NOT much is known to the Filipino public about the Bashi Channel in the Batanes and the Babuyan islands off the northern coast of Cagayan province. But this is where we go to war.

Bashi's strategic importance is that this narrow passage is a global trade route, rivaling the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia, and the Formosa/Taiwan Strait between Taiwan and the Chinese province of Fujian. Underneath pass submarine communications cables connecting the US West Coast, Japan and South Asia, carrying approximately 97 percent of data and telephone traffic.

I wrote in my previous columns about the CSIS/CNAS wargaming of China's Taiwan invasion, drawing America to war. Bashi similarly ensnares the Philippines, albeit reluctantly, into this conflict. I draw heavily from the CSIS/CNAS public documents furnished to this columnist.

Bottlenecks

Three narrow straits separate China from the rest of the world through the open waters of the Pacific. First is the Yonaguni Channel to Taiwan's northeast spanning 120 kilometers to Japan's westernmost Yonaguni island — where cruise missiles are currently being installed. The second chokepoint is the Formosa/Taiwan Strait itself fronting China's Fujian province, whose narrowest point is just 180 km. The third chokepoint is the Bashi Channel, integral to the Luzon Strait 100 km from Taiwan, straddling the gateway to the Pacific.

But in the event of hostilities, this is "... critical either for Chinese naval forces to break out of home waters and get into the open Pacific to target US military installations on Guam to the east, or for US warships to get into the South China Sea." (CNN Brad Lendon, April 4, 2023)

Dominance over these chokepoints will spell the difference between victory and defeat for opposing forces. Both the Yonaguni and Bashi channels, if held, will prevent China's invasion forces from encircling Taiwan to the north and south compelling a frontal assault across the Taiwan Strait. Both are part of the First Island Chain, the US strategic maritime containment conceived originally during the Cold War projecting US power in the Western Pacific, restricting sea access by Russia and now principally China. These two channels are key to China's successfully reacquiring Taiwan or prove to be the graveyard of ships for both Chinese and American allied forces. Control therefore of supply lines through this channel is imperative. Kaohsiung in southern Taiwan is its largest container port, handling 62 percent of its cargo volume. US forces will have to supply Taiwan through Kaohsiung from US pre-positioned logistics in bases in the Philippines and Japan.

US Seventh Fleet

The key to dominance over Bashi and the other chokepoints is air superiority, missiles and naval blockade. The US Seventh Fleet with its flagship, the USS Ronald Reagan, has a carrier strike force of up to 10 to14 guided-missile destroyers and cruisers armed with theater ballistic missile interceptors, long-range Tomahawk land-attack missiles and anti-aircraft armaments. An additional 8 to 12 nuclear-powered submarines are some of the Seventh Fleet's deadly adjuncts. If needed, it can be augmented by the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group (CSG), currently operating in the Philippines seas (South China Sea/West Philippine Sea) for a combined total of perhaps 50 to 70 surface ships and submarines, squadrons of 150 aircraft of all types, and 27,000 American sailors, marines and special forces.

But air cover from carriers, though formidable, will depend on the capability of carriers and the armada to launch and retrieve them from sorties while under relentless threat of China's land-based missiles. In the CSIS/CNAS war games, two aircraft carriers are sunk by China's missiles, hundreds of aircraft and two dozen assorted ships. China suffers worse losses.

But while the US Navy can maintain the vessels in the area for months, carrier-based jets can only sustain operations for a few hours requiring extensive maintenance, logistics and service facilities. This conundrum compels the aircraft with a flexible operational range to follow the floating bases while under hostile missile reach. Land-based aircraft with a wide operational range are critical to air superiority over the Bashi chokepoints and cover over Taiwan itself.

This is where the EDCA sites in the Philippines come into play.

EDCA military sites (bases)

Much has been written about the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) of the Philippines with America purportedly for humanitarian and relief operations to mitigate climate change disasters in the Philippines.

This fiction, perpetrated by the two governments diverting their respective citizenry from EDCA's real purpose, will not hold for long. Unknown largely to both publics and coming from impeccable sources, "... 300-strong US special forces in Zamboanga have been there since 2002, continuously. They are rotated every six months to satisfy the provisions of the VFA." This is the template for the nine EDCA sites. The Pentagon in a briefing conducted by its spokesman Sabrina Singh stressed that the EDCA sites "... would not see a permanent US military presence — that's not allowed under the EDCA — but would be available to US forces in 'contingencies.' This is really about regional readiness ... you're going to see an increase of rotational forces in the region ... the Department of Defense would work in lockstep with Philippine partners to rapidly modernize the bases."

In short, these contingencies being envisioned are in line with the coming conflict with China over Taiwan. On March 13, 2023, for the first time, F22 Raptors fighter jets were deployed to Clark Air Base in a joint exercise with the Philippine Air Force. This presages F-22 and F-35 deployment in the EDCA sites which are now being improved with mostly American dollars. The EDCA sites in Luzon would fulfill the requirement for air superiority over the Bashi Channel and the southern Taiwan port of Kaohsiung, while those in Balabac in Palawan will provide armed muscle facing the Chinese artificial island military bases.

Chinese invasion scenario

"Between 2026 and 2027, China will invade Taiwan. The first option for China is to do a pre-emptive strike going for an early knockout with its warplanes and missiles on Taiwan's small air force and weak navy, a surgical strike with all its resources going for a quick decapitation of Taiwan's defenses, communications and leadership."

Simultaneously, China executes a "Pearl Harbor raid," raining missiles on the nine EDCA sites, demolishing their second-strike capabilities, and jeopardizing air superiority over Bashi and Kaohsiung. There is no doubt that these EDCA sites will be a magnet for Chinese retaliation or pre-emptive targeting. And many of our people will die." (From "Wargaming China-Taiwan conflict," The Manila Times, April 4, 2023)

This debate on whether EDCA bases are good or bad for the Philippines is no longer efficacious and is simply moot.

When the 1947 MBT and the 1951 MDT with America were signed, our government condemned us to take sides. What is infuriating is the propensity of our leaders to play charades with the Filipinos, insulting their intelligence by not telling them like it is, while American decision-makers are open about EDCA expansion as a deterrent to China's invading Taiwan. And if deterrence doesn't work — then EDCA bases must be used to fulfill their true purpose. A platform to defeat China. And if you ask the man in the street, chances are they'd go with America rather than China. There is no middle ground.

We never really did have a choice!

THEY have returned!

IN 1991, 12 patriots of the Philippine Senate, against the wishes of then President Cory Aquino, booted out the US bases in the Philippines. The 1987 Constitution, which Cory herself sponsored, specifically prohibits foreign military bases in the country. The Military Bases Agreement (MBA) signed in 1947 allowed the US to establish air and naval facilities for 99 years but was amended several times, cutting down the 99 years to the remaining 25 beginning in 1966. With Subic and Clark, the two biggest US military bases outside the continental US, America projected its might, extending its hegemony in the Far East.

