Duterte made Earthquake Tsunami to USA to kill Mutual Defence Treaty, defecting to Beijing! MAGA!

[Ang4MohTrump]

http://www.sohu.com/a/285493239_162...&spm=smpc.content.fd-d.4.1546081698994Q2Oognk




环球网
58万文章 213亿总阅读
查看TA的文章>


2

• 分享到

菲防长突然称可能会废除美菲共同防御条约，美方赶紧表态

2018-12-29 17:21

【环球网报道 记者 赵衍龙】12月28日，菲律宾国防部长洛伦扎纳(DelfinLorenzana)表示，已经指示国防部律师审查菲律宾与美国的共同防御条约(MDT)，旨在决定“是否该维护、加强或废除该条约”，菲律宾《每日问询者报》当日披露了这一消息。

报道称，洛伦扎纳表示，如果对1951年菲律宾和美国之间的《共同防御条约》(MDT)的审查结果显示“该条约与菲律宾的国家利益不再相关”，就有可能废除该条约。

洛伦扎纳当天在新闻发布会上说到，该条约签订于1951年，当时有一场激烈的冷战，“我们今天还有冷战吗?这和我们的安全还有关系吗?”

洛伦扎纳强调，审查的最终目标是“维持、加强或废除它”。不过，洛伦扎纳也表示这不是菲律宾政府的正式行动，只是指示国防部这样去审查。

《马尼拉公报》29日报道，菲律宾一名反对派议员星期六表示支持对菲律宾和美国之间的《共同防御条约》(MDT)进行审议的提议。

马格达洛党籍众议员加里·亚历哈诺(Gary Alejano)表示，有必要重新审视1951年的《共同防御条约》，以澄清其“含糊”的规定。

美方反应：坚信同盟关系牢不可破

菲律宾GMA新闻网28日报道，对于菲律宾防长的此番言论，美国方面当日就作出回应称示，仍然相信美国与菲律宾之间的同盟关系。

美国驻马尼拉大使馆新闻专员Trude Raizen表示，“我们与菲律宾通过共同防御条约建立了强大而稳固的安全同盟”，“正如金成(美国驻菲律宾大使)大使所说，我们对这个同盟的承诺是绝对的，这是牢不可破的。”

《美菲共同防御条约》规定，当两国任何一方受到外国军队攻击时，两国将互相帮助。这包括“对任何一方的领土，或其管辖的太平洋岛屿领土、其武装部队、太平洋上的公共船只或飞机”的武装攻击。返回搜狐，查看更多

声明：该文观点仅代表作者本人，搜狐号系信息发布平台，搜狐仅提供信息存储空间服务。

阅读 (3万)




World Wide Web

580,000 articles
21.3 billion total reading

View TA's article >

2

share to

The Philippine Defense Minister suddenly said that the US-Philippines joint defense treaty may be abolished, and the US has quickly stated its position.
2018-12-29 17:21

[Global Network Reporter Zhao Yanlong] On December 28th, Philippine Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana said that he has instructed the Defense Department lawyers to review the Philippines and the United States' Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), aiming to decide whether to maintain or strengthen Or abolish the treaty," the Philippines Daily Inquirer reported on the same day.

According to the report, Lorenzana said that if the review of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States in 1951 reveals that "the treaty is no longer relevant to the national interests of the Philippines," it is possible to repeal the treaty. .

Lorenzana said at the press conference that the treaty was signed in 1951, when there was a fierce cold war. "Do we still have a cold war today? Is this related to our security?"

Lorenzana stressed that the ultimate goal of the review is to "maintain, strengthen or abolish it." However, Lorenzana also said that this is not the official action of the Philippine government, but only instructed the Ministry of Defense to review it.

The Manila Bulletin reported on the 29th that an opposition member of the Philippines expressed support for the proposal to review the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States.

Gary Alejano, a member of the Magdalen Party, said it was necessary to revisit the 1951 Common Defence Treaty to clarify its "ambiguous" provisions.

