is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
Off the bat, I strongly suggest that people stop
referring to proximity or the Exclusive Economic Zone as basis for our
claim over Scarborough (or, if you prefer, Bajo de Masinloc). To claim
EEZ as basis is tantamount to saying Scarborough is not part of our
territory but just an area we have first right to exploit the resources
found therein. Considering the nature of international law, we must be
precise in our declarations. What should be emphasized therefore is this: that Scarborough
is part of Philippine territory from which the contiguous zones and the
EEZ are to be counted from. And that it is our territory because of
effective occupation and administration.
Such was correctly stated by the DFA in its 18 April 2012 paper released to media:
“As decided in a number of cases by international courts or
tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring
territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise
of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the
Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of
‘effective exercise of jurisdiction’ although the said island may have
been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the US
in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised
both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de
Masinloc since its independence.”
The only question that remains is how to make this legally
correct claim conclusive upon the other countries. Contrary to what one
commentator wrote last week, we cannot unilaterally bring a case to
ITLOS. As I stated back in 2011:
“Unlike domestic tribunals which can acquire jurisdiction by mere
service of summons for example, international tribunals operate within
the constraints of State sovereignty. In other words, the only way an
international tribunal can have jurisdiction over the case is if the
state parties to the dispute actually give their consent to be subjected
to such jurisdiction. And China has pointedly rejected the jurisdiction
of the ITLOS when it made the following declaration upon joining the
UNCLOS: ‘The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not
accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the
Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to
in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.’
China’s reference to Article 298 means that “it does not accept
any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect
to one or more of the following categories of disputes: disputes
concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74, and 83
relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays
or titles; disputes concerning military activities, including military
activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial
service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to
the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the
jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297; and disputes in
respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is
exercising its authorized functions, unless the Security Council decides
to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to
settle it by the means provided for in the UNCLOS.”
The confusion expressed by some about unilaterally filing an
ITLOS case is perhaps understandable. The UNCLOS does make use of the
words “mandatory” or “compulsory” modes of dispute settlement. But such
is misleading. It merely refers to making arbitration as the mandatory
mode of settling a dispute whenever the parties have not come to an
agreement as to what mode they prefer (the choices are the ICJ, ITLOS,
or arbitration). But this presupposes that the parties already agreed to
bring the matter to dispute settlement. Because despite the words
“compulsory” or “mandatory,” the UNCLOS dispute procedure is still
consensual in nature. To actually claim otherwise is irresponsible
because it could potentially subject the Philippines to an embarrassing
case dismissal due to ignorance of international law. And as we know
already, the Chinese has refused our invitation to bring the matter to
dispute settlement under UNCLOS rules. Which is weird really when one
considers the fact that China, aside from loudly proclaiming its alleged
rights over the dispute areas, has a sitting member in the ITLOS:
Zhiguo Gao [we don’t].
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the reason why China is
wary of facing us before such international tribunals. In any event,
there are other things we can do in pursuing our claim. We should
continue our legal preparations for an eventual case, maintain vigilance
and increase presence over the territories (China’s military might is
inconsequential in the end as it can never give legitimacy to their
claim), develop our cyber warfare capabilities, acquire active
international monitoring and support, and -- finally -- strictly enforce
our smuggling and immigration laws.
26.4.12
21.4.12
Coquia on religious freedom
Found this gem, a 1956 article by one of the
Philippine greats in international law, Jorge Coquia:
"Those who have always claimed 'separation of
Church and State' have obviously wanted the absolutist and separatist view of
religion and government. A careful study of the history and background of the
'no establishment of religion' clauses in both the American and Philippine
Constitutions shows, however, that instead of the mutual exclusion and consequent
antagonism of the Church and the State, the intent was more the promotion of
religion by the state."
19.4.12
The politics of excuses
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
Thoughts were triggered by remarks recently given by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on what he believes is a fundamental problem faced by the US: “We are turning into a paternalistic, entitlement society. That will not only bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally. Because when the American people believe this is no longer a place where only their willingness to work hard, to act with honor, integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for a government check.”