Today, another set of patriots has allowed the Americans back in. But here's the catch! With a series of several negotiated intricate documents skirting the constitutional prohibition, starting with the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) signed in 1999 under President Fidel Ramos (West Point '50 graduate), agreements were arrived at under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) signed by Cory's son President Noynoy, taking effect in 2014 for US forces to send military personnel on a "rotational" arrangement in five Philippine bases (EDCA sites), but with logistics and armaments allowed for pre-positioning. Constitutionally, Subic and Clark can no longer be accessed as US military bases.

President Duterte, projecting an image of being pro-Filipino with an anti-American-pro-China bias, tried to terminate the agreements (VFA and EDCA) to no avail.

Pecuniary considerations

Originally, going back to the 1991 patriot senators, dubbed as the "Magnificent 12," one of the biggest arguments for the abrogation of US bases was not so much as reacquiring "Philippine sovereignty" over these territories by booting out the "capitalist-imperialist" that gave impetus to "bureaucrat-capitalism" — all mantras of the left: but for all intents and purposes, the pecuniary aspect of the US presence.

Under the amended treaty, the US offered $500 million in economic and military aid over five years, increasing this to $900 million in the next five years (1984-1988), broken down into $475 million in economic support, $300 million in foreign military sales credit and $125 million in direct military grants. But the manner of its appropriation by the American government saddled the Philippine government with all sorts of thorny issues resulting in the Philippine drawdown of only half of the $200 million economic funds available under the previous package. Under the new proposed treaty in 1991, the US offered an annual $203 million in compensation — far less than what the Philippine government had sought.

We asked for more US dollars. The Americans said no! So, our patriotic senators suddenly became so aggressively pro-Filipino, claiming that US presence undermined Philippine sovereignty, arguing further that these bases were used as staging points during the Korean and Vietnam wars — perhaps as a negotiating posture, blah, blah, blah! And their love for the country unexpectedly bloomed!

In retrospect, these parleys between former colonials were a study in mendicancy at best and prostitutional negotiations at worst — where we gave away a lot for a pittance. Now, they are back with no guaranteed annual lease. And all aid are "best efforts," except perhaps for those meant for the enhancement of these sites at their behest. This was succinctly articulated later by the Deegong when he pronounced in no uncertain terms: "I'd like to put on notice ... from now on... you want the Visiting Forces Agreement done? You have to pay." The Deegong, a pragmatist, demanded that the Philippines should get something "... like $16 billion that Pakistan had received in counterterrorism assistance from the United States from 2001 to 2017." Former Palace spokesman Harry Roque Jr. said the Philippines received only a total of "$3.9 billion from the United States in the same period."

During the Deegong's regime, from 2016-2019, we were given $267.5 million in military financing and equipment with an additional $45 million from 2020-2021. Another $200 million was budgeted for military equipment, aircraft, training, construction and sundries.

EDCA for climate change mitigation

Now, with the present Marcos Jr. regime, US assistance and bilateral cooperation are expected to increase. And more importantly, Marcos was even generous enough to expand EDCA sites, allowing US "rotational troops" to operate in four additional "Philippine military bases." It may be noted that these EDCA sites are Filipino bases, key pillars of the US-Philippine alliance, allowing interoperability between both forces that supports combined training exercises and accelerate the modernization of our military capabilities. But Marcos had made it specifically clear when he talked before the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C.: "These EDCA sites are for climate change mitigation for instances of natural disasters visiting the Philippines like the 100-year typhoon, 'Yolanda'/'Haiyan' in 2013. These sites are to provide quicker relief [and] rescue, and provide a better job at reconstruction and rehabilitation. Except that with the increasing tension in Taiwan Strait, the security and defense aspect became part of our mission. So, the sensitivity of these sites with Philippine and US troops — on a rotational basis — became included in the equation." Or words to that effect.

Currently, the US is committed to pouring in $82 million for more than a dozen infrastructure projects for the four additional EDCA sites that BBM agreed to; plus, ongoing projects on the five original EDCA sites. These are all of course aligned also with the modernization program of our Philippine armed forces. Balabac Island in Palawan will have a small airport serving the community with a 3-kilometer runway, which could accommodate all types of aircraft — even the US advanced tactical fighter jets, F-35, and F-22 and even the B-2 bombers. None of these are in our fleet. (B2 Bombers are currently parked at Amberly air base in Australia. Deployment of these aircraft is part also of a similar Enhanced Air Cooperation Initiative of the US and Australia, which includes "rotational" deployment of US aircraft of all types in Australia for training exercises with the RAAF.)

The expansion of the already existing naval stations in Palawan is ongoing to accommodate frigates and destroyer-sized ships, and a vessel support facility in Bataraza in southernmost Palawan; so are the air facilities and runways being improved at Ebuen Air Base in Mactan, Cebu and Bautista Air Base in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. An ammunition warehouse, aviation fuel storage and a "command and control building has been constructed. This could double as a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief warehouse, barracks for personnel and other facilities for the disaster-prone islands." (Franco Baroña, The Manila Times, May 26, 2023.)

It may be noted too that of the nine EDCA bases, the two in Palawan face the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea or SCS) and the three in the northernmost part of Luzon face Taiwan and the Bashi Channel. And these are the Philippine military bases where US forces are currently planned for "rotational deployment." And the Philippine government with America are pouring in millions for defense enhancement facing China.

But mind you, these sites are for climate disaster mitigation! The Americans are suddenly generous. Why?

In a communique this month when President BBM met with President Biden, America reiterated that an attack in the West Philippines Sea (WPS) would activate the mutual defense commitments of both countries.

To be continued next week

Last of 3 parts

IN retrospect, Trump was an enigma when he descended that golden Trump Towers escalator throwing his hat into the ring in 2015. He was already a public figure, a businessman, projecting an image as a brilliant dealmaker and a self-made billionaire. He was to leverage this for a shot at the presidency. And if he failed, nonetheless, it would enhance his brand. Either way, it was a win-win for the Donald. None had any inkling on how he would impact the political scene, least of all the GOP bigwigs who tolerated him as a lightweight political carpetbagger. How wrong they all were!

His entrance into the political stage was timely. American hegemony was at its zenith. But to the Cassandras and naysayers who had been prophesying it all along — the crest before the trough. But what was America really like when Trump burst into the scene?

Bush-Obama and the rise of China

The Obama years were coming to a close. Reelected in 2012, America's first Black president who came in with a bang may be bowing out with a whimper. In the international arena, Obama's good vibes, popularly known as the "Obama Bump," particularly among allies in Europe, were waning in the wake of Bush's unpopular entanglements in the Middle East. Americans were no longer enthusiastic about international engagements, growing wary of its government's capability of handling global problems — terrorism threats, for one.