US response: firmly believe that the alliance relationship is unbreakable

The Philippine GMA News Network reported on the 28th that the US side responded to the Philippine Defense Minister’s remarks on the same day and still believes in the alliance between the United States and the Philippines.

Trude Raizen, the US Embassy in Manila’s Embassy, said, “We have established a strong and solid security alliance with the Philippines through a joint defense treaty.” As Ambassador Jin Cheng (US Ambassador to the Philippines) said, our commitment to this alliance is absolute. This is unbreakable."

The US-Philippines Common Defence Treaty stipulates that when either side of the two countries is attacked by foreign troops, the two countries will help each other. This includes “armed attacks on the territory of either party, or the Pacific island territory under its jurisdiction, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific”. Go back to Sohu and see more
Disclaimer: This article only represents the author himself, Sohu is the information publishing platform, and Sohu only provides information storage space services.
Reading (30,000)




http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/03/23/us-foreign-policy-is-failing-in-the-philippines/
US foreign policy is failing in the Philippines
23 March 2018
Author: Luke Lischin, National War College

In spite of the United States’ renewed focus on great power competition in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the war against terrorism will remain salient to US strategy. In few places is this clearer than in the Philippines.

The United States’ ongoing efforts to bolster its military aid under the remit of counterterrorism cooperation reflects Washington’s desire for continued influence in the region. Unfortunately for the United States, military aid to the Philippines without diplomatic and economic policies to match will not be sufficient to mitigate Chinese influence.

In September 2017, the United States upgraded its Operation Pacific Eagle mission in the Philippines to an Overseas Contingency Operation in recognition of the presence of the so-called Islamic State (IS) on the island of Mindanao. The details of the operation are scant — 200–300 US Special Forces personnel are currently serving in an advisory capacity, and US$20 million is committed to the reconstruction of Marawi.

Although the United States deployed about double that number of operators during the height of Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines, the current deployment is a notable accomplishment given President Rodrigo Duterte’s desire to expel them from the country. Pacific Eagle’s designation as an OCO effectively removes caps on military and civilian spending in support of the operation, clearing the path for its budget to grow significantly. Bourgeoning counterterrorism funding is a tantalising incentive for Manila to cooperate closely with Washington, but it belies the fact that success for Pacific Eagle will not ‘come cheap’.

A lasting peace in the Philippines remains out of reach as the Abu Sayyaf group has returned to the fore alongside other pro-IS militants. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) remain poorly trained and underequipped. Meanwhile, the Moro peace process continues to wither on the vine as the legislation negotiated to end the conflict awaits consideration in the Senate.

Polling suggests that the Philippines is receptive to US military engagement. Although Philippine confidence in US leadership remains strong, it is in decline. Similarly, the AFP remain stalwarts of the US–Philippine alliance — a situation that Duterte openly laments.

The United States can feel justifiably confident in pursuing Pacific Eagle with the support of the military and the public, but it cannot count on the Philippine Congress. Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque Jr has repeatedly downplayed the significance of US–Philippine cooperation on counterterrorism and Duterte has gone as far as blaming Washington for masterminding a botched counterterrorism operation. Even in pursuit of an ostensibly shared goal, Duterte cannot be counted upon to do more than cynically embrace US–Philippine cooperation and begrudgingly accept US funds and supplies.

While the US seeks to preserve its relationship with the Philippines through military ties, China seeks to contest US influence by using trade, investment, and economic aid as an avenue to expanding security ties. Productive economic relations with both the United States and China are vital to the Philippines’ economic wellbeing, which makes it unlikely that trade and investment with one country will overshadow the other in the near term.

As things currently stand, the United States dwarfs Chinese contributions to the Philippine economy in terms of both foreign direct investment and the value of remittances. According to the Philippines Statistics Authority, the top contributors of approved Foreign Direct Investment to the Philippines in 2017 by percentage were Japan (30.3 per cent), Taiwan (10.3 per cent), Singapore (9.6 per cent), the Netherlands (9.1 per cent), and the United States (8.3 per cent), while China contributed just 2.2 per cent.

