The Influence of Domestic Politics on Philippine Foreign Policy: The case of Philippines-China relations since 2004

The RSIS Working Paper series presents papers in a preliminary form and serves to stimulate comment
and discussion. The views expressed are entirely the author’s own and not that of the S. Rajaratnam
School of International Studies. If you have any comments, please send them to the following email
address: Rsispublication@ntu.edu.sg
Unsubscribing
If you no longer want to receive RSIS Working Papers, please click on “Unsubscribe.” to be removed
from the list.

No. 241
The Influence of Domestic Politics on Philippine Foreign Policy:
The case of Philippines-China relations since 2004
Aileen S.P. Baviera
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Singapore
5 June 2012
i
About RSIS
The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) was established in January 2007 as
an autonomous School within the Nanyang Technological University. Known earlier as the
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies when it was established in July 1996, RSIS’
mission is to be a leading research and graduate teaching institution in strategic and
international affairs in the Asia Pacific. To accomplish this mission, it will:
• Provide a rigorous professional graduate education with a strong practical emphasis,
• Conduct policy-relevant research in defence, national security, international relations,
strategic studies and diplomacy,
• Foster a global network of like-minded professional schools.
GRADUATE EDUCATION IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
RSIS offers a challenging graduate education in international affairs, taught by an
international faculty of leading thinkers and practitioners. The Master of Science (M.Sc.)
degree programmes in Strategic Studies, International Relations and International Political
Economy are distinguished by their focus on the Asia Pacific, the professional practice of
international affairs, and the cultivation of academic depth. Thus far, students from more
than 50 countries have successfully completed one of these programmes. In 2010, a Double
Masters Programme with Warwick University was also launched, with students required to
spend the first year at Warwick and the second year at RSIS.
A small but select Ph.D. programme caters to advanced students who are supervised by
faculty members with matching interests.
RESEARCH
Research takes place within RSIS’ six components: the Institute of Defence and Strategic
Studies (IDSS, 1996), the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research
(ICPVTR, 2004), the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS, 2006), the Centre
for Non-Traditional Security Studies (Centre for NTS Studies, 2008); the Temasek
Foundation Centre for Trade & Negotiations (TFCTN, 2008); and the recently established
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS, 2011). The focus of research is on issues relating
to the security and stability of the Asia Pacific region and their implications for Singapore
and other countries in the region.
The school has four professorships that bring distinguished scholars and practitioners to teach
and to conduct research at the school. They are the S. Rajaratnam Professorship in Strategic
Studies, the Ngee Ann Kongsi Professorship in International Relations, the NTUC
Professorship in International Economic Relations and the Bakrie Professorship in Southeast
Asia Policy.
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
Collaboration with other professional schools of international affairs to form a global network
of excellence is a RSIS priority. RSIS maintains links with other like-minded schools so as to
enrich its research and teaching activities as well as adopt the best practices of successful
schools.
ii
Abstract
This paper sets out to explore the role of domestic politics in the shaping and
implementing of Philippine foreign policy and its relations with China. It examines
how domestic politics have driven Philippine foreign policy behaviour towards China;
whether the Philippine Government has successfully managed the domestic drivers in
promoting the state’s interests in its relations with China, and whether there are major
constraints that have prevented the attainment of more desirable outcomes in the
bilateral ties. It looks at three cases: the Philippines-China joint marine seismic
undertaking in the South China Sea; China’s participation in the national broadband
network project and a railway project; and Philippine reactions to China’s execution
of three Filipino drug mules.
***********************
Aileen San Pablo-Baviera is Professor of Asian Studies at the Asian Center,
University of the Philippines, where she also served as Dean from 2003-2009. Her
research interests include Contemporary China, ASEAN-China relations, regional
integration, and Asia Pacific security with a focus on territorial and maritime disputes.
She is currently editor of the journal Asian Politics & Policy (Wiley-Blackwell).
1
THE INFLUENCE OF DOMESTIC POLITICS ON PHILIPPINE
FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF PHILIPPINES-CHINA
RELATIONS SINCE 2004
Introduction
Since the normalization of Philippines-China diplomatic ties in 1975, relations have
prospered through decades of China’s reform and economic growth and its active
diplomatic engagement with Southeast Asia, and through the twists and turns of
Manila’s efforts to march in step with the rest of the fast-growing East Asian region.
