The Legacy of the Realist View on International Political Economy

The principal purpose of this paper is to point out the real world and theoretical developments in order to formulate and know the better understanding of International Political Economy. There are many reviews tackled and advanced regarding the various important views in international relations as supported by the study on realism by many scholars and theorists. This paper therefore views the imaginative and active aspect of relationship by different states in the world market and at the same time their interactions with each other in the course of providing a better , conflictual yet challenging ideas and entangled views about international Political Economy.

The analysis and discussion of this paper will dwell on three aspects mainly those contentions regarding the evolution of the realist view in international affairs and the world market and its contributory functions to a better relationship of the individual states in the global market of competition and interest keeping situation. Again, there will be in here the evolution of the understanding of the word globalization with its consideration on the economic aspect of international relationship of states including of which their interactions, forces and conditions of extra-mile understanding of each concerns. Furthermore, in this paper, the writer will dwell on the study of realism per se in contrast with the study of nationalism in understanding in the international arena.

The quest for a better understanding of realism is best describe in manner which contain ideas that involve the state as a primary, principal actor in international affairs, protecting its personal national interests to it. Political realism is a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest. This be the case of the understanding of realism in political manner, one would see the effect of political power in the economic are of study in international political economy. Descriptive political realism commonly holds that the international community is characterized by anarchy, since there is no overriding world government that enforces a common code of rules. Whilst this anarchy need not be chaotic, for various member states of the international community may engage in treaties or in trading patterns that generate an order of sorts, most theorists conclude that law or morality does not apply beyond the nation's boundaries.

In assessing the globalization perspective, one would also understand the realism perspective of the developments in international trade and finance, the multinational firms and corporations and the international political institutions and econo0mic institutions also. Globalization is one of the most charged issues of the day. It is everywhere in public discourse – in TV sound bites and slogans on placards, in web-sites and learned journals, in parliaments, corporate boardrooms and labor meeting halls. Extreme opponents charge it with impoverishing the world's poor, enriching the rich and devastating the environment, while fervent supporters see it as a high-speed elevator to universal peace and prosperity. What is one to think? Amazingly for so widely used a term, there does not appear to be any precise, widely-agreed definition. Indeed the breadth of meanings attached to it seems to be increasing rather than narrowing over time, taking on cultural, political and other connotations in addition to the economic. However, the most common or core sense of economic globalization – the aspect this paper concentrates on - surely refers to the observation that in recent years a quickly rising share of economic activity in the world seems to be taking place between people who live in different countries (rather than in the same country).

Another point is the understanding of globalization or economic globalization of states’ affairs and international affairs. The global political economy is concentrated more on the interaction of the market and such powerful actors as states, multinational firms and international economic organizations. Economic globalization entails different developments of different individual states in the international political economy. Moreover behind this globalization is the conflictual effect of it to the state in particular. Consider this example: imagine that there are different governments interacting with one another. Every government has their own business in their own country and will eventually have conflicts with other inside factors; also everyone is interrelated and will have conflict. To stabilize conflicts inside a state and outside their relations with other relations. The standing or head state will settle things that will be of the best to all states inside and out. Thus stabilization is attained through inside and outside relations of each state. This be the case, the simultaneous relationship of individual states is not forgotten or leave behind

On the relationship of domestic and international affairs, each state pursue its goal of economic prosperity with the action of considering the relationship of states with their domestic policies , plans, and developments and at the same time considering what it can do with the international affairs and agenda. This paper therefore point out the importance of every aspect of realism, though state centered and though anarchical is still challenge and improved for a better outcome. Thus a realism is important ideology in international political economy as a whole.


*note Thought paper for Political Economy to Prof. Severino Milo Distor*

NEOLIBERALISM ON INTERSTATE RELATIONSHIP

Views regarding the idea of international relations and affairs have been understood in many various manners so as to satisfy the need for understanding on variable s affecting behaviors in the international community and at the same time the theories related to such are all essential into managing our knowing on the liberal, neoliberal views and including the Marxist views of inter state relationships or international relations. The concept of this paper would dwell on the exemplified knowledge and essence of the portrayed relationship of the sovereign state with other states.