Even so, Beijing advances an economic policy that is more coherent and ambitious than anything put forward by Washington, especially since the latter withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Until the United States manages to formulate an economic strategy for the Philippines, it will continue to rely on reinvigorating its security ties with Manila in order to offset China’s nascent efforts to expand its policies in that same area.

As Duterte criticises and scapegoats the United States, he continues to seek greater security assistance from China. The quality and quantity of Chinese military aid to the Philippines pale in comparison to US contributions, but it has garnered the effusive gratitude of Duterte. In 2017, China provided approximately US$300 million in military aid and disaster assistance, marking the beginning of what Duterte heralded as ‘the dawn of a new era’. In December of the same year, Beijing and Manila completed talks to expand cooperation in these areas. By February 2018, Duterte proposed sending his troops for counterterrorism training in China as a means of ‘creating balance’.

Duterte continues to play down the significance of enhanced Chinese military capabilities in the South China Sea, even while incidents such as the unilateral survey of Benham Rise by Chinese vessels stoke national anxieties over Philippine sovereignty. As the Duterte administration continues to engage in apologetics and paper tiger rhetoric to assuage the public’s anxieties over Beijing’s intentions, Washington must appreciate that its defence ties with the Philippines face a challenge.

Pacific Eagle cannot hope to repair US–Philippines relations while keeping China at bay on its own. The United States will need to come to this realisation as it engages with its allies and potential partners in the region through weapons sales and military diplomacy. Ad hoc policies that rely on US defence capabilities and military aid are poor replacements for a long-term foreign relations strategy. As President Donald Trump‘s administration enters its second year in office, it is running out of time to formulate one.

Luke Lischin is an academic assistant at the National War College.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National War College.

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://www.manilatimes.net/time-to-reboot-our-us-defense-ties/487990/

Time to reboot our US defense ties
By FRANCISCO S. TATAD
December 26, 2018

• home
• /
• Opinion
• /
• Op-Ed Columns
• /
• Opinion on Page One
• /
• Time to reboot our US defense ties

FRANCISCO S. TATAD
Driven by security concerns over the Philippines’ South China Sea dispute with China, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana has proposed a review of our Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the United States. This has not been formally endorsed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which speaks for the government on such matters, but neither has the DFA nor Malacanang disowned it. It is the most significant statement on the subject to date. It cannot simply be disregarded.
Concluded in 1951, the MDT remains the basic defense instrument between the Philippines and the US, after the 1947 Military Bases Agreement (MBA) expired in 1991 and the Senate rejected its proposed extension by a further 10 years. The 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement and the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement are but the MDT’s implementing agreements.
MDT background
The MDT came at a time of serious security challenges in Asia. In 1949, Mao Zedong’s communist forces took over China and drove Chiang Kaishek’s nationalist forces to Taiwan. In 1950, the Korean war broke out and left the Korean peninsula divided between North and South. As Japan rose from the nuclear ashes of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the communists threatened to engulf Indonesia, and the Vietnamese moved to defeat the French colonial forces at Dien-Bien-Phu, resulting in the partitioning of Indo-China. Under President Elpidio Quirino and later, Ramon Magsaysay, the Philippines faced an armed rebellion by the Hukbalahap — the Filipino fighters originally organized against the Japanese occupation army.
The threat of a communist hegemony emerging in the Pacific provided the glue to the Philippine-US military alliance, first in the MBA, and then in the MDT. In the MDT, the two allies agreed to act together to repel any armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific, or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific. “Metropolitan territory of the Philippines” means all of the land areas and all adjacent waters subject to the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines, in accordance with international law, lying with the area delineated by Spain and the US in the Treaty of Paris of Dec. 10, 1898, and in the Treaty of Washington concluded by the US and Great Britain on Jan. 2, 1930.
In case of attack
Under Article IV of the MDT, an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the parties would be “recognized” as “dangerous” to the other’s peace and safety, and this party will have to “act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.” Any armed attack and any attempt to repel it should be immediately reported to the UN Security Council, which shall take the measures necessary to restore peace and international security. Thereafter, any counter-measures taken by the affected party shall cease.