Relations with China have been considered among the most important foreign policy
challenges facing Philippine administrations since that of Ferdinand E. Marcos (1969-
1986).
The height of the Cold War found China and the Philippines on opposing sides of the
geopolitical divide - including during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and over
Sino-US disagreements over Taiwan. The Philippines’ post-colonial economic
dependence on the US and the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty had bound Manila to
support Washington’s strategic objectives in the region, particularly through its
hosting of major U.S. military facilities and echoing of US foreign policy positions .
Sino-US rapprochement in the early 70s, on account of their common antagonism
towards the Soviet Union, provided an opening for the Marcos government to pursue
diplomatic ties with China, as well as with other independently-minded socialist
countries Yugoslavia and Romania. At that time, Marcos estimated that ties with the
socialist world would help reduce dependence on the U.S., and that ties with China
would bring new economic partnerships while helping to undermine Chinese support
for the home-grown Filipino communist insurgency.
Marcos made the initial breakthroughs and his government provided a very strong
foundation for bilateral ties that to this day, despite serious irritants and growing
problems in relations, continues to buttress the Philippine government’s and the
Filipino people’s generally cordial attitude toward China. Successive Philippine
administrations built on that legacy, with Corazon Cojuangco Aquino emphasizing
her ethnic Chinese ancestry, Fidel V. Ramos meeting territorial challenges from
China with persistent dialogue and confidence-building, Joseph Estrada pursuing with
2
his counterpart a “Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the Twenty-first Century”,
and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo promoting economic and development cooperation
with China with enormous drive.
But today, many observers find relations between the two sides at what may be its
lowest point yet since the 1975 normalization. Tensions have particularly been on the
rise over competing claims to islands and waters in the South China Sea and their
associated fisheries and hydrocarbon resources. In one incident on March 2, 2011,
two Chinese patrol vessels approached an oil exploration ship of the UK-based Forum
Energy that the Philippines had authorized to operate on Reed Bank off the western
Philippine coast, and according to reports appeared to threaten to ram the oil vessel.
Manila sent military planes and its Coast Guard against what was seen as an act of
intimidation, but the Chinese vessels had left before they arrived.
The Reed Bank is considered by China to be part of the disputed Spratly islands, but it
has been an area of Philippine petroleum activity since the 1970s. It is worth recalling
that since the Chinese occupation of Mischief Reef in the Spratlys in 1995, Manila
and Beijing have been at loggerheads over perceived encroachments on each other’s
sovereignty and rights to resources. The two sides signed an agreement outlining
“basic principles” for a code of conduct in the disputed area in 1995, and had since
heightened confidence building and even jumpstarted low-level defense cooperation.
In 2005, they agreed to explore opportunities for joint development of oil resources in
the disputed areas, leading to the signing of a 3-year trilateral agreement for a Joint
Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) among the national oil companies of the
Philippines, China and Vietnam. However, rather than being path-breaking in the
resolution of the long-standing conflict, this agreement was allowed to expire with
results remaining inconclusive when its constitutionality was questioned in the
Philippines. In the last two years, renewed assertiveness by China in relation to its
sovereignty claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea has once more
contributed to a climate of distrust and apprehension1.
1
Following the Reed Bank incident, tensions flared up once again in April 2012, when the Philippines was prevented by
Chinese Maritime Surveillance authorities from arresting Chinese fishermen who had been caught engaging in illegal
fishing in Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc or Panatag in Filipino). A standoff between armed vessels of the two
countries lasted several days, taking place at a time when the annual Philippines-U.S. Balikatan bilateral military
exercises were being held, to be followed by high-level consultations between foreign ministry and defense officials of
Manila and Washington.