To those internationalists that advocate a rules-based order, the role the US took on as the world's self-proclaimed policeman with its tolerance was a tight fit; stoking up the fires of democracy and freedom which are linked to continued growth in global trading. It may have pretensions to be the guardian of its morals but as the world's largest economy, the projection of its military might in the global arena ensures that world markets are open, expansion is not curtailed, to the benefit of all — and eventually, of course, to America. But at Obama's exit, more than half of Americans believe that the sacrosanct free trade and global economy may be a bad thing for Americans as it lowers their wages and costs them their jobs.

America's confidence in itself, taking upon its shoulders the world's burdens becomes thankless over time. The many conflicts and wars it went through, from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq to Afghanistan; various invasions, Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama; and a host of other pretexts, interventions and involvement in low-intensity conflicts in Syria, Somalia, Yemen etc. — resulted in different outcomes, victory and defeat. Except that there is no longer any clear dichotomy as to who the winners and losers are. All these are taking their toll on America.

In a book by Yan Xuetong, "Leadership, and the Rise of Great Powers" (Princeton University Press) he posits that since the end of the Cold War in late 1991 the world became unipolar with America ascendant. But during the post-Clinton years, the Bush and Obama administrations failed to introduce basic reforms that would allow America to maintain its superpower status for the long term. America was in stasis. The Iraq war damaged America's standing internationally. Domestically, Obama failed to enact reforms after the 2008 financial crisis. Meantime China in the last three decades has been embracing economic pragmatism and enacted free-market reforms raising its stature on the international stage. A bipolar world was emerging with China now on the cusp of challenging the hegemony of America, while the US has been on a slow path to political decline.

Enter the Donald

In the midst of these, we have the Donald coming into the picture with a compelling message. Bring America back to America and make America Great Again (MAGA). Although this is not original, it resonated and struck a chord particularly among a certain segment of Americans that Hillary Clinton so aptly described — the "basket of deplorables" (BOD). Ignorant of international ramifications, the Donald caused America to turn inward taking the path of economic nationalism. Trump proceeded to pull out of international commitments, severed ties and distanced the US from old allies pursuing his America First policy; fragmenting the old international order and ceding the ground to a rising power. Big mistake! Even under new leadership, it will almost be impossible to alter course and reconnect with the allies as Trump tore to shred America's credibility.

Post Trump

As elicited from several books that came out during and immediately after his presidency, Trump was a profoundly unsophisticated un-nuanced linear thinker that people, pundits, friends and enemies can read through, transparent in his appetites in a weird sort of way. First, he is a creature of mass media, a reality TV star and, I quote from the book, "The Making of Donald Trump": "Donald Trump has spent decades in the public spotlight and has masterfully created a public image that is quite different from the man behind it." We mostly see a fictionalized version of himself, but sometimes the man behind the image appears through the cracks as one lacking in knowledge, refusing to see facts as objective truths; and therefore, prone to telling lies — numerous lies. The Washington Post came up with a study that "President Trump has made at least 30,529 false claims in 1,455 days, which is about 21 lies a day as president."

Stolen election

These lies continued, culminating in his infamous claim of having won the 2021 elections against Joe Biden. His repeated assertion of widespread fraud before the elections and declaring himself the winner even before all the votes were counted gained currency mostly among the MAGA-BOD. All 50 states certified the results in Biden's favor and court after court threw out Trump's claims. With the formality of Congress certifying Biden's win on Jan 6, 2021, the MAGA-BOD, sufficiently motivated by Trump stormed the capitol. Trump's last stand ended in a bloody riot, leaving in its wake dead people and almost the death of America's ideals of democracy.

President Joe Biden is the president of the United States of America. But America was as much disunited then as never before since their civil war. Trump in ignominy was impeached the second time, the only American president to have been thus dishonored.

A warning

Authored anonymously, this book was based on a New York Times op-ed titled "I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration." Its main thesis is that Trump is uniquely unfit for the US presidency. He has no compunction pushing the limits of decency and decorum, refuses to listen to his experienced officials and gives in to his worst impulses. Over the four years these people who were within the penumbra of power, the adults in the room, failed to rein in these urges. The case of pulling US forces out of Syria, mentioned in Part 1 of this series, is one such illustration of the president's dangerously erratic behavior. He institutes policies on the fly using Twitter as his medium for one-way communication with his administration and allies.

And amid a dangerously volatile world, this man could again be allowed by America to be president?

Second of 3 parts

IT was auspicious when Trump assumed office in January 2017. The economy was in good shape, tracking 2.3 percent GDP growth for his first year. Unemployment was at a 50-year low adding 14.8 million jobs over 74 months — the longest growth since 2010 and 160 million Americans were working. He decided he was going to be different from past presidents — particularly the Democrat Obama. And bring back America to Americans, one that resonated, attracting some mainstream GOP to his MAGA. His agenda was clearly the conservative path Republicans were enamored with; travel bans on refugees were issued although unconstitutional, causing the firing of AG Sally Yates who refused to defend the bans; his missile strike on Syria, telegraphing to the world, he had balls, followed up with dropping the non-nuclear "mother of all bombs" (MOAB) on IS targets in Afghanistan. These all occurred within four months in office. The Donald was riding high! And this euphoria extended beyond 2018 toward the end of 2019.

Trump's conservative victories

The Conservative GOPs hailed the Donald's policy initiatives as their major triumphs on the domestic and international arena. The corporate tax cuts he promised as a candidate warmed the cockles of the heart of the rich, and restrictions on immigration, especially those coming from Mexico ("...I will build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it!"). He castrated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), eliminating major environmental protocols; the coal ash rule regulating disposal of toxic coal waste, lifted oil/natural gas bans, among others. The Obama environmental agenda prioritizing reduction of carbon emissions though the use of renewable energy conserving the environment for future generations were rescinded. "Climate change is a hoax ... global warming was created by and for the Chinese..." And he promptly withdrew from the Paris climate accords. And the environment be damned!

Covid-19

Then the pandemic struck. The world was distressed, and its most prosperous economy presided over by Trump was severely tested. The Donald began to reveal his darker side, labeling the coronavirus as the "Chinese virus, because it comes from China" ("I Alone Can Fix It" by Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker, Penguin Press, 2021). This was feeding into a xenophobia that would have been best left dormant but now awakened unnerving both sides: on one hand, Chinese people's general misperception that America hates everything about them and communism; and on the other, the fringe MAGA-BOD's narrative that indeed this was a Chinese conspiracy.

Covid-9 wreaked havoc on America, but the president may have been in a denial exacerbating the pandemic's already lethal swath across the land. Monday morning quarterbacking pinpointed at Trump's slow appreciation of the threat early on with his "response ... shaped by political calculation, not science. In the battle between politics and science, politics carried the day." (Leonnig and Rucker)

Lies for facts

This was evidenced by that iconic press conference in April 2020 when Trump, who never had the patience for important technical briefings by aides or worse let his ignorance bully its way through, latched on to incomplete findings on the effects of light and humidity on how the virus spreads. The virus' behavior was much more complicated than simply reacting to sunlight and that bleach would kill the virus in five minutes. Trump was wont to hide the extensive gaps in his knowledge by making up his own facts. Taking this out of context, he took control of the press conference embarrassing his experts to no end and proceeded with a bizarre rambling monologue.