This creeping attitude of self-entitlement comes from what Christie calls a “paternalistic” society, whereby the government tells people to “stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you.” Unfortunately, as Christie notes, rather than feeling secure about their future, it has resulted in lesser optimism among people. For the Philippines, rather than corruption or foreign intervention, this concept of a paternalistic culture is the clue to the nation’s fundamental problems.
We’ve long had a paternalistic political culture (some say “maternalistic” but let’s not get into that right now), where people willingly abandon their right to think in favor of a government that will “take care of them.” It’s a culture that gave rise to a strongman like Marcos. It also, however, is the reason why we have a succession of presidents after him that essentially were from bad to worse.
As Forbes magazine noted in 2010, “the easiest route to the top is to be born into the clique of families that have controlled the country for generations, including under a half-century of US colonialism... Decades of mismanagement and dynastic rule have left the Philippines, once ranked second to Japan in postwar Asia, lagging far behind neighbors like Thailand and Indonesia. Foreign investors chasing growth gave a wide berth to the Sick Man of Asia, as the country became known.”
But why do we insanely insist in having these same insane families rule over the country? Part of the answer was given by UP professor of public administration Prospero De Vera: “In the Philippines it appears that is a crime and it is a sin to become rich.” He was referring contextually to Manny Villar vis-à-vis the other politicians who have run for president. But that begs the question why to people it’s a “crime” for someone like Villar to be rich when the families that ruled this country are rich and for far longer than he has?
The usual response is because of corruption, a cheap political attack that opponents could be readying against another probable presidential contender that doesn’t also belong to the elite: Jojo Binay. But that again leads to a further question: Why would people believe so easily that a Villar or a Binay could be corrupt but ridiculously swallow the improbable notion that politicians from the old rich families are immune to corruption? But as I said, that’s ridiculous because historically the worse cases of corruption we’ve had were instigated by the elite, the purported “de buena familias”: the reported embezzlement of the Katipunan’s funds, war profiteering during the Japanese occupation, corruption over the US Army surplus, the selling out of the country through treaties and agreements with foreigners, currency manipulation and corrupting the import licensing scheme, behest loans, and government coddling of favored companies or “kamaganaks.” And remember all the scandals of the past few years? Those weren’t corruption done by, of, or from the poor.
So, again, why do our people insanely (there is simply no other word for it) insist in installing the same people and families in power despite the fact they had screwed the country again and again. One answer I suggest is what I call the “politics of excuses.” You see, when you have somebody from the old rich who succeeds, many of our countrymen could always tell themselves and everybody around them: well, “galing kasi sa mayaman na pamilya.” The implication is that he could have done more had he been born into the elite as well. But the statement is more a cop-out than anything else. A business success? Chinese kasi. Sports or celebrity success? Mestizo kasi.
The thing is, Villar’s (or Binay’s) mortal sin is that they represent to people the absence of an excuse for not succeeding. Because if these two pulled themselves out of poverty by hard work and sheer will, not by their family connections or foreign origins, what are the others’ excuse? Even Pacquiao is a victim of this mentality: people belittle his intelligence when he clearly has more sense than those in power now. Had these three been born in a country where proper ambition, hard work, and self-confidence are valued they would have been presidents or national leaders long, long ago.
Unfortunately, they have to deal with a people that refuses to take responsibility for their own lives and would rather content themselves with finding excuses.
Thoughts were triggered by remarks recently given by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on what he believes is a fundamental problem faced by the US: “We are turning into a paternalistic, entitlement society. That will not only bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally. Because when the American people believe this is no longer a place where only their willingness to work hard, to act with honor, integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for a government check.”
This creeping attitude of self-entitlement comes from what Christie calls a “paternalistic” society, whereby the government tells people to “stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you.” Unfortunately, as Christie notes, rather than feeling secure about their future, it has resulted in lesser optimism among people. For the Philippines, rather than corruption or foreign intervention, this concept of a paternalistic culture is the clue to the nation’s fundamental problems.
We’ve long had a paternalistic political culture (some say “maternalistic” but let’s not get into that right now), where people willingly abandon their right to think in favor of a government that will “take care of them.” It’s a culture that gave rise to a strongman like Marcos. It also, however, is the reason why we have a succession of presidents after him that essentially were from bad to worse.
As Forbes magazine noted in 2010, “the easiest route to the top is to be born into the clique of families that have controlled the country for generations, including under a half-century of US colonialism... Decades of mismanagement and dynastic rule have left the Philippines, once ranked second to Japan in postwar Asia, lagging far behind neighbors like Thailand and Indonesia. Foreign investors chasing growth gave a wide berth to the Sick Man of Asia, as the country became known.”
But why do we insanely insist in having these same insane families rule over the country? Part of the answer was given by UP professor of public administration Prospero De Vera: “In the Philippines it appears that is a crime and it is a sin to become rich.” He was referring contextually to Manny Villar vis-à-vis the other politicians who have run for president. But that begs the question why to people it’s a “crime” for someone like Villar to be rich when the families that ruled this country are rich and for far longer than he has?
The usual response is because of corruption, a cheap political attack that opponents could be readying against another probable presidential contender that doesn’t also belong to the elite: Jojo Binay. But that again leads to a further question: Why would people believe so easily that a Villar or a Binay could be corrupt but ridiculously swallow the improbable notion that politicians from the old rich families are immune to corruption? But as I said, that’s ridiculous because historically the worse cases of corruption we’ve had were instigated by the elite, the purported “de buena familias”: the reported embezzlement of the Katipunan’s funds, war profiteering during the Japanese occupation, corruption over the US Army surplus, the selling out of the country through treaties and agreements with foreigners, currency manipulation and corrupting the import licensing scheme, behest loans, and government coddling of favored companies or “kamaganaks.” And remember all the scandals of the past few years? Those weren’t corruption done by, of, or from the poor.
So, again, why do our people insanely (there is simply no other word for it) insist in installing the same people and families in power despite the fact they had screwed the country again and again. One answer I suggest is what I call the “politics of excuses.” You see, when you have somebody from the old rich who succeeds, many of our countrymen could always tell themselves and everybody around them: well, “galing kasi sa mayaman na pamilya.” The implication is that he could have done more had he been born into the elite as well. But the statement is more a cop-out than anything else. A business success? Chinese kasi. Sports or celebrity success? Mestizo kasi.
The thing is, Villar’s (or Binay’s) mortal sin is that they represent to people the absence of an excuse for not succeeding. Because if these two pulled themselves out of poverty by hard work and sheer will, not by their family connections or foreign origins, what are the others’ excuse? Even Pacquiao is a victim of this mentality: people belittle his intelligence when he clearly has more sense than those in power now. Had these three been born in a country where proper ambition, hard work, and self-confidence are valued they would have been presidents or national leaders long, long ago.
Unfortunately, they have to deal with a people that refuses to take responsibility for their own lives and would rather content themselves with finding excuses.
Scarborough Shoal is Philippine territory
The Department of Foreign Affairs released last 18 April 2012 the Philippine Position on Bajo de Masinloc and the Waters Within its Vicinity.
As correctly stated by the DFA, "Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales.”
“The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 NM EEZ or Continental Shelf (CS) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of 'effective exercise of jurisdiction' although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.”
Furthermore, “Chinese assertion based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.
Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim to mature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.”
Finally, under “international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a State nor can be considered as a display of State authority.”
As correctly stated by the DFA, "Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales.”
“The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 NM EEZ or Continental Shelf (CS) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of 'effective exercise of jurisdiction' although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.”
Furthermore, “Chinese assertion based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.
Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim to mature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.”
Finally, under “international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a State nor can be considered as a display of State authority.”
18.4.12
Scarborough, China, and ITLOS
Just some quick notes on the Scarborough issue:
> Harry Roque, in his column today in Manila Standard and in an earlier article in another newspaper, stated that we can pursue our claim over the Scarborough Shoals before the ITLOS even without China's consent. He essentially relied on a reading of the the so-called "mandatory" or "compulsory" modes of dispute procedure in the UNCLOS. But his point is a bit eccentric, and needs clearer, further thought and examination.
The compulsory modes of dispute settlement is a misleading term actually and has confused a lot of people. It is compulsory because it refers a dispute to arbitration as the mandatory mode of settling a dispute whenever the parties have not come to an agreement as to what mode they have selected (the choices are the ICJ, ITLOS, or arbitration). But this presupposes that the parties already agreed to bring the matter to dispute settlement. Because despite the words "compulsory" or "mandatory", the UNCLOS dispute procedure is still consensual in nature. As we know already, the Chinese has refused our invitation to bring the matter to dispute settlement under UNCLOS rules.
> Furthermore, China has made a clear declaration of their not being under the jurisdiction of ITLOS except upon clear written consent. This declaration was made under the auspices of Art. 298 of the UNCLOS: "The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention."
> Don't get me wrong: there's nothing I'd like better than to thrash China before the ICJ or ITLOS but that's international law. The reason why we neeed China's consent before we haul them off to the international courts is because of this concept that activists bandy about during rallies without actually understanding what it means: sovereignty. We can't make China do something without their consent (and vice-versa). The WTO dispute procedure is different because the required consent was already given upon a country's membership into it. This is not the same with ITLOS (or ICJ for that matter).
To actually claim otherwise is irresponsible because a) it could potentially subject the Philippines to an embarrassing international loss before an international tribunal due to ignorance of international law, with the residual effect of weakening our claim over the areas; and b) it makes our DFA officials and the rest of government look as if they've been remiss in their duties when they actually cannot proceed under ITLOS rules because of China's refusal. It also makes the country look like it's been sleeping on its rights, perhaps even estopped, if this were true when clearly it's not. Even Justice Carpio's claim of bringing China for conciliation is misplaced because even at that level we still need China's consent.
> Having said that, clearly we are presently left with little options in pursuing our claim. The best we can do (and should do) is to continue our legal preparations, keep vigilance over the territories, and implement our laws. We should also increase pressure, through diplomatic channels and media: that China's refusal to face us before any international tribunal is a clear indication of the weakness of their claim. Think Pacquiao vis-a-vis Mayweather.
> Finally, we should stop referring to proximity or the EEZ as basis for our claim over Scarborough. To claim EEZ as basis is tantamount to saying Scarborough is not our territory but merely an area that we have first right to exploit the resources found therein. In fact, Scarborough is not part of the EEZ but the EEZ is actually counted from Scarborough. Scarborough is part of Philippine territory because of discovery, occupation, and effective administration.
As correctly stated by the DFA in its paper released to media:
"The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 NM EEZ or Continental Shelf (CS) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of "effective exercise of jurisdiction" although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence."
> Harry Roque, in his column today in Manila Standard and in an earlier article in another newspaper, stated that we can pursue our claim over the Scarborough Shoals before the ITLOS even without China's consent. He essentially relied on a reading of the the so-called "mandatory" or "compulsory" modes of dispute procedure in the UNCLOS. But his point is a bit eccentric, and needs clearer, further thought and examination.
The compulsory modes of dispute settlement is a misleading term actually and has confused a lot of people. It is compulsory because it refers a dispute to arbitration as the mandatory mode of settling a dispute whenever the parties have not come to an agreement as to what mode they have selected (the choices are the ICJ, ITLOS, or arbitration). But this presupposes that the parties already agreed to bring the matter to dispute settlement. Because despite the words "compulsory" or "mandatory", the UNCLOS dispute procedure is still consensual in nature. As we know already, the Chinese has refused our invitation to bring the matter to dispute settlement under UNCLOS rules.
> Furthermore, China has made a clear declaration of their not being under the jurisdiction of ITLOS except upon clear written consent. This declaration was made under the auspices of Art. 298 of the UNCLOS: "The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention."
> Don't get me wrong: there's nothing I'd like better than to thrash China before the ICJ or ITLOS but that's international law. The reason why we neeed China's consent before we haul them off to the international courts is because of this concept that activists bandy about during rallies without actually understanding what it means: sovereignty. We can't make China do something without their consent (and vice-versa). The WTO dispute procedure is different because the required consent was already given upon a country's membership into it. This is not the same with ITLOS (or ICJ for that matter).
To actually claim otherwise is irresponsible because a) it could potentially subject the Philippines to an embarrassing international loss before an international tribunal due to ignorance of international law, with the residual effect of weakening our claim over the areas; and b) it makes our DFA officials and the rest of government look as if they've been remiss in their duties when they actually cannot proceed under ITLOS rules because of China's refusal. It also makes the country look like it's been sleeping on its rights, perhaps even estopped, if this were true when clearly it's not. Even Justice Carpio's claim of bringing China for conciliation is misplaced because even at that level we still need China's consent.
> Having said that, clearly we are presently left with little options in pursuing our claim. The best we can do (and should do) is to continue our legal preparations, keep vigilance over the territories, and implement our laws. We should also increase pressure, through diplomatic channels and media: that China's refusal to face us before any international tribunal is a clear indication of the weakness of their claim. Think Pacquiao vis-a-vis Mayweather.
> Finally, we should stop referring to proximity or the EEZ as basis for our claim over Scarborough. To claim EEZ as basis is tantamount to saying Scarborough is not our territory but merely an area that we have first right to exploit the resources found therein. In fact, Scarborough is not part of the EEZ but the EEZ is actually counted from Scarborough. Scarborough is part of Philippine territory because of discovery, occupation, and effective administration.
As correctly stated by the DFA in its paper released to media:
"The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. The matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.
Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 NM EEZ or Continental Shelf (CS) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the Philippines necessarily exercise sovereign rights over its EEZ and CS, nonetheless, the reason why the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territories is anchored on other principles of public international law.
As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a modality for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. Indeed, in that particular case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of "effective exercise of jurisdiction" although the said island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris.
In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence."
Globalization and trade's effect on lives
Here's a thoughtful article by James and Albanese on the fade out of the term "globalization":
"By 2011, anti-globalization rhetoric had largely faded, and globalization is thought of as not something to be neither fought nor cheered, but as a fundamental characteristic of the human story, in which disparate geographies and diverse themes are inextricably intertwined. In short, globalization has lost its polemical bite, and with that loss, its attractions as a concept have faded."
Meanwhile, WTO DG Pascal Lamy feels the need to defend trade as a positive influence on people's lives:
"Around the world, extreme poverty is in retreat. The World Bank estimates that an unprecedented 550 million people escaped abject poverty over the last decade. The percentage of people around the world living on $1.25 per day has fallen from 43 per cent in 1990 to 22 per cent today. For the first time in history, less than half of Africans are below the poverty line. Trade has been an important reason why. Expanded trade in countries like China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and Chile is a major part of government growth and poverty alleviation efforts.
"By 2011, anti-globalization rhetoric had largely faded, and globalization is thought of as not something to be neither fought nor cheered, but as a fundamental characteristic of the human story, in which disparate geographies and diverse themes are inextricably intertwined. In short, globalization has lost its polemical bite, and with that loss, its attractions as a concept have faded."
