategy Working Group at the American Enterprise Institute called Securing U.S. Interests and Values in the Asia-Pacific that was submitted jointly to congress and the Whitehouse (in my view, the brainchild of Robert Kagan (Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative) and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell).

In geopolitical terms all bull shi* aside, the pivot has mainly been implemented because the neocons in the Obama Administration and elsewhere inside the beltway know that all of the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asian nations wants a better relationship with China, and the U.S. must do all that it can to keep China second fiddle to American interest. Moreover, it is imperative that the U.S. attempts to keep a major presence (policy wise and militarily) in hand with respect to our relationship with China -- which continues to become more complex economically and in terms of national security as we progress through the future. With the recent changes in policy perspectives regarding Duterte, this all seems to show that the Obama Administration wasn’t playing with a full house or flush but was rather bluffing and it only took Duterte's recent statements to bring all of this to the surface.

So far there has been no official word from Obama's Whitehouse or Department of State on where we stand with respect to this so-called Asian pivot. Some may consider the newly elected president’s actions strange given the footing his nation and the Chinese have had over the past decade – in particular actions related to access for Filipino fishermen to Scarborough Shoal, which China seized in 2012. According to reports the meetings focused on economic aid to the Philippines and coming up with a more productive manner in which to address and deal with the South China Sea issue with respect to territorial disputes and avoiding confrontations with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

These actions make it very difficult for Obama and the US, if America wants to maintain U.S. forces at Philippine military bases. But if Duterte's statementsare accurate when he asserts that he would prefer to end all and any future military cooperation with the U.S., the so-called Asian pivot is now more like a moon walk. Duterte also publically stated his desire to have all U.S.counterterrorism troops out of his country not to mention his disdain for Obama having the gall to be critical on his war on drugs and crackdown on drug dealers and users. One could say President Obama brought all of this on his self when Duterte approached him during a dinner at a regional summit in Laos and Obama sent him to meet with another subordinate member of his White House staff.

I don’t claim to know much about President Duterte but I am somewhat knowledgeable of Filipino history; as too is Duterte like many children that recall the history of collective oppression under the thumb of imperialistic and colonial foreign rule the likes of Theodore Roosevelt and William McKinley. The U.S. had always desired to take territories in the area of the South pacific and our occupation of the Philippine Islands occurred after the Spanish-American war of 1898-99 when we took the island nation from Spain after Admiral  George Dewey sailed into Manila harbor in 1898 with a fleet of American vessels and destroyed the Spanish ships anchored there. 

Obama’s failure in dealing with President Duterte can simply be reduced to Obama’s lack of knowledge about how deep the historical anti-American sentiment is for 99 percent of the Filipino people; how they will never forget the first American soldiers landing in the Philippines in 1898 and how President WilliamMcKinley wanted to seize the entirety of the archipelago for the United States saying it was his Christian duty. They never have forgotten how the American soldiers called them “niggers;”or how between 1899 and 1913 the United States of America for conquest sake, killed more than 400000 Filipino fighters and more than a million Filipino civilians died due to America’s scorched earth policy, intentional economic hardship, mass killings and vile murderous butchery (something still to this day, the U.S. Government has not apologized for).

Obama also has not paid attention to how popular the new President is and the extent to which is policies have been well received by his electorate. In about four months, Duterte's has already put in place new policies to tackle tax reform which includes cutting personal income taxes to 25% from 32% in an effort to help the middle class. The overall objective of his 10-point economic agenda is to lift 10 million Filipinos from poverty by 2022. He has also put in place policy to help indigenous people displaced bymining and logging so that they can return to their ancestral lands and has started a program of free medical checkups for the 20 million poorest Filipinos. Add to this his open commitment to provide free irrigation to subsistence farmers, it is no wonder he is so popular. Even with the condemnation from the international and western community, national data show his popularity for his policy (even his drug policy) and presidency is extremely high. Then there is the relationship I spoke of to begin with. Not only is he taking a hand away from the U.S. and extending it towards China, he is now saying he desires closer and more permanent ties with Russia.  This would be worse that Duterte calling Obama “son of a whore”, it would down right like a pimp slap.

Before the statement could be printed in the western press, Putin via the Russia’s ambassador to the country promptly said Moscow was down and ready to fully cooperate with Manila stating “Formulate your wish list. What kind of assistance do you expect from Russia and we will be ready to sit down with you and discuss what can and should be done.” 

Some may say that this is another example of Obama leading from behind.  With all that is going on from Yemen to Syria to the South Sudan and now the Philippines, it seems that the presidents’ Asian policy is floundering and reflective of his approach to foreign policy in general – doing something but not having a follow up plan to carry out said policy.  We have seen this in Libya, in Syria, the Ukraine, South Sudan, Russia and now again with the Philippines.   The question is what will U.S. relations with Manila be like in the future for our next president?  Clearly Obama doesn’t care seeing that all he does and has been doing is campaigning. To date, with the exception of a few nations, Obama foreign policy (which I wrote about extensively in my book Nobel Neocolonialism) is spiraling downward as well as alienating form staunch U.S. allies. Regardless of what one says about President Duterte, the vast majority of Filipinos, Mr. Duterte’s passionate outbursts, however crude and impolitic, see him as a strong and fearlessness leader willing to take the actions required to back up his words and provide for his citizenry, no matter how crude, abhorrent and inappropriate other perceive them to be.  Too bad we cannot say the same about Obama.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Torrance T. Stephens. Powered by Blogger.

