Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Kalayaan, Panatag & other disputed islands; Future conflict zones?
Topic Started: Feb 2 2005, 08:00 PM (156,040 Views)
flipzi
Member Avatar
R-A-T-S

atreidesx69
Jun 29 2011, 02:54 PM
Red China only adheres to international law when it suits them. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be intimidated by their bullying. If they put up markers in our islands in the West Philippines Sea, then we must remove them and put up twice as many markers. If they continue to harass our fishermen, we should arrest their poachers wholesale. If they put up permanent structures then we must do the same. Reinforce the troops we have in the islands that we occupy, a handful wouldn't do, at least a company's worth. The islands we claim are within a banca's reach from Palawan, it shouldn't be too hard to beef up our presence in those islands. And we should pro-actively seek more assistance from the US and expand military cooperation with them.

"We are being treated that way because as long as we are not willing to provide suitable defense, we will be oppressed, demeaned, and dishonored," "It's about time to wake up, strengthen our military capability even if we have to spend more money." - Sen Pres. Juan Ponce Enrile

"A Wise Leader never seeks out War, But he must Always be READY for it..."
Posted Image

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them! - Art. II Sec 1, Philippine Constitution "


" People don't care what we know until they know we care. "


getflipzi@yahoo.com
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
fatbat_mca
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Clash of sovereignties in the Spratlys

long but informative article:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?artic...bCategoryId=200
oh my sofie!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Washington continues to escalate tensions in South China Sea
By Joseph Santolan
30 June 2011

On Monday, the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution “deploring” the use of force by China in the South China Sea and backing “the continuation of operations by the United States Armed Forces in support of freedom of navigation rights in international waters and air space in the South China Sea.”

The resolution, drafted by Senators Jim Webb and James Inhofe, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, marks another step in the rapid heightening of tensions over the disputed waters.

On Tuesday, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hong Lei responded: “The resolution was groundless. It distorted the truth… We oppose intervention from countries outside the region, and condemn any action that would exacerbate the issue.”

Yang Yi, spokesperson of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, speaking in Beijing on Wednesday, reiterated China’s claim of “indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and their surrounding waters.”

The escalated rhetoric between China and the US came in the immediate aftermath of meetings in Hawaii over the weekend between US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai. At the end of the talks, Campbell gave a press conference where he repeatedly refused to answer any specific questions on the South China Sea, stating simply that the dialogue was “open, frank, and constructive.” Cui refused to make a statement.

The mainstream US press is marching lockstep with the US government in intensifying the tensions with China. In an editorial on June 30, the Wall Street Journal described the Philippines and Vietnam, which have rival territorial claims in the Sea, as expressing “barely bridled anger” at China. The editorial cited with approval Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s statements last year that the US had a “national interest” in the South China Sea and “was back in Asia to stay.”

The Wall Street Journal opined: “That was a strong stand at the time. But as China continues to ratchet up tension it may be time for something stronger.” What that “something stronger” could be became clear in the next paragraph, which discussed Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario’s recent visit to the United States and Clinton’s declaration at a joint press conference of continuing US support for the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines. Del Rosario repeatedly stated last week that in the event of armed hostilities between China and the Philippines, the treaty obliged the US to come to the aid of its ally.

“The real news,” the Wall Street Journal crowed, “is that the Philippines is coming back into the US orbit.” The editorial concluded that Washington should give “less ambiguous indications … that it will be a willing partner.”

In an editorial on June 27, the Washington Post stated that the Beijing’s “menacing language makes clear why the United States needs to exert its influence.” How would this influence be exerted? By military actions through Washington’s proxy, the Philippines. The editorial ended with this sentence: “If Mr. del Rosario’s government wishes to shift its long-standing defense cooperation with the United States from counterterrorism to the patrol and defense of its territorial waters, the Pentagon should be ready to cooperate.”

On June 28, the Lowy Institute, a leading Australian think tank, issued a report entitled “Crisis and Confidence: Major Powers and Maritime Security in Indo-Pacific Asia.” The report, which received wide press coverage, warned of the rising danger of war emerging out of the conflicts over the South China Sea.

“The sea lanes are becoming more crowded, contested and vulnerable to armed strife,” the report stated. “Naval and air forces are being strengthened amid shifting balances of economic strategic weight. As the number and tempo of incidents increases, so does the likelihood that an episode will escalate to armed confrontation, diplomatic crisis or possibly even conflict.”

A similar likelihood for conflict exists between Japan and China in the East China Sea, the report argued, warning that the “possibility of confrontation leading to conflict between Japan and China in the East China Sea is a distinct possibility … In the past 12 months, an understanding appears to have developed between Washington and Tokyo that, under the US–Japan security treaty, the United States would come to Japan’s assistance in the event of such a conflict. Were Washington to do so, it would be in direct conflict with China, with the risk of a wide and protracted war between the two powers.”

Both China and the US are stepping up their activities in the South China Sea. China is preparing to launch its first aircraft carrier in the area. During the first week of July, China is scheduled to begin a massive deep sea oil drill, with the exact location not yet declared.

The United States is currently conducting military training exercises with the Philippines in the South China Sea. The US military has just concluded joint exercises involving most countries of littoral Southeast Asia. When its exercises with the Philippines end on July 4, the US military ships will go to Vietnam to conduct training exercises there. The exercises escalate the possibility of open conflict, as well as providing a justification for the continued stationing of US destroyers and patrol boats in this potential global flashpoint.

The Philippines is playing a leading role as Washington’s proxy and wedge in the region. Washington is currying favor with the President Benigno Aquino’s administration through every possible diplomatic and political avenue. In the past week, legislation was introduced in the US Senate at the request of Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary del Rosario to allow garments produced in the Philippines with US-made textiles to enter the US duty free. Another piece of legislation was introduced to grant benefits to Philippine veterans of the Second World War. At Aquino’s request, the United States extradited to the Philippines a man charged with murder in a case in which one of Aquino’s leading political opponents is implicated.

In a thoroughly cynical move, US Secretary of State Clinton announced that the Philippines had been removed from the State Department’s Human Trafficking watch list, based on what she described as a “sea change” in policy under Aquino. The removal of the Philippines from the list enables the Aquino administration to receive $434 million from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, funding which was otherwise jeopardized.

On June 30, Aquino’s government announced it was opening up 15 new quadrants to bid out to oil corporations for drilling. Many are in the contested waters. This is in addition to the ongoing bidding for quadrants that Aquino opened two months ago.

Following a meeting between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and del Rosario at the end of last week, it was announced that the Philippines would lease new military equipment from the US and that Washington would fund Philippine intelligence operations in the South China Sea. The exact amount of funding and the type of equipment to be leased is not yet clear, but the provocative and confrontational role of the United States is making armed conflict an increasing likelihood.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ju...scse-j30.shtml
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]



Remarks by Senator John Mccain at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Conference on Maritime Security in the South China Sea
BY NHTUONG – JUNE 23, 2011


SOURCE

June 20, 2011

“Thank you, John [Hamre], for that generous introduction, and for your friendship over many years. It is always great to return to CSIS, which does so much to inform America’s thinking about the world and our leadership in it.
“As many of you know, I recently returned from Southeast Asia, and before I turn to the topic of this conference, I’d like to offer some brief impressions from my visit to Burma. It was the first time I had been allowed to return to the country in 15 years, which is one indication that this new civilian government could represent a change from the past. Another noteworthy change was the new capital of Nay Pyi Taw. Massive government buildings, marble-strewn palaces, brand new hotels, 18-lane highways – and the strange thing about it: no one is there. Ours were the only cars on the road. The buildings were nearly empty.

“It was a dislocating experience. And it certainly was a sad contrast with the crushing poverty in Rangoon. I visited a private AIDS clinic that was overflowing with people, many orphaned children, who need more care than is available. I went to a service that offers free funerals for departed souls whose families are too poor to provide their loved ones with the dignity of a decent burial. It breaks your heart, and it makes you wish the government would devote similar levels of enthusiasm and resources to the development of their nation as the construction of their capital.

“Nonetheless, in my meetings with the First Vice President, the two Speakers of Parliament, and others, it was clear that this government wants better relations with the United States. I stressed that my government and I share this aspiration, and that such a feat is not impossible. After all, if the United States and Vietnam can improve relations, which I know a thing or two about, anything is possible.

“However, the main point I stressed is that any improvement of relations would need to be built not on happy talk, but on actions by both sides. The United States should be willing to put every aspect of our policy on the table, and to make tangible changes that the government in Nay Pyi Taw asks of us. But this can only be done in conjunction with concrete actions on their part, especially those steps called for by the U.N. Human Rights Council: releasing all prisoners of conscience; providing the Red Cross unfettered access to all prisons; commencing a real process of national reconciliation that involves ethnic and political opposition parties, including the National League for Democracy; and guaranteeing the safety and freedom of movement of Aung San Suu Kyi.

“I had the opportunity to see the Lady on my visit, and the reason I remain hopeful for the Burmese people has a lot to do with her. Yesterday was Aung San Suu Kyi’s birthday, and she expressed this hope: ‘If I were asked what I would wish on my birthday, I wish for peace, stability and prosperity in the country.’ This amazing lady remains an inspiration to her people, and to me. And I agree with her that this is not the time for the United States to lift sanctions. We should also work to establish a U.N. Commission of Inquiry, which has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with truth and justice for the Burmese people.

“From Burma I went to Singapore for the Shangri La Dialogue, where one of the main topics of discussion was the subject of this conference: maritime security in the South China Sea. This issue inspires intense emotions among the states with competing claims to these waters and territories. And the circle of experts who truly understand the historical and legal intricacies of these claims is rather small. I am from Arizona, where we know how complex it can be to fight over water and land use. I am also an old Navy man who has spent much of my life traveling and working on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region. And I am increasingly concerned that the South China Sea is becoming a flashpoint of conflict.

“The past few years have seen a rapid escalation of tensions between states in this volatile and disputed maritime region. I need not review all of these incidents for this audience. Of course, it is important for all parties to practice restraint. And to be sure, our ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) partners will need to make compromises, especially among one another, to reach a peaceful and mutually beneficial outcome, as many of them would acknowledge. That said, this situation requires a little straight talk: One of the main forces exacerbating tensions in the South China Sea, and making a peaceful resolution of these disputes harder to achieve, is the aggressive behavior of China and the unsubstantiated territorial claims that it seeks to advance.

“I take no pleasure in saying this. I believe one of the foremost U.S. national interests is the maintenance and enhancement of productive relations with China. I want China to succeed and to develop peacefully. And I believe there is no force of history that condemns our countries to conflict. Indeed, the scope of our global cooperation is broader than ever before, including on issues of maritime security, which is plain for all to see in our common operations off the Horn of Africa.

“What troubles me, and I imagine many of you, are the expansive claims that China makes in the South China Sea; the rationale offered for these claims, which has no basis in international law; and the increasingly assertive actions that China is taking to enforce its self-described rights, including in waters within 200 miles off the coast of ASEAN countries, as was the case recently in separate incidents involving Vietnam and the Philippines. China’s so-called ‘nine-dotted lines’ map claims all of the islands in the South China Sea as sovereign Chinese territory and all of their territorial waters as China’s exclusive economic zone. Furthermore, certain Chinese interpretations of international law would erode the long-standing principle of freedom of navigation – twisting it from a concept of inclusion that fosters open access, to a concept of exclusion that would restrict access. Some in China are even referring to this doctrine as, quote, ‘legal warfare.’”

“Why should this matter to the United States? This is a question that many Americans will ask, especially when we are committed to three conflicts already, and when our national debt has literally become unsustainable. Why should America care about the maritime disputes of foreign nations half a world away?

“There are certainly economic reasons for remaining engaged. The South China Sea region is an important source of jobs and natural resources that benefit many Americans. However, perhaps the larger consideration is the strategic one. The world’s geopolitical center of gravity is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region – a region in which many states are rising at once in wealth and power. This creates friction between them where old disputes remain unresolved. The United States has a national security interest in maintaining a favorable strategic balance in this vital region. And central to that is defending the universal freedom of navigation and open access to the seas as a foundational principle of the international order.

“Efforts to deny freedom of navigation in the South China Sea pose a serious challenge to the rules-based international order that the United States and our allies have sustained over many decades. If these efforts were to succeed – if persistent bullying enabled one state to impose its territorial claims by force and to turn the South China Sea into a virtual no-go zone for the commercial and military vessels of other nations, including the United States – the effects would be dire. It could set a dangerous precedent for weakening international law in ways that ill-intentioned actors would no doubt apply elsewhere. It could create a troubling incentive for rising powers everywhere to take by force what peaceful, legal means cannot secure for them. And it would bring us closer to a day when the U.S. Navy judges that it can no longer safely access and operate in the western Pacific.

“What, then, should the U.S. do? Let me offer a few suggestions in closing.

“First, regarding the U.S. position on the South China Sea, we should recognize that, where possible, a policy of clarity may be more stabilizing than a policy of ambiguity. I applaud Secretary Clinton for stating that rival claims in the South China Sea should be resolved through multilateral negotiations, and that we will seek to facilitate those negotiations. Most Asian states welcomed that statement. Ultimately, this is about China’s relations with its neighbors, not China and the United States. Nonetheless, it is helpful for us to continue clarifying the U.S. position, so other countries know where possible which claims the United States accepts, which ones we do not, and what actions we are prepared to take to support our policies and partners, especially the Philippines, which is a treaty ally.

“Second, the United States should assist our ASEAN partners in resolving their own disputes in the South China Sea as a means of fostering greater ASEAN unity vis-à-vis China. China seeks to exploit the divisions among ASEAN members – to play them off each other to press its own agenda. Resolving the competing maritime claims among ASEAN states, as Malaysia and Brunei have recently done, would enable our partners to establish a more united front.

“Third, the United States needs to help our ASEAN partners to build up their maritime defense and detection capabilities – to develop and deploy basic systems such as early warning radar and coastal security vessels. Remedying this lack of capacity, and enhancing our joint exercises, would provide for a more common operational picture in the South China Sea and a better ability to respond to threats.

“Fourth, the U.S. Senate needs to take a hard look at the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. I know this is unpopular among some conservatives. I have had doubts about it myself. But the fact is, successive administrations of both parties have adhered to the Convention’s basic strictures, and done so without a seat at the table. Meanwhile, states like China are working within the Convention to advance fringe views that aim to deny access to international waters. This leaves the United States to rely on the good graces of foreign powers and its own superior force to ensure U.S. rights of navigation. But these conditions cannot be taken for granted, which is why the U.S. Navy strongly supports the Convention and the added legal guarantees it offers to our naval operations. Thus, for national security reasons, the Senate needs to decide whether it is finally time to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.

“Fifth, we need to shift U.S. regional force posture to put greater emphasis on emerging areas of competition, especially the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. I have joined with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, Senators Carl Levin and Jim Webb, in calling for a timeout to reevaluate our basing plans in Japan and Guam. And I have done so not to withdraw America from Asia, but to enhance our commitment to regional security. It is not Congress’s place to devise regional basing arrangements, but as new realities and cost overruns call our current plans into question, Congress must ask the hard questions. Our goal should be to move toward a more geographically dispersed force posture in the Asia-Pacific region, as Secretary Gates has described, and a centerpiece of that effort will always be our basing commitments with our historic allies, Japan and Korea.

“Finally, the United States must continue to make the necessary investments in our defense capabilities, especially naval forces, in order to remain the world’s leading military power. We are now facing enormous domestic pressures to cut spending, including defense spending, and some reductions are certainly necessary. Reasonable people can disagree about how deep those cuts should be. But when the President pledged recently to cut $400 billion in defense spending over 12 years – with no strategic rationale for why this figure was chosen or what risks it would entail, and with the Secretary of Defense only being told about it the day beforehand – I think reasonable people could also agree that this is no way to plan for our national defense. We must be guided by strategy, not arbitrary arithmetic.

“The events now unfolding in the South China Sea will play a decisive role in shaping the development of the Asia-Pacific region in this century. And the United States must remain actively engaged in that process. In this regard, I am troubled by recent statements made by some of my colleagues in Congress and some of the Republican presidential candidates, suggesting a desire to withdraw from the world and reduce our commitments abroad. America has made that mistake before, and we should learn from this history, not repeat it. After all, history shows us that Americans themselves are the greatest beneficiaries of the rules-based international order that is upheld by U.S. power and leadership. We abdicate that role at the world’s peril, and our own.

“If those of you visiting from the Asia-Pacific region only take one message home with you, let it be this: There has always been an isolationist trend in the United States, but Americans have rejected it before, and I believe they will reject it again now. There will always be a solid base of support in America for a strong internationalist foreign policy. That isn’t going anywhere, and neither is America. We will not withdraw or be pushed out of the Asia-Pacific region. We will stay engaged there, committed to our friends and allies, and together we will succeed.”
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Fmr TOPP Awardee 82'PNP
Member Avatar
PDFF Moderator
PDFF Mod Group
Philippine External Defense really sucks - Military Corruption has a hand on it's failure.
Scarborough Shoal know as the Spratlys Islands, is a strategic area where hundred of commercial ships pass every day and possess a huge amount of oil and gas. It has political and economic gravitas to start a world war. It has been passionately claimed by six nations: China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam. China has traditionally called it "South China Sea", the Philippines "West Philippine Sea" and Vietnam "East Sea". The three have been the most vexed among the six. Many of the troops have been firing acoustic shots through the years - to bear the sharp fangs-but only the 1978 fire exchange between China and Vietnam resulted in casualties. Eleven Vietnamese dead.
Today, they are firing mostly verbal canon balls at each other. The Vietnamese had rallied to the streets versus the China Embassy. On the other hand, when China sent it's huge patrol boat Hiunsui-31 near the shoal, we pushed our aging and only gunboat called Rajah Humabon (as ancient as his name). It was a dismal sight if it were not laughable.
All six nations vow they want peace and stability in the area while behind them are clutching cocked guns, loaded to assert their own parochial sovereignty. At the President's inaugural, before that and after, Pres. Noynoy Aquino had refused to take sides in this mighty struggle for geopolitical supremacy between the USA and China. It is an undeclared war -economically and militarily, China having dislodged Japan as America's next in line. That has virtually changed now. With China's recent aggressiveness near the Spratlys Islands, the "little brown brother" ran to Uncle Sam and together they invoked a little-used 1951 Mutual defense Treaty, which made it obligatory for one to defend the other, when the latter is being attacked. Secreatry Hilary Clinton said as much.
Despite the double talk through Asst. State Secretary Kurt Campbell that "the US does not intervene in regional issues and those that touch on sovereignty conflicts" , the USA needs RP as a pawn for a proxy war with China over the Spratlys. That's the naked truth. Without US military equipment hardware (sale lease or donation) to RP, this country appears like a school boy daring a 7 foot bully (China) to a wrestling match. In war, guns talk-words are mere posturing. The sad reality is the Philippines does not have a meaningful external defense arsenal. The usual excuse the military uses, is the distractrion caused by the internal secessionist and communist rebellions.
But let us summarize the weakness: The PAF does not have a single fighter jet to ward off intruders to Philippine skies after the phase out of F-5 jet fighters in 2005. What the PAF has are: North American OV-10 Bronco attack aircrafts, (33), Italian Aermachi SF attack-and-transport aircrafts and 25 American McDonnel Douglas Defender attack helicopters-Hardly any bite in any kind of external fight. Today, from January 2010 alone, PAF suffered four air accidents causing 11 fatalities. So without a war, the air force already lost 11 of it's 7,000 men without firing a single bullet. Many of the aircraft have been grounded. A crying shame. A war pundit said that in full scale war, the bullets of the PA will be cponsumed in less than four days. How true? The army needs better powered guns than their usual repaired M-16s, night googles, bullet proof vests helmets , and my goodness-boots that last please.
And what about replacements for the Simba tanks and new back up helicopters ?
The Navy, on the other hand, needs coast watch and tank watch systems, multipurpose helicopters and offshore and sea lift vessels. We have been left too much behind.
Results of the COA investigations earlier revealed that the culprit behind this has been - don't hold your breath-" is the "systematic corruption" in handling of the AFP Modernization Plans. By 2005, the AFP had spent P11-Billion and we recall another P 5 Billion programmed for the years 2009 and 2010. We wonder aloud to what ever happened to all of those ? (Enter the Garcia et. al names by Rabusa)
In summary, they claimed "modernization was a magnet of corruption - that went into conversion, ghost deliveries, overpriced materials, stocking of needless office supplies, parties, and operating expenses. " All not in the scope-mandate of the AFP Modernization. So, who is to blame for our decrepit, obsolete and weak external defense system ? NOT THE MUSLIMS AND THE COMMUNISTS, but by themselves alone, (corrupt regimes and corrupt hierarchy of the AFP
http://www.boholchronicle.com/2011/jun/29/editorial1.html
Posted Image



"GUILTY CONSCIENCE NEEDS NO ACCUSER"
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^^I found the source at Bohol Chronicle:
Source

:armycheers:
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Hitman
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Fmr TOPP Awardee 82'PNP
Jul 1 2011, 10:23 AM
Philippine External Defense really sucks - Military Corruption has a hand on it's failure.
Scarborough Shoal know as the Spratlys Islands, is a strategic area where hundred of commercial ships pass every day and possess a huge amount of oil and gas. It has political and economic gravitas to start a world war. It has been passionately claimed by six nations: China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam. China has traditionally called it "South China Sea", the Philippines "West Philippine Sea" and Vietnam "East Sea". The three have been the most vexed among the six. Many of the troops have been firing acoustic shots through the years - to bear the sharp fangs-but only the 1978 fire exchange between China and Vietnam resulted in casualties. Eleven Vietnamese dead.
Today, they are firing mostly verbal canon balls at each other. The Vietnamese had rallied to the streets versus the China Embassy. On the other hand, when China sent it's huge patrol boat Hiunsui-31 near the shoal, we pushed our aging and only gunboat called Rajah Humabon (as ancient as his name). It was a dismal sight if it were not laughable.
All six nations vow they want peace and stability in the area while behind them are clutching cocked guns, loaded to assert their own parochial sovereignty. At the President's inaugural, before that and after, Pres. Noynoy Aquino had refused to take sides in this mighty struggle for geopolitical supremacy between the USA and China. It is an undeclared war -economically and militarily, China having dislodged Japan as America's next in line. That has virtually changed now. With China's recent aggressiveness near the Spratlys Islands, the "little brown brother" ran to Uncle Sam and together they invoked a little-used 1951 Mutual defense Treaty, which made it obligatory for one to defend the other, when the latter is being attacked. Secreatry Hilary Clinton said as much.
Despite the double talk through Asst. State Secretary Kurt Campbell that "the US does not intervene in regional issues and those that touch on sovereignty conflicts" , the USA needs RP as a pawn for a proxy war with China over the Spratlys. That's the naked truth. Without US military equipment hardware (sale lease or donation) to RP, this country appears like a school boy daring a 7 foot bully (China) to a wrestling match. In war, guns talk-words are mere posturing. The sad reality is the Philippines does not have a meaningful external defense arsenal. The usual excuse the military uses, is the distractrion caused by the internal secessionist and communist rebellions.
But let us summarize the weakness: The PAF does not have a single fighter jet to ward off intruders to Philippine skies after the phase out of F-5 jet fighters in 2005. What the PAF has are: North American OV-10 Bronco attack aircrafts, (33), Italian Aermachi SF attack-and-transport aircrafts and 25 American McDonnel Douglas Defender attack helicopters-Hardly any bite in any kind of external fight. Today, from January 2010 alone, PAF suffered four air accidents causing 11 fatalities. So without a war, the air force already lost 11 of it's 7,000 men without firing a single bullet. Many of the aircraft have been grounded. A crying shame. A war pundit said that in full scale war, the bullets of the PA will be cponsumed in less than four days. How true? The army needs better powered guns than their usual repaired M-16s, night googles, bullet proof vests helmets , and my goodness-boots that last please.
And what about replacements for the Simba tanks and new back up helicopters ?
The Navy, on the other hand, needs coast watch and tank watch systems, multipurpose helicopters and offshore and sea lift vessels. We have been left too much behind.
Results of the COA investigations earlier revealed that the culprit behind this has been - don't hold your breath-" is the "systematic corruption" in handling of the AFP Modernization Plans. By 2005, the AFP had spent P11-Billion and we recall another P 5 Billion programmed for the years 2009 and 2010. We wonder aloud to what ever happened to all of those ? (Enter the Garcia et. al names by Rabusa)
In summary, they claimed "modernization was a magnet of corruption - that went into conversion, ghost deliveries, overpriced materials, stocking of needless office supplies, parties, and operating expenses. " All not in the scope-mandate of the AFP Modernization. So, who is to blame for our decrepit, obsolete and weak external defense system ? NOT THE MUSLIMS AND THE COMMUNISTS, but by themselves alone, (corrupt regimes and corrupt hierarchy of the AFP)

FMR TOPP;

well done sir, very good and complete report/ explanation. This is what I have been writing here too. I rest my case. This include the politicians who should have upheld and enforced the law and court martialed these crooks in our AFP who are plentyful and infested with it. It will take a generation to cleanse up this mess, if ever. In the meantime our country now is in a very vulnerable position. We are still lucky that we have the US that might help us but the US power is also dwindling and in decline in coming years. As a sovereign nation we should stand up to ourselves. the blessings of US defense umbrella will be fine but the way our defense is to be structured and designed is to defend ourselves without outside help and this need considerable amount of assets just as you mentioned above. These corruptions as a result of our inability to secure our borders and preparedness is a serious crime related to our national security. And as usual they are still getting away with it. Its like a mafia operation, where if there will be a whisttle blower, he will be eliminated immediately, like what happened to Bobby Dacer. and countless others who exposed anomalies end up in a body bag. To stop and fight this is we need to face it head on arrest them all from top to bottom, if they intimidate and use violence then we give them that too and finish them off.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
victor
Member
[ *  *  * ]

US-PH NAVAL EXERCISES TO BOOST SECURITY IN SPRATLYS


Inaasahang mas lalakas ang pagbabantay ng tropang Pinoy sa Spratlys dahil sa
pagsasanay ngayon ng US at Philippine Navy! Ito'y sa kabila ng pagdagdag ng China at ibang bansa ng kanilang mga istraktura sa Spratly Islands.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/07...curity-spratlys
Address Spratly Island to KALAYAAN ISLANDS, South China Sea to WESTERN PHILIPPINE SEA or Kanlurang Dagat ng Pilipinas.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
horizon
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Defense chief welcomes US Senate resolution on Spratlys

MANILA, Philippines—The Department of National Defense has welcomed a US Senate resolution that “deplores” China’s use of force in the potentially resource-rich West Philippine Sea.
Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin said the resolution is an assurance that the Philippines can rely on the United States to defend its claimed territories in the Spratly Islands.
“This is good for us because we have an assurance that at least the US will extend assistance in case there is a conflict in the area,” Gazmin said Friday.
Tensions in the West Philippine Sea region have escalated in recent weeks, with the Philippines and Vietnam alarmed at what they say are increasingly aggressive actions by Beijing in disputed waters.
The US Senate’s symbolic resolution “deplores the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from China in the South China Sea” and urges a “multilateral, peaceful process to resolve these disputes.”
The Senate measure also “supports the continuation of operations by the United States Armed Forces in support of freedom of navigation rights in international waters and air space in the South China Sea.”
Gazmin said it simply shows that the US Senate is not pleased with the way China asserts its claims over the contested 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the West Philippine Sea.
He said the US involvement in the West Philippine Sea territorial issue could “result to a stalemate.”
“[China] is a superpower and the one not agreeing with its policies in the area is another superpower [US]. So a superpower against a superpower will result to a stalemate,” Gazmin said.
But Gazmin said it was not necessary for the US to deploy a large number of troops in the West Philippine Sea.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/5202/defe..._medium=twitter
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Haaay puro word wars......
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic »
Locked Topic