"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous ... ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it ...supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way ... It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside..." (Leonnig and Rucker)

On national TV, that soliloquy came to symbolize Trump's chaotic handling of the pandemic, the inability to comprehend the magnitude of his responsibility and a puerile grasp of the majesty of the presidency. Covid-19 eventually killed a million Americans. Toward the end of his term, the economy was in a rapid decline, unemployment surged, and his presidency deepened America's political divide.

Racial undertones and violence

Racial violence, long latent, started to awaken dangerously with the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville earlier in his presidency, with the marchers composed of the alt-right, neo-fascist, neo-Nazi's, antisemites, anti-Islamic and far-right militias, etc. opposed by a smaller group of counter protesters. Trump established his racial proclivities early on signaling where his sympathy lay, although condemning this "... display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides ... [with] very fine people on both sides," implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist and the counter-protesters.

Race and gender issues began to dominate the political conversation in a deeply divided America gaining new attention amid the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements. The former burst into universal awareness highlighting discrimination, racial inequality, and the plight of the black people. Vivid images assaulted American consciousness gaining traction through social media with racially motivated violence and police brutality cases involving the killings of Black Americans. These grab national and international headlines culminating in the murder of George Floyd by white Minneapolis officers captured on TV/video. By the last year of Trump's watch, 67 percent of adult Americans had expressed support for the movement declining significantly in later months. But by this time, Trumps rating was on free fall.

Beginning of the downfall

Trump's replacement of the "steady state" advisers — that loose collection of officials like Tillerson and Mathis who were the "adults in the room" trying desperately to maintain the type of order and restraint necessary to run the country smoothly — created a vacuum, leaving him with a coterie of sycophants feeding on each other's egos; intimidated by his personality, but sharing common delusions where facts are alien to the truth. Trump's ratings that never crossed 50 percent approval in his four years hovered on the lower third, leaving him with the support of his MAGA-BOD. His impeachment although acquitted in February 2020, his penultimate year as president may have augured his eclipse.

Writing on the wall

In the middle of the presidential campaign, the president, according to the authors of "I Alone Can Fix It," may have become delusional, his paranoia undermining his political fortunes. This dysfunctional president, preempting a democratic process, tweeted that this coming 2020 November presidential election would be the "most inaccurate and fraudulent election in history. And Joe Biden was "the worst candidate in history." If Biden beat Trump, it could only mean one thing: the election had been rigged. And on election day, his alter-ego, "Rudy Giuliani, who had been drinking heavily all evening, told him to ignore the official tallies and simply declare himself the winner." (Leonnig and Rucker)

Trump declared victory before all the votes had been counted. His efforts to retain the presidency led to a final showdown on Jan. 6, 2021.

THESE last few months, two American think tanks conducted war games on China's Taiwan invasion and published their findings. Both the Center for New American Security (CNAS) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) arrived at analogous conclusions. CSIS, running 24 iterations, published its report in January 2023, while CNAS did its war game in May 2022 with 26 iterations. These two war games are augmented by other hypotheses proliferating online by less stellar think tanks and this columnist's own research. In most scenarios, Taiwan, the US and Japan defeated China's amphibious invasion. But it came at a great cost. Taiwan saw its economy devastated.

The US and Japan lost ships, aircraft and soldiers; America's world standing suffering perhaps for years. China lost heavily but its failure to occupy Taiwan could destabilize the Chinese Communist Party and bring about the downfall of Xi Jinping. In essence, all sides were lost in this conflict. No victors. Only victims.

Deterrent fails

The CNAS saw the hypothetical invasion occurring in 2027, while CSIS set the conflict in 2026 and others next year. It starts with the assumption that deterrence has failed. American policy for decades depended on its superior military forces and its economic might as a deterrent to China. America's policy of deliberate uncertainty known as "strategic ambiguity" depended on the US taking advantage of China's risk aversion abetting a deterrence strategy.

Although in 1955 the US Congress passed the "Formosa Resolution" giving President Eisenhower total authority to defend Taiwan and off-shore islands, it was never unequivocal whether America was going to defend Taiwan with "boots on the ground," considering that America had recognized the One China policy in 1972. To complicate matters, the US in 1979 transferred recognition from Taiwan (PROC) to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Yet the Taiwan-US relationship became "unofficial and informal" with various consular agreements signed — elevating the relationship to "official and high-level," resulting eventually in the US removing its self-imposed restrictions on executive branch contact with Taiwan in 2021.

It was never a secret that Beijing was mobilizing a large concentration of its forces in the Fujian province fronting Taiwan. When the time comes, its ports will be the embarkation points, roughly 130 kilometers to Taiwan's beachheads. Beijing's forces, therefore, had the advantages of proximity while Taiwan had the forces of its allies along the First Island Chain. Since US Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit in August 2022, Beijing retaliated by ignoring the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) of Taiwan, its aircraft flying sorties through Taiwan's airspace. Since then, 1,700 incidents have been tracked — more than those of the previous three years combined, as assertive violations, meant to keep a constant level of pressure on Taiwan's armed forces, obscuring over time its intentions: harassment, military exercise or actual invasion.

Invasion

Which is exactly what was conjectured in the war games. The first option for China was to do a pre-emptive strike going for an early knock-out with its warplanes and missiles on Taiwan's small air force and weak navy, a surgical strike with all its resources going for a quick decapitation of Taiwan's defenses, communications and leadership. This massive bombardment will precede the amphibious invasion forces of hundreds of thousands of the PLA aboard ships and civilian boats and secure a foothold on the beaches. All were designed to destroy Taiwan's capacity to fight, resulting in its virtual surrender — allowing Beijing to present allied forces a fait accompli, within 24 to 48 hours. This conflict is thus confined to Taiwan — China's renegade province. Restraint was applied to keep Japan and US forces from the war zone. It is estimated that at worst, 70 percent to 80 percent of Taiwan's air forces are destroyed on the ground. At this point, US forces have not yet been committed.

But the war game scenario hypothesized that Taiwan's determined ground forces, augmented by its battle-ready civilian conscripts, can hold the PLA to the beaches, allowing the polarized US Congress a democratic debate. Some quarters (not the CNAS/CSIS) suggest the military-industrial-congress-complex (MICC) will win the argument. So off to another war, we go!

China is ahead of the curve here. Long-range bombers and hyper missiles will attack US bases in Guam, Japan and the Northern Marianas, and Darwin and Tyndall air bases in Australia, rendering US forces less effective to intervene. Missiles will be employed to attack EDCA bases in the Philippines degrading US capability.