I am Author, Writer and Infectious Disease Scientist. Originally from Memphis, Tennessee.

My photo

My Old Blog & [Bitcoin Wallet]

Torrance T. Stephens on Google Scholar
Torrance T. Stephens on Research Gate

voltaire


test



163jCMr5GQwivrZZqDDgqkMGeYtnGLNuAX

1LqPZXxGJkaD7FGXxQYumW7oGfHWMpES85

1LqPZXxGJkaD7FGXxQYumW7oGfHWMpES85

demo

orwell
mlk
hux

Worth A Read

12160.info
12Kyle
24 Hr Gold
Adeyinka Makinde, Writer
Advancing Time
http://Afghanistan Times
Africa Confidential
African Independent
AgainstCronyCapitalism
Ahval News
Al-Alam News Network
Al-Ayham Saleh Aggregator
Alethonews
AllSides
American Partisan
Anadolu Agency
ANF News
Another Day In The Empire
Antiwar.com
Antonius Aquinas
The Arab Weekly
Asharq Al Awsat English
Antonius Aquinas
Article V Blog
Bakhtar News English
Balkinzation
Bill Mitchell Blog
Borneo Bulletin
CAJ News Africa
Catalan News
Chuck Spinney
Center for Economic and Policy Research
CLUBORLOV
Corrente
Crime Prevention Research Center
24 Cryptogon
DarkMoon
Dawn News
Deep Throat
Der Spiegel International Online
Diogenes Middle Finger
Dollar Collapse
Donbass International News Agency
EA WorldView
Economist View
Egypt Independent
Empty Wheel
eNews Channel Africa
Fabius Maximus
First Things
Foreign Policy In Focus
Fortune Financial Blog
France24 Debate Youtube
Frontline Magazine, India
Global Guerrillas
gods & radicals
Gold Anti-Trust Action Comm
Gray Zone Project
Greg Palast
Gubbmint Cheese
Gun Watch
Hacker News
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Interfludity
If Americans Only Knew Blog Ie
Illegal Alien Crime Report.com
Independent Ie
Indian Punchline
Information Clearinghouse
Institute for New Economic Thinking
Insecurity Analysis
Interfluidity
Off-Guardian
James Petras
James Bowman
John Brown's Public Diplomacy Press
Khaama Press News Agency
Kashmir Monitor
Land Destroyer Report
Lawfare
LegeNet blog
Le Monde diplomatique
Leafy
Libyan Express
MIT Technology Review
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
MarijuanaStocks.com
Mark Curtis
Measure Text Readability
Mello Reads The Meter
Mish Talk
Moon of Alabama
Morningstar News
Mysinchew
N+1
NewBlackMan (in Exile)
Noahpinion
Op India
Owl's Asylum
OWL In Catch Up Mode
Palestinian News & Info Agency
Paperboy - Newspaper Front Pages
PanAm Post
Philosophy of Metrics
Planet of the Chimps #2
Pogo Was Right
Priceonomics
GC
Prensa Latina
Prison Reform
Privacy Watch News
Professional Troublemaker
Punch
Quillette
Quodverum
RINF
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently
RawDawgBuffalo
Real-Economics
Real Time Business News
Redress Information & Analysis
Ripped Em Up
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
ROOSH V
Rudaw
Russian Insider
Seven Days
Silent Crow News
Silver For The People
SlashDot
Snake Hole Lounge
SoFrep
South China Morning Post
South Front
Spiked Online
Steve Keen's Debtwatch
Steve Lendman Blog
Straight line logic
Strategic Culture Foundation
Syrian Arab News Agency
The Asian Age
The American Conservative
The Automatic Earth
The Cable Nigeria
The Conscious Resistance.com/
The Conversable Economist
The Daily Sabah
The Day UK
The Diplomat
The Economic Collapse
The Field Negro
The Fifth Column News
The Hindu
The Ignorant Fisherman
The Money Illusion
The National Interest
Tom Dispatch
TRT World
Tyranny News
Oriental Review
The Rutherford Institute
The Slog
The Social Contract
The Standard (Hong Kong)
The Unbalanced Evolution of Homo Sapiens
Triangulum Intel
Unredacted
vigilant citizen
Volkay's Volcano
Wall Street On Parade
Warsaw Voice
We Kill Because We Can
Wordcrunch
Yanis Varoufakis
 Yohap News Agency
Zero Anthropology

Followers

Copyright © The Womb is a Sterile Environment Not a Memory Hole [Unless You a Puzzy] | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates