• Blowing up Obama’s pivot, Scarborough not worth a war



    First Read
    Before President Duterte’s “separation from America” declaration is reduced to a mere quibble over semantics, I want to call attention to two tough-minded US commentaries on the South China Sea dispute that sharply contrast with the oftentimes tender-minded Filipino view of PH-US relations.

    The two commentaries are:
    First, “The Philippines Just Blew Up Obama’s Asia Pivot,” Bloomberg, Oct. 21, 2016, by Eli Lake.

    Lake argues that Duterte’s pivot to China blows up Obama’s pivot to Asia, and he lays the blame entirely on President Obama and his hemming-and-hawing foreign policy.

    Second, “Is Scarborough Shoal Worth a War?” Human Events?,” May 24, 2016, by Patrick J. Buchanan.

    Buchanan, presidential speechwriter of Richard Nixon, and one-time US presidential candidate, contends that America should not necessarily fight China if China begins to reclaim and militarize Scarborough Shoal.

    Duterte’s pivot blows up Obama’s pivot
    Lake, the Bloomberg columnist, posted his commentary soon after President Duterte’s separation remark in Beijing landed on the front pages and newscasts all over the world.

    Lake’s commentary is striking for squarely laying the blame for the seeming collapse of the Philippine-US relationship on President Obama.

    I quote his article at length below:
    “Does anyone remember President Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia? The plan was to focus diplomatic and military assets in East Asia to contain a rising China. It was one of the reasons Obama said he was shrinking the American footprint in the Middle East.

    Well, the pivot is failing. On Thursday, the president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, announced to an audience at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing a “separation” with the US. “America has lost now,” he said. “And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way….”

    Duterte’s own government appears to have been kept out of the loop about this new alliance. On Friday, Duterte himself said he did not mean to imply that he would cut diplomatic ties with the US….

    Regardless, this is a big story. The Philippines has been an important US ally since the beginning of the cold war. What’s more, the Obama administration has invested in the country as part of its pivot to Asia. In 2014 the two countries signed an enhanced defense cooperation agreement. When the Philippines brought a case against China at The Hague over China’s artificial islands in its territorial waters, the US supported the Philippines diplomatically.

    In July, The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the Philippines. This would have been an opportunity for the US to turn the screws on China. But instead the Obama White House encouraged China and the Philippines to resolve the matter themselves after the ruling of the international tribunal.

    At the end of August, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters that the US was not interested in “fanning the flames of conflict but rather trying to encourage the parties to resolve their disputes and claims through the legal process and through diplomacy.”

    Duterte has now taken Kerry’s advice. After announcing his country’s new alignment with China, Duterte signed a series of trade agreements worth $13.5 billion, along with a promise to continue bilateral negotiations over the South China Sea.

    Dan Blumenthal, the director of Asia studies at the American Enterprise Institute, told me Friday that the Obama administration had fumbled. “After the tribunal decision, our response was to tell Duterte to tamp down tensions and talk bilaterally with China, and there was no evidence of follow-up by us in terms of our own military exercises or diplomatic initiatives to enforce the findings of the tribunal,” he said. “There has been next to nothing on this. We still haven’t had a Freedom of Navigation mission that actually challenges the Chinese artificial islands.”….

    The Obama administration acted as if international law would implement itself. But it never works that way. The rule-based system Obama endorses requires a great power to defend it.”

    Scarborough not worth a war
    I will give Buchanan’s piece on Scarborough Shoal equal treatment by quoting it at length here:

    He wrote:
    “If China begins to reclaim and militarize Scarborough Shoal, says Philippines President Benigno S. Aquino III, America must fight.

    Should we back down, says Aquino, the United States will lose “its moral ascendancy, and also the confidence of one of its allies.”

    And what is Scarborough Shoal?

    A cluster of rocks and reefs, 123 miles west of Subic Bay, that sits astride the passageway out of the South China Sea into the Pacific, and is well within Manila’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

    Beijing and Manila both claim Scarborough Shoal. But, in June 2013, Chinese ships swarmed and chased off a fleet of Filipino fishing boats and naval vessels. The Filipinos never came back.

    And now that China has converted Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef into artificial islands with docks and air bases, Beijing seems about to do the same with Scarborough Shoal.

    “Scarborough is a red line,” says Gregory Poling of the Center for Strategic and International studies. To allow China to occupy and militarize the reef “would clearly change the balance of power.”

    Really? But before concluding that we must fight to keep China from turning Scarborough Shoal into an island base, there are other considerations.

    High among them is that the incoming president of the Philippines, starting June 30, is Rodrigo Duterte, no admirer of America, and a populist authoritarian thug who, as Mayor of Davao, presided over the extrajudicial killing of some 1,000 criminals during the 1990s….

    In a clash with China, this character would be our ally.

    Indeed, the rise of Duterte is yet another argument that, when Manila booted us out of Subic Bay at the Cold War’s end, we should have dissolved our mutual security pact….

    What vital interest of ours is imperiled by who owns, or occupies, or militarizes Scarborough Shoal? If US rights of passage in the South China Sea are not impeded by Chinese planes or ships, why make Manila’s quarrel with China our quarrel?….

    Should Beijing insanely decide to disrupt commercial traffic in that sea, the response is not to send a US carrier strike group to blast their artificial islands off the map.

    Better that we impose a 10 percent tariff on Chinese-made goods, and threaten an embargo of all Chinese goods if they do not stand down. And call on our “allies” to join us in sanctions against China, rather than sit and hold our coat while we fight their wars.