International relations have been perceived by other scholars and students as the relations among states primarily understood in diplomatic, military and strategic terms. This might be the study of all human interactions across national boarders and the factors that affect the international where it answers the question of who gets what, when and how in matters external to states or in matters crossing lines. Connecting it with the idea specified by the Neoliberals, they point out different features that are needed in the interaction in the different states in the international community. Sovereign states are the key actors in international relations. There is a primary need for institutional autonomy of the sovereign states in order to have or ensure laissez-faire state of the economy. The existence of a sovereign state is essential for economic growth, though the state is the source of man made decline in the economy. Liberalism also demonstrates the state with less domestic agential power to over-ride domestic interests, and with higher degrees of international agential power to reconstitute and shape the international structure. The neoliberals also prefer the respect for the norms of non aggression and non-intervention. Conflicts and competitions are possible in the international co0mmunity of politics and the economy so as to satisfy the different individual needs and vested interests of the sovereign states. Even in domestic and international relations there is always the presence of such competition so the neoliberals support the need for international laws and institutions in order to regulate the interactions of these states. There is also the willingness of international community to act forcefully if necessary in the support of the position for having institutions. The central problem therefore of the political economy is state interventionism in which the maladaptive state fails to adapt or conform to the requirements of individual economic needs. With this the presence of internal conflict always occurs. With this, there came for me a formation of three theories which might somehow be applicable in understanding liberalism. These are first; democratic peace- the need to have an existence of non interventionist would enable a community of sovereign states without conflicts and competitions. Second, the cultural normative model which refers to the stable dimensions of decision makers which they are able to resolve international conflicts. Third, the structural institutional approach which refer to the need of an institution to regulate the actions of the different individual states present in the international community. Francis Fukuyama as a theorist of international relations for instance gave his views with regard to his understanding of the state interventionism. According to him for instance, the fall of the Soviet Union mark the emergence of a world of Relative Ideological Unity based on effective consensus on how to organized industrial society. And for instance in the defeat of Soviet Communism, Liberal Democracy in order to stop the view of state interventionism, eradicated it’s most serious competitors such as the autocratic, authoritarian, national communism and fascism which is basically the factors affecting the so called state interventionism in Neoliberalism. Another example to this is the prediction of Brown an international relation theorist that the future does not necessarily be a neo realist international system but the future might involved what is called a pacific union between Asia and America, thus proving that state interventionism will be abolished. Moreover, the Marxism views also contribute to the theory of international relations in different aspects. The following are the basic and relevant contributions: the materialist conception of history, the analysis of production, the property relations and class, are essential counterweights to realist theorists which assumes that the struggle for military power and security determines the basic structure of world politics. Marx also stressed out the presence of international inequality so there should be a need for an institutions and international laws to regulate such. The analysis of international politics exist due to relations of power and inequality where they may help to reproduce unequal and unjust societies but they can also seek to expose the main systems of dominations and exclusion, and to envisage a better forms of life.

The discipline devoted to embracing the to studying the world of political economy will therefore be introduced using the three models accepted in international relations which are the International Anarchy, Establishment if International Society and the International community. That there is a need to minimize conflict and maximize cooperation in the international system. That the future of international community will be focused on international security and the international political economy which focuses on the trade relation with cooperation and nonstate aggression and non intervention of inter states behaviors. Again and again the role of state is very important and or essential in international community because they are the primary actors in international political economy.

This paper therefore imagines an interactive approach towards managing international relations of various states with all the variables and factors affecting such interactions of states. There may be rise of diverse views and ideas but the neoliberals still point out the existence of such being an international actor in economic and political world market of international political economy.

*note Thought paper for Political Economy to Prof. Severino Milo Distor*

A RATIONALIZATION: The Global Understanding of Neoliberalism

In International Relations theory, there are two schools which are interlocked with each other-namely: Realism and Neoliberalism. These two schools of thought furnish belligerent explanations for state behavior in the international system. Realism deems that interstate collaboration will establish body and system for the peaceful defrayal of divergence. However, Neoliberalism on the other hand argues that merely ‘individual support’ – the construction of government military competence – can guarantee that nation’s interests will be secured. The article consequently brood over on the topic of the liberalists method in the theory of international relations same as through realist methods with their fluctuating differences or attack on discussions of standings on nations in international relations and/or affairs.

The article envision a collaborative approach concerning the treatment in international relations of various states with the up-and-down and aspects touching such interface and collaboration among states. There maybe an intensification of distinct perspectives and thoughts but neoliberals still emphasize the presence of such being an international actor in eco-political world arena of international political economy.

The articles focal point of view is on the different factors of understanding of international relations participated into by different lone nations to be able to view how and individual nation would be able to manage communicating with other states to quench the countries lone needs and wants towards their market relations with other states. Moreover, the author desired to include the knowledge of Marxism perspective in dealing with countries and international affairs not to mention only its political attitude in the progress of political actions but also its movements in its economy inside the market place.

The attack devoted to espousal to the study of world political economy will be established through the use of three models accepted in international relations: International anarchy, establishment of international society and the international community. There is an essentiality to reducing divergence and expanding collaboration in the international system. The imminent of international community will be a focal on the international protection and international political economy which is centered on the transaction relations with collaboration and nonstate antagonism and non intrusion of inter states movements. The function of a nation is very vital and/or significant in international community because they are the pioneer actors in the international political economy.


Neoliberalism a word used to depict a diversity of actions and activities away from state manipulation or securing the economy. The word Neoliberalism is not the only one for such movement or action. It is centered upon the values of unregulated trade and markets and the expanded business horizons – brought about by globalization. Free markets, free trade, and unrestricted flow of capital will yield the utmost political, social and economic good. This shapes infinitesimal government spending, insignificant taxation, minutest regulations, and minimal direct involvement in the economy. The argument is that market forces will naturally fill many areas of jurisdiction for the highest overall gain. Critiques of Neoliberalism assert that market factors are intrinsically not justifiable. It also argues that interest of states should be disassembled or privatized. The thrust of this form of Neoliberalism as part of globalization is to utilize the world's resources: cheap labor, raw materials, markets, in the most efficient way possible, and in doing so, to make more markets open to entrance by developed nations.

According to UC Berkeley (economic historian and defender of Neoliberalism Professor Brad De Long) "The first is that close economic contact between the industrial core [of the capitalist world economy] and the developing periphery is the best way to accelerate the transfer of technology which is the sine qua non for making poor economies rich (hence all barriers to international trade should be eliminated as fast as possible). The second is that governments in general lack the capacity to run large industrial and commercial enterprises. Hence, [except] for core missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and a few others, governments should shrink and privatize."

However, despite the numerous defendants of the Neoliberalism approach to international relations there are still some amicable criticism regarding this school of thought one of which is that it is a free-market capitalism, wherein, economic growth and technological change benefit even the poorest countries and people, even if that process is dominated by multinational corporations, rich domestic elites, and organizations such as the IMF dominated by rich countries' financiers. But then again, according to the article Neoliberalism implicitly states that Neoliberalism is a development and a development for them is a freedom. In this case we then can say that Neoliberalism is concept which became popular among economists as the balance of political power changed.

Neoliberalism is a business-conservative policy aimed at enforcing stringent budget discipline on developed and developing nations by requirements. The practice of neoliberal ideas varies widely. Some proponents see transparency, development and uniformity of regulations as the most important goals, while many others see the dismantling of state regulations, as such, as the primary purpose. Neoliberalism" is often used as a pejorative; in this context it usually means not the economic theory, but the implementation of global capitalism and the power of multinational corporations, as well as the effects of free trade on wages and social structures.

As a final remark, Neoliberals are focused more on how the world has to do what is really needed to be done. Neoliberalism locates a specific incident in the framework of a widespread model that is appropriate transversely many circumstances by scrutinizing the models of international movements through diverse evaluation of ethics, philosophy, and global understanding.


*note Thought paper for Political Economy to Prof. Severino Milo Distor*

Thoughts written for Marxism

It concisely go through the leading foremost postwar restoration of speculative awareness in the public that started in Western Europe during the mid-1960s. This was chiefly started by Marxists involve in the overall procedure and purpose of the capitalist state; but a crucial subsidiary position was performed by Marxist-feminists who prolonged such thought to the patriarchal capitalist government.

This concerned a lot of extra conjectural flux and essential dealings and was also more institutionalist in general method. Even if the self-professed pressure group to 'bring the state back in' began in the United States, a number of the very modern labor in this speculative association is entrenched in less open public focal point method instigated in Western Europe.

It is oft remarked that Marx and Engels left no adequate theory of the state. Instead, their work comprises a loose and often irreconcilable series of philosophical, theoretical, journalistic, partisan, ad hominem, or purely ad hoc comments. Later, the Second International (Social Democracy) and the Comintern (Marxism-Leninism) developed one-sided accounts of the state based on selective interpretation of certain accessible basic writings of Marx and Engels.
The other main contributions to state theory in the interwar period were those of first generation Critical Theorists concerned with the trends towards a strong, bureaucratic state -- whether authoritarian or totalitarian in form. (3) This corresponded to the development of organized or state capitalism, relied increasingly on the mass media for its ideological power, and had integrated the trade union movement as a political support or else smashed it as part of the consolidation of totalitarian rule. Gramsci was also writing during this period, of course; but his prison notebooks only became widely known and influential in the 1950s and 1960s.

Thus Marxism was accused of economic reductionism for its emphasis on base-superstructure relations and the class struggle; pluralism was charged with limiting its account of competition for state power to interest groups and movements rooted in civil society and thus ignoring the distinctive role and interests of state managers; and structural-functionalism was criticized for assuming that the development and subsequent operations of the state or political system were determined by the functional requirements of society as a whole. According to 'state-centred' theorists such approaches put the cart before the horse. They themselves argued that state activities and impact are easily explained in terms of its own distinctive properties as an administrative or repressive organ and/or the equally distinctive properties of the broader political system encompassing the state. Societal factors, when not actually deemed wholly irrelevant, were certainly secondary; and their impact on state affairs was always filtered through the political system and the state itself.

Current state speculates and public investigation is much more varied than that which happened throughout the 1970s. Yet the diverse currents go through above frequently appear to have pursued a comparable route to that followed by the Marxist debate. The latter start-off in a assessment of the supposed activist figment of imagination of communal self-governing and/or mixed accounts of the state and was alarmed to demonstrate why the state in a investor society was also and necessarily a capitalist state. It was later strained into rising acknowledgement of the eventuality of state systems and commands the difference in state capacities and function. And this in errand foster the desertion of extremely intellectual theorizing with its early end of many subject and moved the examination to more tangible, formal levels. This importance on eventuality aid to clarify the occurrence of the two understanding renowned. That form problematizes function and that the state is an institutional ensemble that has variable structural selectivity and strategic capacities.




*note Thought paper for Political Behavior to Prof. Severino Milo Distor*

RP-US VFA: Blind Obedience through DIPLOMACY!

The visiting forces agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America depicts the 4^th major function of diplomacy which is choosing the appropriate means to pursue objectives.

The VFA is an agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America signed on February 10, 1998 and ratified by the Senate of the Philippines in 1999. The said agreement grants American soldiers and civil employees of the US Department of Defense visiting the Philippines special rights and privileges. It could be said that the visiting forces agreement is one way of how the United States of America is practicing its soft power through the form of DIPLOMACY!

Why is there a need for the world’s super power, US to have agreement like the VFA? The US needs ports, training facilities and logistical bases for their continuing participation, occupation of and war activities on different parts of the world, especially those in the Middle East. An agreement like the VFA is needed by the US to make the Philippines a support base for US military operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Through this scenario just like what USA did to Israel (against Lebanon) they did use Diplomacy through the Visiting forces agreement as a means of pursuing their objective which is to make the Philippines as their logistical bases against Middle East Asian Countries.

At this very moment, the Philippines is still possessing it’s diplomatic character as an underdog of influential countries just like the United States of America. It may appear that we are just allies however the truth is further beyond how it appears. We are more than an ally we are indeed slaves within our own land for we have no sovereignty in our own LAWS!

In the controversial Subic Rape Case, Where is the “spirit of the law?” Why celebrate the "quarter-victory" when the Philippine government acts as the lawyer for the Americans, cannot even demand custody and accepts the VFA as puppet's delight when Filipinos are being oppressed and trampled by US occupation troops aka "visiting forces" who raped our women and make a mockery of our laws?

Some media presents the decision as half-victory and that people are half-satisfied. The fact that only one out of four was convicted does not make it half. The half-ness even get worse as the US Embassy was again pushed to take custody of Smith in much the same manner when the US government took custody of the four rapists during trial. There were 2,000 criminal cases committed since the US Bases were established in the Philippines for the last century. Except for Smith, none was ever convicted. Looking at the big picture, any crime committed by US servicemen will never see justice so long as the Philippine government remains a puppet and tied to the military agreement that violates the Philippine Constitution, which explicitly states: “…that no foreign troops will be allowed in any part of the country for combat purposes.”

Palestine’s History: A Product of Subsequent Injustices!

The bloodshed in Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues as the clock quickly runs. The conflict in Gaza strip has been controversial but what we do not understand is the real grievances felt by the Palestinians. Their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. The rest of the terrorist acts are just part of the inevitable acts of injustices.

The Conflict between the two territories did not just started at the year 2006 but it is actually a product of what have happened in the History of Palestine. It started when there were Europeans (Zionist) who went to Palestine and their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine. More and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine – many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state – the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. It was also during this time that Hitler rise to power. Most of the Muslim countries Sided with Hitler (one of which where those who were in Palestine-the Zionist), however the Muslim countries were never defeated in WWII; they were merely pacified, and are still fighting the war to kill all the Jews. This is not something that just started, this has been going on for a very long time, decades there was never peace. There are only cease fires so that Palestinians could re arm and attack again.

The conflict doesn’t end in the Historical Background of Gaza Strip. The conflict began on June 24, 2006, when in light of ongoing Qassam rocket attacks on Israeli cities, Israeli operatives seized suspected Hamas members Osama and Mustafa Muamar in the Gaza Strip. On June 25, a Hamas attack in Israeli checkpoint resulted in the deaths of two Israeli soldiers and the capture of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit. In turn, Israel launched Operation Summer Rains on June 28. Why do the Israeli’s constantly fires back against Gaza? The Reason goes back to WW2, the Palistinians, and other Muslim Arabs, sided with Hitler in WW2; they want to exterminate the Jews. Hamas itself, in its charter, calls for the complete destruction of Israel, and to replace it with a Fundamentalist Muslim Nation. Hamas is the Party in power within Palestine and they are the most Extreme and Violent of the Palestinians as of today. Israel is a close ally of the United States of America, thus, having a new leadership in USA will this contribute in resolving the conflict? The administration of Obama might take some time before they meddle into this issue because in his inaugural speech he didn’t mention any plans of mediating in the current status of the said conflict. However, the former President of the United States, George W. Bush had plans regarding the conflict during his second term however it did not push through.


Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, and one of the three-strong team, admitted there had been a "failure of diplomacy" in response to the Gaza crisis so far. The UN Security Council had agreed on a resolution—with America abstaining-calling for a ceasefire and the eventual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip. The lack of an American veto was notable. Earlier, America had seemed willing to block a UN resolution, in order to let Israel continue to pound Gaza, at least as long as Hamas continued to launch rockets into southern Israel. By abstaining America may be indicating, however tentatively, that an international consensus is forming that the bloodshed has gone on long enough. If only Hamas and Israel would agree. Israel called the ceasefire “unworkable”; Hamas representatives in Beirut and Gaza scoffed, too, noting that they had no hand in its drafting. Meanwhile, Israeli forces battle on in Gaza, taking life. In another incident the United Nations human-rights agency suggested that Israeli forces may be guilty of a war crime, after a report from Red Cross officials suggesting that Israeli soldiers had failed to assist wounded civilians in Gaza. Israeli bombing continued through the night after the UN resolution, and Hamas rockets continued to fly. In view of United Nations stand regarding the conflict is keeping this going by constantly telling israel (who has the fire power to end it for good) to stop fighting back when they are attacked. In Modern times, it can be said that the United Nations have something to do with this conflict because The United Nations only condemns Israel, and never The Palistinians. the UN could force an Embargo on Israel, so they have to comply. Hamas is never held accountable by any external forces except the USA (minimal intervention). The best thing that the United Nations should do is to back out of it all together, and let the reasonable State (Israel) handle the problem. If Israel, Eradicate Hamas and its supporters, that time the problem will be solved. Fairness perpetuates a war, let Israel take care of the problem.

The Department of Foreign affairs have reported that only six out of some 108 Filipinos residing in Gaza agreed to be pulled out under the Philippine government's evacuation plan as most of the others chose to stay behind with their families in the Palestinian territory even though Israeli forces stepped up air and ground strikes. Initially, 70 have agreed to be evacuated to Amman, Jordan where they will be flown back to Manila. But a day before the evacuation began, many have backed out and the figure dwindled to six. Philippine Ambassador to Israel Petronila Garcia said in a report that many backed out because they can't leave behind their Palestinian spouses and their children, who are not allowed by the Israeli authority to leave under the Philippines' evacuation plan.

In an article written by Bradley Burton he considered Negotiation with Hamas as one of the better solution. He argued that Hamas is not only the democratically elected ruler of Gaza, it also still enjoys broad, if somewhat dimished, popular support in the Strip. Because it trades on an ideology of martyrdom and steadfastness in the face of attack, it will be defeated neither by economic sanctions nor military confrontation. There is no alternative to talks toward a cease-fire, which Hamas has been proposing for years, holding out the offer of the return of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in an exchange for jailed Hamas men. But personally and in my own opinion the end really justifies the means - it really breaks down to: Hamas will not stop until the jews are dead. Israel will stop when they are no longer attacked.


*note this articles was done for Reaction purposes on Gaza Strip conditions for Asst. Prof Jennifer Aquino's Class*

“Mutualism on Information Technology and Diplomacy”

All through history of International relations, the flow of information has always been the essence of Diplomacy. Now, after the informational society has replaced the industrial society and when the internet penetrates every sphere of human activity, diplomacy is undergoing a process of drastic transition to a new, higher level of informational operations. The development of information technology has drastically changed the nature of diplomatic activities at the end of 20th Century, Internet diplomacy has emerged as one of the major branches of foreign services’ activities. (Petrosyan, Petrosyan: Diplomacy in the Light of Information Technology Development in the Caucasus, 2001)

The writer, Jovan Kurbalija points out different views and angles regarding the effects of Information Technology in Diplomacy. In a general overview of the article, it points out some of the advantages and disadvantages of Information technology in Diplomacy. It argues that the fast developments occurring in the age of information technology provides advancement in diplomatic practices of foreign countries from each other.

The changes that occur in Diplomatic practices which occurs through development in Information technology range from upgrading telecommunications and computer systems to rethinking completely the nature of enterprises and entire industries. The changes which occur range from immediate enhancements of training new staffs / people engage in diplomatic practices with the use of technology for long term challenges / development plans within countries involved in foreign relations.

In a view of individual, structural and societal levels, information technology will change the nature of diplomatic practice as well as those who are engaged with it who at the same time carry out the functions and responsibilities of diplomatic practice. According to Thomas Friedman, in many respects, these new forms of communications increase interpersonal collaboration, particularly in the business and academic communities. It is also stated in the article that if technology is use properly, new information technologies can provide the public affairs of governments meddle with diplomatic practices with new and effective tools of characterizing or describing the current status of their governments’ foreign relations.

However, the article relates the challenges in a State towards their sovereignty. It is argued in the article that the entry of globalization to a state through information technology is one way of lessening a government’s power over its territory (sovereignty). Consequently, the writer stated that “one of the paradoxes that needs to be managed by diplomats is that of protecting sovereignty and at the same time promoting state participation in the process of global and regional integration.” This statement from the last part of that articles’ section explains how people fro the government can cope up with the challenges faced by the government in terms of its sovereignty as affected by the development of its technological advancement.



*note this articles is purposely done for Asst. Prof. Jennifer Aquino's class Diplomatic Practice*

SPRATLY: ON THE HANDS OF DIPLOMACY?

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has been through several controversies since her first day in office as the 14th Filipino President. In the recently concluded year 2008 which has served as a roller coaster ride for the Arroyo Administration. It is in this year that the controversial fertilizer fund scam was re-opened to the public attention and who will ever forget the most controversial scandal among all scandals, the NBN-ZTE Deal! This has caught the attention of the Filipino Public. Several political figures have rise and partly became instantly celebrities (i.e. Jun Lozada, Benjamin Abalos, Joey De Venecia, and FG). However, the name of the President has been dragged out in the scene. The NBN-ZTE deal proved that there is an existing special relationship between top leaders of the ZTE Company and the Philippine President herself and her husband at the same time.

The pictures cannot lie this is what JDV’s “autobiography” simply retorts. A picture of the first family with former Commelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos, First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo, Jose De Venecia, PGMA, and an alleged top official of the Chinese Telecommunications has been circulating in the Broadsheets and World Wide Web. These pictures were believed to be taken in Shenzhen, China while the political figures are having their leisure time via golf. These photos manifest different angles: betrayal of public trust, transparency in governance, and legitimacy of foreign international relations entered into by the Philippine Government under the Arroyo regime.

In relation to the controversial NBN-ZTE Deal, at the year 2004 the Philippine Government has gone through as secret deal with the Chinese Government for a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking around the area of Spratly, Islands. This was kept from the Filipino Public for years since it has been signed way back the year 2005. It Calls for a joint seismic research and investigation of oil resources in the area. This collaboration between the two governments has been first announced by the former ally and House Speaker of the Philippine Congress, Rep. Jose De Venecia at the year 2003. It was in this project that they also have attached the plans of RP-CHINA to have joint venture against terror.

However, the Spratly agreement between the two countries is believed to have violated the constitution because while it was a deal between the state owned oil firms (PNOC of the Philippines and CNOOC of China) of the two countries, it implicitly gave China access to our oil reserves. This agreement consequently strengthened the claims of Vietnam and China. In the Philippine Constitution, it states that every natural resources found and located in the country is exclusively for the use of the Filipinos. However, our sovereignty was again at risk at this fragile issue. The joint agreement authorizes the Chinese Government to go through the oil reserves of the Spratly Islands, conversely, the sovereignty entails that it is our right to own and exploit our own resources. Thus this makes China’s intervention and abuse of our territorial claim over Spratly – Unconstitutional.