US response

China anticipates the US 7th Fleet to wreak havoc on the cross-strait invasion forces with its submarines, carrier planes and bombers from Hickam Airbase in Hawaii and those still intact from Japan hitting Fujian ports and Chinese supply lines. The meager forces of Australia will be in play and its surface ships used for blockading the strait. The remnants of EDCA and the Filipinos will have to do the Oratio Imperata. This segment of the war can take from a few days to a few weeks.

At this point, China's advantage of its proximity to the war zone allows its forces a lodgment in the beaches at a very steep price, estimated at 100 warships sunk by US submarines and the US Navy, and "thousands of soldiers killed, wounded or captured." But with Chinese advances in rocket and missile technology and quantity, they will sink 30 US warships, including two carriers. But the US Air Force will destroy 13 Chinese warcraft for each US loss.

But it is expected that US air superiority will not be total as Chinese planes are just across the strait while US air forces, bombers and fighters are based in "operationally unpredictable" places, far from the war zone; the reason why they have the EDCA bases in the Philippines.

But the CNAS war game scenario has one scary moment. To avoid annihilation and the fall of the CCP and Xi government, they may throw a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP shot) nuclear explosion above the US forces as a signal that China is serious about the use of nuclear weapon. This could be the game changer!

Lessons learned/alternative strategies

1. The greatest lesson learned is that avoiding war altogether may be in China and America's best interest.

2. The invasion turning into a war of attrition may change the character of the conflict. And the political profile of each country over time will drastically change. America will need the continued support of its polarized people as its batting average is questionable. America has suffered defeat in long wars — Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Totalitarian China, if Xi survives, has the edge.

3. The ultimate question of Taiwan's status as a province of China, the middle kingdom's desire for reunification, and America's overall role are actually just put in a hiatus. Nothing has been permanently resolved. China will eventually reach parity with America. What then?

Perhaps, Dr. Geoff Babb, professor of the Department of Military History, US Army Command and General Staff College admonishing his students, is appropriate: "Do you really wanna go to war with one-fifth of mankind with nuclear weapons in their home court? You need to think through that."

In the long term, America's decline as a world hegemon is a necessary condition for China to take over that role.

First of 3 parts

I will prevent, and very easily, World War 3. Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled ... quickly. I will get the problem solved. And I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day. I know exactly what to say to each ... I got along with them."

– Donald Trump


ON this declaration alone, I think Americans should get him re-elected in 2024. We Filipino colonials, once under American tutelage, are reminded of a great American who after tasting defeat in WW2 in Bataan and Corregidor, declared in 1942, "I shall return!" These three simple words gave hope to the Filipinos and sustained their will to fight the Japanese. And when Gen. Douglas McArthur indeed returned to liberate the Philippines in 1944, we knew America, or at least McArthur, kept its word. This sealed the special bond between the two races that has proven to be a boon and bane over the years.

The Donald, after an election "defeat" — one that was stolen from him, according to his MAGA base — demands retribution. He was cheated out of his destiny to fulfill the promises of his great presidency, by the very structure he sought to overhaul. As he claimed in accepting the GOP nomination in 2016, "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it."

Although his statement is not "McArthurian," at the very least it should inspire Americans, not only his "basket of deplorables" (BOD) — not my words, it's Hillary's — who did in fact help elect him to office. This is not to disparage his supporters — but in a curious way, even they themselves cherish their appellation, wearing this title on their sleeves gleaning from the behavior of his "tremendous crowd" in his campaign sorties.

Which brings me to the conclusion that the way the political cauldron is boiling in America, its society polarized, and the discombobulation he has caused the Republicans, etc., there is little doubt he can capture the GOP nomination and his MAGA-BOD will carry him through to victory over "Sleepy Joe" Biden. And 2025-2028 will usher in a new American age!

Perfect phone calls

I'm sure he will also solve the China-Taiwan problem, preventing the inevitable. This could be a tutorial in the art of the deal — a direct virtual face-to-face initiative, I suspect, with Xi Jinping, through another phone call. This could be a replay of his "perfect phone calls," similar to one he did with Ukraine President Zelenskyy in 2016, presumably asking the latter for dirt on his Democratic political opponent Biden and his son, Hunter, with his now famous 10 words "I would like you to do us a favor, though..." triggering the first impeachment inquiry against him..

And the other call to Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to change his losing election results: "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than (the 11,779 vote margin of defeat) we have, because we won the state." This is now being investigated by a special grand jury and awaiting multiple indictments.

Trump must come back

Since he left office, a slew of books on Trump hit the book stands and social media. These will form the core of my subsequent columns to understand the man better in case he recaptures the White House in 2024.

A Very Stable Genius (Penguin Press, 2020) by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, two Washington Post investigative reporters and Pulitzer Prize winners who followed Trump's White House stint interviewing many of Trump's administration people. Their inferences in their book basically revolve around the Donald's ignorance of subject matters that traditional American presidents are expected to know, and his propensity to dismiss, ignore and even berate his own advisers and experts if their opinions run counter to his. His earlier encounters with his most senior military leaders calling them "losers" prompted Secretary of State Tillerson to label America's commander-in-chief "a fucking moron."

This is a consequence of his aversion to reading briefing papers from his advisers, thus, he is prone to impulsive foreign policy decisions. Two particular cases cited here are his December 2019 decision to pull out of Syria and the demand to close the US-Mexican border, which are both popular with the MAGA-BOD fringe.

Syria

In the first case, the US special forces had been assisting Kurdish forces successfully fight IS. For two years Trump agreed that US forces were there for the long haul, their presence being a deterrent to a Turkish invasion; until he had a conference call with Turkish President Erdogan who was not particularly fond of the Kurds, questioning the US position. "You know what, it's yours — I'm leaving." A US policy commitment established over the years, which Trump on a whim, abandoned in seconds, not even coordinating with US allies, the UK and France, that also had boots on the ground working alongside the Americans. "All it had taken was a single phone call."

South American migration

In 2018, the Donald demanded from his secretary of homeland security, Kirstien Nielsen, the immediate closure of the US-Mexico border to prevent an "invasion" of migrants fleeing Central America. Nielsen, although hawkish on immigration, refused to follow this illegal order. Apparently, people have legal rights to cross the border and claim asylum, denying his MAGA brand looking at the bigger picture; America's immigrants are what made America great!

These two cases depict Trump as non-traditional, non-conventional, and cavalier on his approach to legalities — traits that endear him to the MAGA-BOD tired of the deep state, woke-washing, antifa, limousine liberals as portrayed by the hated fake mainstream media. The Donald simply reflects not only his base but perhaps a segment of American voters who in the first place caused him to be elected (through the electoral college) despite losing the popular vote.

And as far as these fanatics are concerned, the Donald is right, correct and real. They all sing hosanna to his accomplishments, among others:

Abraham Accords normalizing diplomatic relations among Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco.

His North Korean Gambit, persuading Kim Jung-un in a summit to stop his missile tests. It was a nice approach until Kim tested his first ICBM demonstrating the potential to reach the US continent. This ended in the two immature boys trading insults.

But an accomplishment that would put an indelible stamp on his presidency is the continued conservative direction the US will take in the years to come. His nominees made up roughly 54 judges in 13 circuit courts, an estimated 25 percent of all circuit judges. The courts are the final arbiter in US politics, setting precedents, shaping the country for years to come.

Part 2 and 3 will examine the repercussions of Trump's possible return based on his past actions described in four books: The Making of Donald Trump (Melville House Publishing), American Kompromat (Dutton), A Warning (Hachette Book Group), and I Alone Can Fix It! (Penguin Press).

YES and no! This is such a complex matter that has polarized our country from the time we were passed on to the Gringos from our Spanish colonizers. First, a lesson in history.

We were nothing more than war booty to the conquerors. Historically, we had just begun our revolution against Spain on Aug. 24, 1896 when we were caught in the middle of the Spanish-American war. On April 21, 1898, America declared war against Spain — America's first overseas conflict. Cuba and the Philippines were then the colonies of Spain. Although there was no explicit agreement of alliance, this was the first brief implicit alignment of US-Philippine interest: defeating Spain. Manila fell to the Americans in a bloodless "moro-moro" battle, lasting hours. United States forces held Manila, but the Filipino revolutionaries controlled the rest of the country. The 1898 Treaty of Paris between America and Spain — without our participation — transferred sovereignty from Spain to America. We were sold out!

The US rejected Filipino claims of independence. We were had! Thus, in February 1899, the Philippine-American war erupted. Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo formed the Philippine Republic that was promptly ignored by America. Thus, the first guerrilla warfare ensued in November 1899. After the surrender of Gen. Miguel Malvar, America declared Filipino guerrillas to be mere bandits. The Philippine revolution/insurgency ended. Thus began a rape which turned into a love story!

America's first colony in Asia

From then on, our interests aligned completely with America, when we were promised complete independence by virtue of the Commonwealth that America established for us in 1934, under the Tydings-McDuffie Act. This was a period where we, little brown brothers, had to learn self-governance for later independence. And we did learn well — as America's first colony in Asia. We imbibed their culture, with the now famous dictum "...300 years in the convent, and 100 years in Hollywood..." The Thomasites came to educate us, and we learned English, our second language. But more importantly, the educated, cognoscenti and the elite among us learned to think in English, and still do. Within the interim, we were America's experiment in governance, inculcating democracy, republicanism and the rule of law, all alien and contradictory at first to our datu/sultan/patron culture. But we were fast learners. Although there were flaws in the application, we had a mongrelized version of government format. Whereas America had a presidential-federal form, we had the more American-controllable and centralized presidential unitary format (please refer to"Unitary-presidential and alternatives," The Manila Times, March 15, 2023).

World War 2

As a hard lesson in geopolitics, WW2 was a classic case in alliances and alignments of interests. Prior to WW2, a series of moves and counter-moves for Asian hegemony between the West and East arose. Expansionist Japan emerged ascendant, invading Manchuria and China in 1937. Driven perhaps by the threat of America, Japan had the notion to displace this encroaching power in the Pacific. Japan, the country of the samurai with a long history of warfare and violence coated by the traditional rituals of Bushido, attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor. Although Juan de la Cruz had no direct say in it, he had to suffer the consequences of our pact with America. Since United States forces were stationed in the Philippines, we became vulnerable.

The briefest of debate in those days during the rise of Japan was centered on whether Philippine interests were aligned with that of America. We were to have our independence from US tutelage in 1945. The obvious answer is, we didn't have a choice.

Perhaps these battles fought against Japan forged special relations with Mother America. With a combined force of 76,000 Filipino and American soldiers — all under the American flag — this surrender was a devastating defeat for America's first land battle, ever. The subsequent "Bataan Death March" with only a handful of survivors burned into Fil-American consciousness the camaraderie and brotherhood-in-arms between the two races. Together with the battle for the liberation of Manila where hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians perished, and the capital totally devastated. American and Filipino blood flowed freely — this bond of equals came into its own.

Misaligned interest post-WW2

In this war, 250,000 Filipinos fought with America and after the withdrawal of US forces in 1942, Filipino guerrillas carried on the resistance. It will be noted that American President Roosevelt put all military forces in the Philippines under US control in 1941 — thus the revered US Gen. Douglas McArthur became the only Field Marshal in the history of the Philippine armed forces. And his ringing promise — "I shall return" — kept the Filipinos' faith with America.

But after the war in 1946, the US Congress passed the Rescission Act, stripping recognition from Filipino veterans, explicitly barring "rights, privileges or benefits" to most veterans and guerrillas who fought side by side with America. Then we were granted our independence!

Mendicants never learn. After we abrogated the 1947 Military Bases Agreement with America in 1991, subsequent administrations skirted the constitutional ban on foreign bases and signed the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) within the ambit of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the US. This treaty under the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution was ratified by both the Philippines Senate and US Senate. The 1998 VFA under the 1987 Constitution was ratified only by the Philippine Senate, not the US Senate. Go figure! Today we have the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) that allows US troop rotations, building of and operation of facilities in the Philippine bases.

As explained in my past columns, these are forward staging areas for American war materiel, fuel depots and ammunition dumps for the use of their planes and ships — and even nuclear devices in the event of conflict with China ("The winds of war," TMT, March 29, 2023).

Grudgingly, we must ally with US

Now with the winds of war blowing in our direction, powerless to defend ourselves by our lonesome, with these EDCA bases targeted in a shooting war with China; can we arrogantly insist that we are an independent nation, with our foreign policy of "friends to all and enemies to none"?

History is littered with the carcasses of the arrogant and the naïve! Countries are attacked and swallowed by dominant states and are made cannon fodder. These are the fates of declared "neutral countries." The German Wehrmacht ran roughshod over Scandinavia and Belgium in WW2. Russia's rape of Ukraine is ongoing. But those officially allied to the NATO countries survive — Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, among others, the reason Finland and Sweden are now pleading for alliance with NATO!

We have always been captives of America. This collective Stockholm syndrome developed a psychological bond with our captors, hostage to their wiles and promises from the very beginning.

And where do we go from here? Because of the stupidity of our past political leadership verging on the criminal we have not made preparations to defend ourselves and are left with no alternatives.

And we now proclaim to have these US bases and compacts abrogated? And boot the Americans out? Too late! In the Filipino street parlance, we are "na pusoy" — estoppel!

MY last two articles touched on the coming conflict with China. A case was made on a proposition advanced in a book by Graham Allison, Destined for War (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017). His conclusions make war inevitable. Xi Jinping's declaration to recover by force China's renegade province, Taiwan, could be the trigger. US military prediction is that this war could happen sometime between the years 2025 to 2027.

But there is another facet to this geopolitical development negating this inevitability. A compendium of contrarian views inundating mass and social media are condensed in this column. The thesis is: China will not invade Taiwan (for now)!

Military complexities

First, such invasion involves amphibious operations where the logistics are excessively complex comparable to land invasions, like Russia invading Ukraine. True, China may now have the largest naval force, but China never did have the experience with joint sea-land operations. Its last was the Battle of the Yalu River in 1894 where the Japanese Imperial Navy trounced the Chinese Beiyang Fleet. America is formidable in combined sea-air-land strategies, being the quintessential warmonger these last hundred years, going through the Korean War, 1950-1953; Vietnam War, 1959-1975; Gulf War, 1990-1991; Iraq 2003-2011; Afghanistan, 2001-2014; not to mention America's invasions of Grenada, 1983, and Panama, 1989, deposing strongman Noriega, etc. The possibility of the US getting directly involved in Taiwan's defense is what could deter China.

Also, Taiwan's defenses are daunting, with its forest, mountains and high cliffs and potential vulnerable landing points facing Fujian province plugged. More importantly, it is designed to withstand China's onslaught for hours/days until the US, Japan and other allies come to its defense. Taiwan's strategic partnerships are critical, which includes South Korea, Australia, India, Indonesia and the Philippines — part of the first island chain fronting China. Only North Korea is a willing but problematic Chinese ally, while Russia is absorbed with its own problems.

Political ramifications

China's leadership has always been belligerent about their intentions to reunify Taiwan, from Mao to Deng to Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin targeting the year 2049. But recent pronouncements by Xi Jinping hints of earlier adventurism. Experts, however, consider this as simply braggadocio designed to intimidate Taiwan and partners and not an indicator of actual military intent. This bluster feeds into its narrative and propaganda reflecting China's emergence as an economic force in Asia. It bolsters Xi's international image among the leading nations — projecting China as America's equal helping him consolidate power internally. It is even more crucial at this time that China's economy has contracted from a decades high of 7.9 percent GDP growth at the beginning of Xi's tutelage to 6 percent pre-pandemic to 2.3 percent post-Covid. China must maintain an image of invincibility — a matter of saving face for Xi. An actual invasion of Taiwan with its unacceptable risks could obliterate that image.

US historian Gordon Chang at the Institute of World Politics (IWP) proposes that China is casualty-averse, contrary to what is peddled about America being one particularly after its Vietnam debacle. Chang's hypothesis is that China's one-child policy is an empirical restraint. Any death of a male heir ends the bloodline. The CCP understands only too well the repercussions of a military misadventure. Popular support will fizzle out.

Economic consequences

Since the Republic of China's creation, Taiwan has not severed its economic ties with the mainland. Over the intervening decades, their economies intertwined relying in each other for their own prosperity. In 2019, China and Hong Kong were Taiwan's most important export partners. "... with cross-strait revenue source amounting to $150 billion. Taiwan provided China with $188 billion of FDI between 1991-2020 and is the largest chip and semiconductor manufacturer in the world producing 84 percent of the world's most advanced chips, under 5 nanometers." (Kamome 163 video capture)

The attendant political and economic risks may be too much of a gamble for China — shrinking further its economy, isolating the country as a pariah, not fit as Asia's hegemon thereby threatening Xi's hold on power.

Hiatus

But it doesn't mean abandoning the idea of reunification. The Chinese perspective, seen through the prism of its cultural orientation, typically a society that has survived millennia, is fixed in terms beyond years that the West seldom fathoms. This hiatus is not a rapprochement. They built the Great Wall over the centuries to ward off the barbarians, not annihilate them. They can very well tolerate Taiwan until such time that the old hegemon America collapses, ushering in China's century.

Xi Jinping and his China

Since October 2022 when China was co-opted by the modern version of a communist emperor, the political architecture was drastically altered with Xi demonstrating a distinctive leadership style and dominance over the CCP. "Xi inherited a consensual political system in 2012 where power was shared among the CCP outstanding committees, and the wider public bureaucracy and no Chinese leader got too much credit or blame because of consensus. Xi became very popular with the anti-corruption campaign ... but then he eliminated political rivals by jailing them." (Gordon H. Chang, IWP)

Xi, unanimously elected for an unprecedented third term, warned that "the path ahead of China is perilous...and [must] not allow this problem (Taiwan) to be headed from one generation to the next." He has made it known that Taiwan was not only to be recovered "...but the destruction of Taiwan's democracy is critical test for his personal legitimacy. His concept of China and its role transcend 300 years of traditional relations, since 1648 — the Treaty of Westphalia establishing the international system of sovereign states." (Gordon Chang, IWP) For Xi, America is an existential threat. America's values negatively impact on China's people. And Taiwan's democracy, at China's doorsteps, along with America, must be destroyed. This megalomaniacal view is what drives Xi to eventually do what he must.

Can China win?

Having witnessed America's debacles, particularly Vietnam and Kabul, Xi may have arrived at these conclusion. With these assumptions, America can be defeated.

– Xi executes a swift successful invasion, presenting America and allies with a fait acompli. This entails a quick and decisive first few hours' battle — throwing in hundreds of thousands of China's sons — despite it being casualty-averse.

– China possesses first strike missiles capability (short of nukes), destroying allied forces in the region in the first half-hour of any conflict — before US bases in Guam, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, and the Seventh Fleet have time to react.

– China believes that a substantial portion of Taiwanese will welcome it with open arms.

– America, even prior to Trump's ascendancy, has been polarized and absorbed in its internal politics and may not have the stomach for its sons dying in Taiwan. Now Trump is back! Biden's unequivocal responses supporting Taiwan are oftentimes contradicted by his advisers, hinting hesitation in putting boots on the ground.

China has been updating its technology and quality of arsenal for a cross-strait invasion. It has a superb but inexperienced air force. Professionals agree that China has the weapons and missiles. And China's forces fronting Taiwan are on "unsinkable aircraft carriers." America's are not.

Today Xi is the CCP, and the CCP is Xi. And they can wait!

TODAY, many parts of the world are in a state of belligerency. We are not in a state of war in the classic paradigm of the previous two world wars. But we are getting there. Not since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the rise of China, the conflagrations in the Middle East and even the insanity of North Korea — was the world nearer to the abyss. The Russia and Ukraine shooting war between old allies, hyped to end within months with Russia on top has turned into a surrogate war involving NATO, threatening to spill over dangerously. But this is just a symptom of a much bigger peril the world faces today. This climate of war pervades in all regions heightened by power rivalry. In Asia where the Philippines is caught between two hegemons — America and China — war is inevitable.

My Manila Times November 2019 column featured a book, Destined for War (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017), by Graham Allison. The book described the rise of China and its impact on the world, particularly on America's position as the architect of the international order that has prevailed for seven decades since 1945. Ingrained in this architecture are the basic tenets of Western thought: democracy and the rule of law, free enterprise, global trade — America's instruments that propelled it to hegemony in the aftermath of World War 2.

Thucydides trap

Allison proposes that the impact of China's rise will cause "...discombobulation to the US and the international order." He cited Thucydides, the Greek historian who first defined the concept of history in his History of the Peloponnesian War 2,500 years ago. He suggests, "It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable." Applying this to the current status of America confronted with the rise of China, Allison conceived the "Thucydides Trap, a dangerous dynamic that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a major ruling power." In this case China, the rising power, threatens to displace the ruling power, the United States. Will war ensue, as in Athens versus Sparta?

PH 'urong-sulong' foreign policy

Over the years Philippine foreign policy has been dictated by the exigencies of our special relations with America, having been its first colony in an attempt at hegemony in Asia at the turn of the last century. The most serious breach in this relationship was in 1991 during President Cory Aquino's watch when the Senate in a failed negotiation for greater annual bases' rental, terminated the Military Bases Agreement with America signed in 1947; this was mendicancy disguised as a Filipino-centric, sovereignty-laden foreign policy. This assertion exacerbated by the emotional ties with its former colonizers polarized the country.

But Cory's son, President PNoy signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperative Agreement (EDCA) reversing course and allowing US troops' "rotational presence" in Philippine military bases. Subsequently, President Duterte, flaunting his personal distaste for America, sought to abrogate EDCA with his "pivot away from America" in that famous April 9, 2018 speech, "I love Xi Jinping," establishing closer ties with China. The current Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. regime has succumbed to US pressure and even added four more EDCA bases. This was apparently in anticipation of the coming war with China over Taiwan.

In a virtual state of war

Seen through the prism of Beijing's history of subjugation and humiliation by the West, the EDCA bases are just another set of exclamation points for our belligerent status as acolytes of America. Along with this was our lamented initiative in bringing our case to the arbitral tribunal questioning China's illegal expansive "nine-dash line" encompassing Philippine territories in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea). China rejected the ruling, proceeded to occupy these territories, building "in-your-face" artificial islands and battlements. Even our traditional fishing grounds were encroached upon. And this happened during the Deegong's bromance with Xi Jinping. We are indeed a castrated nation!

We are now drawn deep into a state of belligerency with our compact with America. The arc of US alliances of Okinawa, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines, the first island chain serves as maritime boundaries stretching from the East and South China Seas, West Philippine and Sulu Seas, choking China from access to the Pacific.

Whether we like it or not, we have become America's frontline. America's enemy has become ours. The EDCA bases will be primary targets, magnets for destruction when a shooting war begins as these are actually the US military's forward staging areas where US pre-positions their war materiel, fuel depots and ammunition dumps for the use of their planes and ships. Conveniently, these bases are facing the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), and in the north facing Taiwan.

China as an emerging hegemon

To put it in proper perspective, a reflection on how China became our enemy is mandatory. From our hazy past, archaeological evidence and history, we have always traded and intermingled with China for millennia. And in the years prior to WW2, China kept to herself. Only in post-war years after China's civil war and America's assumption to its self-appointed role as the world's primus inter pares, did an unprecedented era of peace or at least a state of non-war exist. And this allowed China to reappear in the world stage after an absence of more than 200 years. It may be recalled that ancient China, the Middle Kingdom, was dominant in Asia for thousands of years before it was eclipsed by the West that began during the Age of Discovery in the early 16th century.

But with a population of a billion, China's rise to hegemony was a matter of historicity — as in the ascendancy of America, England, Germany, Egypt, Persia, etc. History has witnessed the ebb and flow of empires. America may have to recognize that its day in the sun is waning, its epoch of hegemony is over; and it may be China's turn.

Taiwan

Now we have Cassandras predicting the coming war with Taiwan, China's renegade province, within the next 3 to 5 years. And the pronouncements of America to defend Taiwan with American boots on the ground may precipitate a bigger conflict. And here, with our EDCA bases, treaties and compact with America, we are drawn to shed our blood too. But what is our real stake in this coming war?

The same question could be asked of America. What is its vital interest at play in the coming conflict that will shed American blood except the belief and the assurances that Taiwan's safety remains in the hands of America as provided for by "the US Congress 'Formosa Resolution' giving President Eisenhower then the total authority to defend Taiwan and the offshore islands."

I wrote once that "...perhaps America needs to understand too that China now is compelled to write its own narrative. For about 3,000 years it was dominant in Asia except for the 200 years that the West imperialized and exploited her. She may simply want to reclaim her status quo ante."

MANILA – With an overwhelming 301 affirmative votes, six against and one abstention, the House of Representatives on Monday approved on third and final reading a resolution calling for a constitutional convention (con-con) that would propose amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution.

Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 6 is principally authored by Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe, Camarines Sur 2nd District Representative Luis Raymund Villafuerte Jr., and House Committee on Constitutional Amendments chair and Cagayan de Oro City 2nd District Rep. Rufus Rodriguez.

Romualdez said the House aims to limit its Charter rewriting initiative to the “restrictive” economic provisions of the basic law “in the hope that the changes would pave the way for the country to attract more foreign investments.”

“We need additional investments that would create more job and income opportunities for our people. We need increased capital to sustain our economic growth momentum,” Romualdez said.

He reiterated that investment reforms by way of amending the Constitution’s economic provisions could be the “final piece in the puzzle” of improving the country’s economic and investment environment.

Earlier, the House majority held a caucus an hour before the resumption of plenary sessions wherein 300 lawmakers signified their intention to be co-authors of RHB 6.

The caucus was called to apprise the majority bloc of the priority measures that need to be acted upon by the House of Representatives before the Easter legislative break.

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments endorsed RBH No. 6 after conducting extensive public hearings and consultations in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

Through the resolution, the House and the Senate resolve to call a con-con “for the purpose of proposing amendments to the economic provisions, or revision of, the 1987 Constitution.”

The resolution noted that among the three modes of proposing amendments to the Charter, the calling of a constitutional convention “would be the most transparent, exhaustive, democratic and least divisive means of implementing constitutional reforms.”

“Extensive studies show that particular economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution need to be revisited and recrafted so that the Philippines may become globally competitive and attuned with the changing times,” the resolution stated.

It further notes that such reform has been identified by reputable business and economic groups as a key policy instrument that needs to be implemented, and that these organizations feel that the economic reform by way of constitutional amendments “is now long overdue.”

The envisioned con-con would be a hybrid assembly with elected and appointed members, with the election and appointment of delegates to be held simultaneously with the Oct. 30, 2023 barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan polls.

The details of the election and appointment of con-con delegates would be contained in an implementing bill to be passed by Congress. (PNA)