    This economic action would send China’s economy into a tailspin, and the cost to Americans would not be reckoned in the lives of our best and bravest.”

    Japan’s dispute with China
    For the record, Buchanan has also written that there is no vital US interest involved in the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu islands to China), which are bitterly disputed by China and Japan. If the two countries come to blows, the US should not necessarily fight for Japan, says Buchanan.

    It will be interesting to see how President Duterte and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will tackle our respective territorial disputes with China, during Duterte’s three-day visit to Japan this week.

    Abe and Duterte will hold a bilateral meeting and are expected to discuss bilateral and regional issues.

    Abe, thinking of the Senkaku islands, will be keen to discuss with our President the sea dispute between the Philippines and China.

    When the Philippines’ claim to the West Philippine Sea was affirmed by the arbitration tribunal, Japan backed the ruling and urged China to comply.

    Meanwhile, the biggest military superpower on earth, America, has become just an observer of unfolding events.



    Please follow our commenting guidelines.


    1. If Hilary wins, it it will be the same banana. Hilary is the extension of Obama.

      The liberal media are conspiring with the democrats predicting Hilary is the winner. No way. They are wrong.

      Donald Trump will be the winner:
      # Donald survived the primary, while his Republican opponents were conspiring, hitting Donald below the belt. The same pattern Hilary’s conspiracy with the media to destroy Donald. Liberal media are bias!
      # Most of the issues against Hilary is questionable money matters; whereas, Trump issues against him are about women which were framed up. It would be interesting when Donald file libel case against those women after election.
      # Hilary and Bill are now worth $150 million dollars after working as government servants. Before they were not even a millionaire worth. The main issue is TRUST. Donald made his BILLIONS as a smart businessman.
      # The American voters for Donald Trump are just silent. They do not want to mess with the liberal media.
      # Just look at the crowd at Donald’s every rally, overwhelming!
      # Hilary is a Washington politician or TRAPO. Donald is an outsider. He will make America great not for money. He does not billions.
      # Donald’s children are almost perfect. Donald guided his children while they grow. Look how they behave.
      # The regular Americans will be the mass voters of Donald. Donald is fighting the Oligarchs or Lobbyists. He will change tax laws for the middle class in America.

    2. Most Filipinos would care about the economic benefits in talking with China. If the disputed island are just small rocks,Filipinos cannot eat it.The economic benefits give real food, clothing and shelter from the millions of job generation making friends with China will create. Pres. Duterte maybe over doing it with fiery words but nevertheless he made the USA aware that he doesn’t intend to be lackey to them as Roxas would be had he won the election.So, the political strategists at the State Dept. failed BIG TIME.!

    3. Economic sanctions should have been the more effective response in checking china. But supporters/financiers of the candidates will have been angered, so it can not be done.

      Short term goals prevail.

      But it is not too late.

    4. Scarborough isn’t worth a war?

      If Texans in the Alamo had said the same there would be no United States of America.

    5. You know, there are territorial disputes between the USA and Canada. There is little animosity over that dispute. The two countries are friends and get the most out of a positive international relationship that benefits the two countries. It is not logical for the US and Canada to go to war over a small disagreement.

      In a similar vein, there is more to be gained by peaceful relationships between the Philippines and China than continued animosity or war. What will benefit the people the most? Fighting over a chunk of rock in the ocean or an improved infrastructure, job creation, economic improvement, alleviation of poverty, etc. The answer should be obvious.

    6. Patrick Buchanan has lost his credibility long time ago. He is a solid Republican and the party is going downward. It is not right to write what Patrick says because he is not the voice of Amrerica. Another aid of Reagan stated that US will not gain anything protecting the Philippines and RP will just drag US to war with China. This I believe is true. RP is a very small poor country acting like a giant force to reckon with. Let us face the truth, we are a small poor country. We rely on our neighbors for our subsistence like US , Saudi Arabia for OFW and BPO.

    7. The Philippine problem in SCS and US interest, should have coincide, and as allies, could have formed a strategy to tightened the screw on China. There was a vacuum formed in communication, hence with Duterte’s anti US rant, did not help at all. As long as Philippines-US relation endure the administration of Duterte, a new strategy can be formed, if the next president will be pro US.

    8. The Pivot being blown up is a good analogy. It was a big failure in intelligence that the US did not know that DU30 would not follow orders from the US and would react forcefully to criticism against his war on drugs. Did they spend all of their time resting on the belief that Roxas had the election in the bag? Then after the failure of intelligence, the US made a diplomatic blunder. They criticized an ally publicly. These are not things that we normally witness from the US.

    9. the philippines can’t afford an arm confrontation with china so the phil. president was right for a bilateral talk with china to settle the scs issue to prevent the philippines as the battleground front for two super power nations. his gamble seem as a success with some financial loan with low/no preconditions and no military confrontation in the horizon. if only china and japan can also replicate it to settle their centuries old west china sea island issue, this will make the entire region the most peaceful part of the planet.

    10. Silverio Cabellon Jr on

      It is not in the interest of the United States for Scarborough to be militarized by China. American interests in the Philippines will be at stake while missle silos at a ready at Scarborough Shoal.

    11. Robert Provost on

      The USA has a presidential election on Nov. 8, 2016. The new president will take office in January, 2017. It’s premature to assert what the USA will or will not do.