Ricky Carandang (A News Anchor) stated that $2 billion is committed by the Chinese Government to the Philippine Government until 2010 – Arroyos end of term as the President. Our Government has been constantly thrown with accusations of graft and corrupt practices when a certain project is funded by the Chinese Government (i.e. Northrail, Cyber Education, the Fuhua agricultural projects, Southrail, and of course the ZTE National Broadband project). Another financial aid given to us by the Chinese government is the OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE which also promotes friendship between the two countries. However, these financial loans are not free loans and it needed to be paid or there is a special trade which may incur. These loans are naturally paid by the Philippine Government whether it has been utilize for public purposes or for Public Officials own interest. The joint agreement might have served in a way to be the main frame of the structural plan of China in implementing its interest over the region and its claims on Spratly Islands through the NBN-ZTE Deal. In the years 1975-1989 there has only been 22 eco-political agreements between China and Philippines. However, upon the signing of the joint seismic research the deals that have been signed between RP-CHINA increased up to 57 agreements totaling 67 from years 2001-2007. This agreements includes the NBN-ZTE Deal.

What does the economically unsound NBN-ZTE DEAL to do with the territorial disputes of seven countries over the Spratly Islands? China is one of the countries who largely consume oils and they are quickly running out of resources which urge them to find for new supplies and oil resources. China’s inquisition dictates that there can be a possible commercial resource of oil from the Islands of Spratly. Their claim is based on their belief that they own the whole area of the South China Sea and every Island located on this area is a part of what they own. Despite that belief they have they are also the biggest and most powerful country claiming territorial rights over the Spratly Islands. This fact makes them more aggressive and it persuades them more to claim the rights over the Islands. The Chinese governments have been using force to gain the territorial rights over the Islands however, at the start of the joint agreement of Philippines and China – they have altered their tactics via diplomacy.

The Chinese government have penetrated our territory in Spratly Islands and even explored the oil reserves and resources over the Island. It is in deed true that even before our government has on hand the loans which are believed to be the payment of Chinese government over our implicit withdrawal, the Chinese Government already had abused and deprives our government from its own sovereignty. The constitutionality of the joint agreement in the year 2005 is the root of all the mysterious diplomatic tactics of the Chinese government over our country and territorial claims.

The regime of the Arroyo decided to surrender it territorial claim over Spratly due to the Presidents personal attachment with the Chinese Nationals / Leaders. The close relationship between China and the President and the Presidents often visit to Shenzhen, China has widely affected our stand towards territorial disputes most specially that of the Spratly. This Island is just near from Palawan and we might not know the day after tomorrow it has to be Palawan which we are about to surrender considering its recent discovery of oil resource within the Island.

The eight consecutive years of GMA as the President brought political turmoil and economic instability. What More is in store for the country in the last year of GMA’s term as the country’s leadership (be it legitimate or not)?


*note that this articles is also submitted for Atty. Cheryl Daytec's Class*

PERPLEXITY: PHILIPPINES SAILING ON TWO RIVERS

The entry of the year OX marks the 33^rd anniversary of the diplomatic relationship between People’s Republic of China and The Republic of the Philippines. The celebration of this astonishing event for the two neighboring countries is the primary reason of the officials of the two countries to acclaim the mutually beneficial diplomatic relationship in terms of its fruitful cooperation in political, economic, cultural aspects considering their similarities as Asian Nations. The 33 years of diplomatic relationship between the two countries also commemorates its fast progress with remarkable achievements in the economy of the two countries. As of this moment there are more or less two million Filipino-Chinese Individuals who resides in our Archipelago which urges the Chinese government strengthen it tie with our country regardless of Chinese Governments (hidden) agenda over the country and the Philippine Government.

There maybe thousands of Filipinos, Chinese and Filipino-Chinese nationals wondering if the existing strong diplomatic ties between China and Philippines will last forever? There is a possibility that the diplomatic relationship between the two countries will last longer (but not necessarily forever). Philippines and China are just few miles away from each other and separated with only a strip of body of water. The short distance of the two countries is not a hindrance for constant exchange of visits of high-level leaders and mechanisms of dialogues and cooperation at different levels between the two governments. There is a rapid development of economy and trade cooperation with the two countries because of the constant negotiations of the two government (development may not be visible in our Country but in China, it do exist).