Meanwhile, WTO DG Pascal Lamy feels the need to defend trade as a positive influence on people's lives:
"Around the world, extreme poverty is in retreat. The World Bank estimates that an unprecedented 550 million people escaped abject poverty over the last decade. The percentage of people around the world living on $1.25 per day has fallen from 43 per cent in 1990 to 22 per cent today. For the first time in history, less than half of Africans are below the poverty line. Trade has been an important reason why. Expanded trade in countries like China, Brazil, India, Indonesia and Chile is a major part of government growth and poverty alleviation efforts.
So why is this story not getting out? We at the WTO accept our share of the blame. We can and will do better at explaining how trade improves the lives of most people around the world. Governments and universities need to do more as well. And, frankly, businesses need to lift their play as well. It is companies, after all, which engage in trade, which seek new markets and which benefit from access gained to those markets."
The persuasiveness of natural law
Eastern University's RJ Snell makes a conclusive statement on the persuasiveness of natural law:
"One can neither deny nor question the natural law’s persuasiveness except by asking questions, conducting inquiries, achieving understandings, reaching judgments, and making choices—all of which, if understood as the operations of our own subjectivity, are the natural law at work. And if one denies that one inquires, or understands, or judges, or chooses, one either contradicts what one is doing or one really does not inquire, understand, judge, or choose, in which case persuasion is not available to that sort of creature.
"One can neither deny nor question the natural law’s persuasiveness except by asking questions, conducting inquiries, achieving understandings, reaching judgments, and making choices—all of which, if understood as the operations of our own subjectivity, are the natural law at work. And if one denies that one inquires, or understands, or judges, or chooses, one either contradicts what one is doing or one really does not inquire, understand, judge, or choose, in which case persuasion is not available to that sort of creature.
With respect to postmodern suspicion, this articulation of the natural law grounds itself in no big claims about Reason or Nature or Metaphysics. Although every account intertwines itself with big theories, natural law is not grounded in them, for it claims no foundations from which it is derived, pointing only to the easily observable (even by postmodernists) data of their own questions and judgments and the fact that the more someone suspects and argues against my account the more they refute themselves."
17.4.12
The delusion of developmental advocates
Great article by David Brooks:
"It’s hard not to feel inspired by all these idealists, but their service religion does have some shortcomings. In the first place, many of these social entrepreneurs think they can evade politics. They have little faith in the political process and believe that real change happens on the ground beneath it.
"It’s hard not to feel inspired by all these idealists, but their service religion does have some shortcomings. In the first place, many of these social entrepreneurs think they can evade politics. They have little faith in the political process and believe that real change happens on the ground beneath it.
That’s a delusion. You can cram all the nongovernmental organizations you want into a country, but if there is no rule of law and if the ruling class is predatory then your achievements won’t add up to much.
Furthermore, important issues always spark disagreement. Unless there is a healthy political process to resolve disputes, the ensuing hatred and conflict will destroy everything the altruists are trying to build.
There’s little social progress without political progress. Unfortunately, many of today’s young activists are really good at thinking locally and globally, but not as good at thinking nationally and regionally.
Second, the prevailing service religion underestimates the problem of disorder. Many of the activists talk as if the world can be healed if we could only insert more care, compassion and resources into it.History is not kind to this assumption. Most poverty and suffering — whether in a country, a family or a person — flows from disorganization. A stable social order is an artificial accomplishment, the result of an accumulation of habits, hectoring, moral stricture and physical coercion. Once order is dissolved, it takes hard measures to restore it."
12.4.12
Philippine sovereignty and North Korea
is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
North Korea announced plans to launch rockets into space, to happen sometime between yesterday and this Monday. The US, Japan, and South Korea demanded a stop to such launch, making it clear that such act will be considered an unnecessary provocation in an already tense situation. North Korea, on the other hand, insists that what it will release is merely a satellite and for which as a “sovereign nation” it is fully entitled to do. For such an isolated country, North Korea now finds itself the center of attention. Which is what it probably wanted anyway.
This is not the first time that Pyongyang is firing rockets into space despite international disapproval. In 2009, in the face of UN Security Council condemnation, North Korea unleashed a rocket, walked out on nuclear disarmament talks, and then dispatched a second rocket. This is a country whose government simply gets a kick at mocking the international community.