This provision was strongly repudiated by Filipino critics who found it vague and meaningless.
To the nationalist Sen. Claro M. Recto, who chaired the constitutional convention that crafted the 1935 Philippine Constitution, the core article of the MDT was much too weak, compared with the counterpart article of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Where the MDT merely provides for consultations according to its constitutional process after one of the parties is attacked, the NATO treaty provides for automatic retaliation by all its members.

Article V of the NATO treaty provides:
“The Parties are agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that if, such an attack occurs, each of them, in the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually or in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Recto vs Romulo
The late Gen. Carlos P. Romulo, who headed the Philippine panel that negotiated the MDT, tried to assure Recto that the US would not fail to respond if the Philippines were attacked.
Recto remained unconvinced. In 1954, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (Seato) was established in Manila, with the US, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan as members. It was intended to prevent communism from gaining ground in Asia, but it did not add anything new to the Philippine-US security alliance.
On its every anniversary, the Seato secretary general would say, because of Seato, not an inch of territory had been lost to the communists. But France and Pakistan eventually started taking “independent” positions vis-a-vis the other members. They eventually withdrew, prompting the Philippines and Thailand to move for the dismantling of the alliance in1975. By then the communists had won in Vietnam.
Dulles’ assurance
The strongest assurance of an appropriate US response to an armed attack under the MDT came from Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, when he said that because of the US air and naval dispositions in the Philippines, “an armed attack on the Philippines could not but be also an attack upon the military forces of the United States. As between our nations, it is no legal fiction to say that an attack on one is an attack on both. It is a reality that an attack on the Philippines is an attack on the United States.”
Eisenhower reiterated this assurance in his joint communique with then President Carlos P. Garcia on the latter’s state visit to Washington, DC on June 20, 1958. It was later incorporated in the so-called Bohlen-Serrano Memorandum of Agreement of 1959, and reaffirmed by the Ramos-Rusk exchange of notes of 1966.
But in his monumental book, A Question of Sovereignty, Ambassador Eduardo Romualdez, who headed the Philippine panel during the 1976 renegotiations of the bases agreement with the US, points out that this assurance was not based on what the MDT provides, but rather on the fact that “the dispositions of US air and naval forces in the Philippines were “such” that an armed attack on the Philippines “could not but be an armed attack upon the military forces of the United States” and therefore, would be repelled.”
Romualdez points out that in 1954, when Dulles issued his statement, US forces were scattered throughout the archipelago, from Aparri in the north to TawiTawi in the south, and from Palawan in the west to Samar in the east. Any attack on any part of the Philippines would certainly endanger some American units, writes Romualdez. But would Dulles’s reassurance still hold, if the US air and naval dispositions were altered, as in fact, they have been altered upon the end of the bases agreement in 1991? Would the US feel obligated to respond if the Philippines were attacked, without inflicting damage on any US public vessels or aircraft?
Cyrus Vance reiterates
In a letter to Romulo on Jan. 6, 1979, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance stated:
“Article V of the MDT states that for the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific. All elements of this definition are of equal validity in terms of US commitment under the treaty. Metropolitan territory is defined below. However, as provided in Article V, an attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific would not have to occur within the metropolitan of the Philippines or inland territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific in order to come within the definition of Pacific area in Article V.”
Never has there been any doubt that the US has no commitment to the defense of the Philippine-claimed territory in the Spratlys, even if attacked by the Chinese. In 1969, during the so-called Symington Senate hearings on “US security agreements and commitments abroad,” Sen. William Fulbright, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, while questioning Rear Admiral Draper Kauffman, the commander of the US naval forces in the Philippines, expressed doubt that the US had any real commitment to defend the Philippines.
Fulbright’s assertions
“Maybe this is the point,” Fulbright said, “we are really not there to protect the Philippines. We are there to serve our own purpose, to maintain a base for what we believe to be our forward protection against China or anybody else. That is our purpose.” To which Kauffman replied, “Oh, yes, sir.” So it’s all window-dressing? Fulbright asked.
One thing is certain: The US military bases are gone, and the MDT has not been put to the test. The Chinese geopolitical and geostrategic threat, for which reason we entered into the MDT 67 years ago, has evolved. So has national response. We no longer have a unified response. While Lorenzana and the defense establishment may still consider China a continuing security concern, President Rodrigo Duterte looks to China as a source of economic aid and investments and of unquestioning support for his authoritarian policies.
Lorenzana apparently believes the MDT could be made to work if it were given NATO’s automatic retaliatory clause, and the US commitment to defend its ally in case of attack were extended to the contested territories in the Spratlys. But aside from DU30’s change of heart with respect to the Philippines’ rightful claim in the Spratlys, we must also now contend with the unpredictability of US policies toward America’s allies.
President Donald Trump’s unvetted decision to withdraw all of the US’ 2,000 fighting men from Syria, without consulting the US defense establishment, the leaders of Congress and America’s allies, has created an enormous uncertainty in the area of military cooperation with the US. Lorenzana may have no one in Washington, DC left to listen to his MDT proposal after Secretary James Mattis left the Pentagon.
[email protected]