It is known that People’s Republic of China is from East Asia; however, it has been consistently strengthening its ties with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). China and ASEAN established a dialogue partnership 15 years ago which have expanded from involving only economic and trade relations to including regional political security and development. At The year 2006, Philippines was acting as the chair of the ASEAN. Philippines during that time initiated a move for ASEAN to have a dialogue with East Asian Summit. China playing an important role in the East Asian Summit with this scenario, the good relationship between China and ASEAN will play an important role. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, in one of her statement claimed that China’s development is an opportunity for Southeast-Asian nations most especially in our country, the Philippines. She further added that China, has not only given us minimal support but economic stability through good global market and technological products via electronic. At this point the technological advancement in communications of our government enters, the controversial NBN-ZTE Deal.

At this moment if Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Company Limited (ZTE) is mentioned, the Peoples Republic of China instantly enters our mind. Often times Filipinos equate China with the Chinese firm ZTE (also considered as representative Of China). This involves the following political personalities former Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Benjamin Abalos, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This political scandal was then brought out in the public by the articles of columnist Jarius Bondoc. It was later followed by the testimonies of the Star witness Jun Lozada and the son of the former house speaker Jose “Joey” De Venecia III in the Philippine Senate. This laid several political bombs which have altered the movement of Philippine Politics in the year 2008. Moreover, it has established in the eyes of the Public that there is indeed a close relationship between influential political and economic tycoons of China with our countries top-level leaders. This political scandal showed explicitly to Asian countries that the Diplomatic relationship between the two countries has gone far beyond what we expect it has. Greater than what we know. What about Philippines relationship with the United States of America, today’s world hegemonic state?

United States of America is considering Philippines as its most important ally in the Asian Regional Bloc. It is primarily because of its strategic location centering the Asian countries. The US invested on our country in terms of several aspects. Tracing back our history they (US) have practiced its soft power over the country through its diplomatic practice via education. Up till now the American forces have never left their post in the country instead they have added their joint projects with the Philippine Government through the Visiting forces Agreement which has been effective since the 27^th of May 1999. Another military joint venture of RP-US is the Balikatan exercises wherein US military forces were deployed to the southern Philippines and provided training, equipment, and intelligence information assistance to the AFP in their combat operations against the Abu Sayyaf Group. On the 18^th of October 2003, Philippines marked this day as a historic event where an American President stepped into our land since the time of Dwight Eisenhower in the person of George W. Bush. This historic event exhibited and instigated a stronger diplomatic relationship between Philippines and United States of America. The American President’s visit in the country was a day of pomposity and arrogance which at the end left promises to the Filipino nation for a better quality of life among us. It has been five years since the American President visited our country and gave respect to our countries national hero. However, the promises where never seen, felt and tasted. At this point the country should not expect for a greater help from the world’s hegemonic state (at least at this moment) with the turnover of office by the 20^th of this month. The United States of America is in its lowest point due to its economic turmoil which at the same time affects the global economy.

Our government’s current actions manifest that it favors China more than the United States of America. If we are to consider the constant visit of the first family in China just for the purpose of having leisure time via golf, we can in deed conclude that Philippine Government plays safe. The world at this point waits if we are to witness an alteration in the position of hegemonic states. China is one of the strongest contenders for the top-most position against the current holder of hegemone, US, which at this time is going through an economic turmoil. The latter tends to have greater weaknesses as days past without their problem being solved. However, with China’s fast economic progress it can have the chance to get US’s position as the world power.

Philippines relationship with the United States of America will be highly affected in downbeat manner. RP-China strong diplomatic relationship might cause for a possible cancellation of every joint project that the two countries have right now. US at all times ensures an intact loyalty within it’s allies and betrayal with American Forces in the country means forfeiture of all the benefits we get from the US government. It has always been the same cycle, process, and story – Philippines has always been an underdog of the US. History will repeat itself, remember the Subic Rape Case? We have been deprive of our own sovereignty and no wonder if time comes that China and US will battle against the thrown and Philippines has to decide – expect that Philippines will still be considering the benefits we get from VFA, etc. which at the end will lead to Philippine Governments decision to stay at the side of the lesser evil among the two competing HEGEMONIC STATE.

No matter how this issue ends, we, the Filipinos need to take a stand. It may be ideological to think and state that we still have a chance to make it if we refute the extensive decision and anomalies of our government most specially the Arroyo regime, it is in deed true! When time comes that our thoughts which remains at this point ideological becomes a part of the realities – We wont be deprived of our own freedom in our own country, we wont no longer care whether we favor China or US more but we will be favoring our own country then, we wont no longer worry where to send our Overseas Filipino workers whether in China or in America because at that time there will be no Pinoy OFW’s. It is free to have such wishful thinking perhaps it is really time to moderate their greed!(JLo. –Philippines)

*note that this articles was purposely written for Atty. Cheryl Daytec's Class*