North Korea announced plans to launch rockets into space, to happen sometime between yesterday and this Monday. The US, Japan, and South Korea demanded a stop to such launch, making it clear that such act will be considered an unnecessary provocation in an already tense situation. North Korea, on the other hand, insists that what it will release is merely a satellite and for which as a “sovereign nation” it is fully entitled to do. For such an isolated country, North Korea now finds itself the center of attention. Which is what it probably wanted anyway.
This is not the first time that Pyongyang is firing rockets into space despite international disapproval. In 2009, in the face of UN Security Council condemnation, North Korea unleashed a rocket, walked out on nuclear disarmament talks, and then dispatched a second rocket. This is a country whose government simply gets a kick at mocking the international community.
For their part, South Korea declared that it will shoot down any North Korean rocket entering its territory. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda was vehement in ordering that any North Korean rocket violating Japanese territory be shot down, and readied their Patriot missiles, as well as destroyers carrying interceptors. US President Barack Obama bluntly told North Korea to stop their nonsense and that any such launch would be dealt with “sternly,” including the withholding of US food aid. All this international trouble just because North Korea sees nothing wrong with firing rockets merely to celebrate the 100th birthday of its former (and late) president Kim Il-Sung.
The Philippines has weighed in on the issue. Last April 4, President Noynoy Aquino declared that North Korea’s actions violate UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874. Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario was more trenchant, expressing the Philippines’ “grave concern over the announced plan of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to launch a satellite” and “strongly suggested that other ASEAN member states urge the DPRK not to proceed with its planned launch.”
But the direct and immediate problem for the Philippines is that North Korea’s rocket (or its debris) may enter Philippine territory, somewhere between Aparri and Quezon province. Thus, Undersecretary Benito Ramos of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council announced that a “no-fly zone, no-sail zone, and no-fishing zone” shall be enforced in the east Philippine area. Dr. Alumanda de la Rosa of the Department of Science and Technology nevertheless assured people that North Korea’s rocket “does not carry any nuclear warhead.” Still, having said that, Dr. de la Rosa adds, “in the event of a suspected radiation report, NDRRMC, with the recommendation of PNRI, will reactivate the country’s radiological plan.” The probable size of expected fallout, by the way, is said to be as large as a bus.
However, while absolutely commending our foreign affairs, security, and science officials for their preparations, may I bring up one particular point seemingly missed: if indeed North Korea proceeds with its launch and if indeed its rocket (or parts thereof) enter Philippine territory, then perhaps somebody should raise the singular fact that the North Korean government is deliberately and heedlessly violating Philippine territory and, thus, our sovereignty. While it’s fine to bring up the issue of Security Council resolutions probably being breached and that regional stability may be impaired, what is truly important as far as Filipinos are concerned is the fact that our rights, under the UN Charter and under customary international law, may be violated. We shouldn’t merely be concerned, we should be outraged.
Consider this: we are in our land and yet it is we who have to adjust our way of living just because some foreign jerk decides to celebrate some dead guy’s birthday by firing rockets in the air? While it is proper for our police and local officials to say they will apprehend fishermen that insists in fishing in the endangered areas, still something must be done to compensate them for their loss of income. And that includes all the tourism, agriculture, shipping, industry, and the like that will be stopped just because of this launch. Incidentally, it’s quite telling that those local activist lawyers who normally shriek at any alleged Philippine infringement of international rules are now quiet at this clear violation of Philippine rights.
We have to exercise our sovereignty. Or lose it. While we may not have the military capabilities to protect ourselves from North Korea’s rockets, we nevertheless (presumably) still have our wits. We must find a way to enforce compensation or restitution from North Korea, if not through the Security Council or some other mechanism, then through countermeasures that will enable satisfaction for the Philippines. An apology from North Korea, at the very least, should those rockets enter Philippine territory, must be had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)