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://www.rt.com/news/447638-philippines-earthquake-mindanao-island/

HomeWorld News

7.0 quake in Mindanao triggers brief tsunami warning for Philippines & Indonesia
Published time: 29 Dec, 2018 03:51 Edited time: 29 Dec, 2018 05:43
Get short URL

© USGS

• 53034
• 
  
• 58
• 
  
• 
  

A brief tsunami warning has been issued for the Philippines, as well as for the coasts of Indonesia and Palau, after a powerful 7.0 earthquake hit the southern island of Mindanao.
The National Weather Service's Pacific Tsunami Warning System initially released a hazardous wave alert for all coasts within 300 kilometers of the quake, a radius that includes much of Indonesia and the Philippines.


There have been no immediate reports of casualties or damage from the Mindanao quake, which hit at a depth of 49km at 3:39 UTC on Saturday.
Government agencies have been advised to inform populations in coastal areas of the risk and to instruct them on relevant evacuation procedures, depending on the threat level. The islands of Geme and Tabukan Tengah (Indonesia) as well as Davao (Philippines) may experience tsunami waves within the hour. Davao City, on the southern Philippines island of Mindanao, is home to over 1.6 million people.

Indonesia's Sumatra and Java were struck by a deadly tsunami last weekend that was triggered by a massive underwater landslide caused by the erupting Anak Krakatau volcano. At least 426 people died in the Sunda Strait because of the tsunami, authorities said Friday, lowering the initial death toll as some of the victims were recorded twice.

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...i-krakatoa-lost-two-thirds-of-height-11071834




Asia Indonesian tsunami volcano lost two-thirds of its height

The Indonesian volcano which caused a tsunami that killed more than 400 people last week lost more than two-thirds of its height following the eruption which triggered the killer waves.

Anak Krakatoa is now just 110 metres high after losing two thirds of its height following the eruption that triggered the deadly tsunami AFP/Nurul HIDAYAT

29 Dec 2018 03:53PM (Updated: 29 Dec 2018 04:02PM)
Share this content

181 shares

Bookmark


PANDEGLANG, Indonesia: The Indonesian volcano which caused a tsunami that killed more than 400 people last week lost more than two-thirds of its height following the eruption which triggered the killer waves, an official from the Indonesian volcanology agency said on Saturday (Dec 29).
A section of Anak Krakatoa's crater collapsed after an eruption and slid into the ocean, generating the tsunami last Saturday night.


Anak Krakatoa which used to stand 338m high was now just 110m tall.
The agency estimated the volcano lost between 150 million and 180 million cubic metres of material as massive amounts of rock and ash have been slowly sliding into the sea following a series of eruptions.
"Anak Krakatoa is now much shorter, usually you can see the peak from the observatory post, now you can't," Wawan Irawan, a senior official at the agency, told AFP.
Before and after satellite images taken by Japan's space agency showed that a 2 sq km chunk of the volcanic island had collapsed into the water.



Images taken by JAXA's ALOS-2 satellite show Indonesia's Anak Krakatoa volcano - centre in images - before (left) and after the Dec 22, 2018, eruption. (Photo: Geospatial Indormation Authority of Japan)


READ: Indonesia tsunami: Officials expect death toll to rise, number injured and evacuated jump

The volcano, whose name means Child of Krakatoa, was a new island that emerged around 1928 in the crater left by Krakatoa, whose massive 1883 eruption killed at least 36,000 people.

The exclusion zone around Anak Krakatoa has been extended from two to five kilometres AFP/STR


The crater's status has been raised to high alert, the second-highest warning on Indonesia four-point danger scale.
The exclusion zone has been extended from 2km to 5km.
READ: Another tsunami could hit Indonesia, experts warn

READ: Indonesia 'volcano' tsunami: Angry 'Child of Krakatoa' rumbles on
A week after the tsunami, thousands of Indonesian Muslims attended a mass prayer on Saturday to remember the victims and pray for the safety of their tsunami-prone hometown.
Residents of Pandeglang regency, which was hit the hardest by the disaster, gathered in the early morning, some in tears as they chanted their prayers.
"I prayed for the victims and I also pray for the safety of the people who live in the tsunami affected area," Dadan Suryana, a tsunami survivor, told AFP.
"My prayer is for the victims to get help and be granted patience and I also pray the government will immediately help us to rebuild, to provide clothes and food, or at least to give us moral support," fellow congregant Dian Rosdiana said.


Authorities said at least 426 people were killed and 23 missing in the disaster.
Some 7,202 people suffered injuries and nearly 1,300 homes were destroyed after the waves crashed into the coastlines of western Java island and south Sumatra.
More than 40,000 people have been evacuated for fear of another tsunami as Anak Krakatoa continues to rumble.
Indonesia, a vast Southeast Asian archipelago, is one of the most disaster-hit nations on Earth due to its position straddling the so-called Pacific Ring of Fire, where tectonic plates collide.

 

[glockman]

The pinoys are famous for making bad choices and are masters of fuck-ups. Look at their tanked economy, lack of infrastucture, rampant corruption, extreme poverty and taste like shit jollibee. They need to export more of their young women for men's pleasure.

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

The pinoys are famous for making bad choices and are masters of fuck-ups. Look at their tanked economy, lack of infrastucture, rampant corruption, extreme poverty and taste like shit jollibee. They need to export more of their young women for men's pleasure.

Chow Ang Moh today are nothing but foul rotting dead corpse after suffering more than a decade of being Bankrupted Beggars. Everyone fleeing away from Chow Ang Moh. Now Japs; Ah Neh; Pinoy; Iraq; Turkey; Kim Chi... even fellow Chow Ang Mohs are fleeing from Dotard's foul corpse. What to do?

 

[glockman]

Chow Ang Moh today are nothing but foul rotting dead corpse after suffering more than a decade of being Bankrupted Beggars. Everyone fleeing away from Chow Ang Moh. Now Japs; Ah Neh; Pinoy; Iraq; Turkey; Kim Chi... even fellow Chow Ang Mohs are fleeing from Dotard's foul corpse. What to do?

No la, ang mo will always be the best