3
On the economic front, however, trade has been growing very significantly, by as
much as 75% between 2005 and 2007 and reaching a targeted volume of US$30
billion in 2007. This had decreased by 2010 following a global economic downturn,
but Philippine exports to China that year still grew 94.61% over 2009, with China
becoming the Philippines’ fourth largest export market, taking 11% of total Philippine
exports (Dept of Trade & Industry). On the other hand, major loans and investment
agreements entered into by the Arroyo government remain unimplemented, having
been either suspended or cancelled due to allegations of overpricing, corruption and
collusion between Arroyo allies and their would-be Chinese partners. Among these
was a 2007 agreement for one of China’s biggest firms Zhong Xing
Telecommunication Equipment Company Ltd. (ZTE) to build a national broadband
network (NBN) in the Philippines, using US$329 million in loans from China’s
Export-Import Bank. Another was the so-called NorthRail project --- a US$503
million deal intended to rehabilitate 80.2 kilometers of railway linking Manila to
Pampanga province to its north.
Also affecting people-to-people relations and generating negative mutual perceptions
were the botched handling of a hostage crisis in Manila resulting in the deaths of 8
Hong Kong tourists, and on the other side, China’s execution of Filipinos who had
been convicted by its courts of drug trafficking despite appeals for clemency from
Philippine President Benigno Aquino III. These mini-crises in Philippines-China
relations were played up very much in the popular media of the Philippines , China
and Hong Kong, negatively influencing public opinion.
In examining these examples of specific issues in Philippines-China relations, what
stands out regarding Philippine behavior is that domestic politics, or the role and
interplay of domestic stakeholders in the Philippine polity, have had a significant
effect on foreign policy outcomes. This was true whether the issue at hand had
implications for territorial integrity and national security (such as the Spratlys/JMSU
problem), on the country’s development efforts (such as the major infrastructure
projects of NBN and NorthRail), or one that was entwined in the cultural perceptions
and identity-images of the Filipino and Chinese publics (such as the execution of
Filipino drug mules in China).
4
Theoretical perspectives
This paper sets out to explore the role of domestic politics in the shaping and
implementation of Philippine foreign policy and its relations with China. The
arguments presented here are not intended to discredit alternative explanations of
foreign policy behavior, such as the neorealist assumption that systemic factors and
the structural distribution of power greatly influence how States define their interests.
The dominant (IR) international relations theories indeed may be able to explain the
driving forces behind the Philippines’ approach to China with some lucidity (e.g. the
realist explanation of Manila’s hedging against China’s rise by strengthening security
ties with the US, or an institutionalist exposition of Philippines-China mutual
accommodation and their growing trade interdependence). What the paper instead
seeks to explore is the role of domestic politics as a variable in Philippine foreign
policy behavior, and whether it helps explain apparent ‘anomalies’ that have
occurred in recent years, when desirable foreign policy outcomes for the Philippines
(i.e. stability in the South China Sea, successful aid and investment projects from
China, favorable mutual perceptions and friendly relations between Chinese and
Filipinos), have been thwarted.
Foreign policy analysts, and even more so foreign policy decision-makers and
implementers, have always had to confront the influence of domestic politics on
foreign policy choices. There are various ways of explaining this interface between
domestic politics and foreign affairs, with some emphasizing the role of interest
groups (including lobbies, political parties, and opinion leaders) while others focus on
leadership styles and cognitive patterns of primary decision-makers. There are also
structural arguments about the nature of the state (strong state vs weak state), as well
as a bureaucratic politics model looking at interactions among various subnational
actors, particularly in the administrative machinery of the state. While there are
indeed different explanations for foreign policy behavior, one can generalize by
saying that the influence of domestic politics becomes apparent when foreign policy
choices can be better explained causally by the nature or behaviour of the state’s
“political institutions, cultures, economic structures, or leadership goals” rather than
by any other explanation (Fearon, 1998).
5
Robert Putnam (1988) provides the most popularly accepted theory on how domestic
influences can impact on foreign policy, using the metaphor of international
negotiations as a “two-level game”. He says:
“At the national level, domestic groups pursue their interests by pressuring the
government to adopt favorable policies, and politicians seek power by constructing
coalitions among those groups. At the international level, national governments seek
to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the
adverse consequences of foreign developments. Neither of the two games can be
ignored by central decision-makers, so long as their countries remain interdependent,
yet sovereign” (434)
At the first or the ‘national’ level, one effective approach in studying the domestic
influences on foreign policy is the above-mentioned “bureaucratic politics” model.
Popularized by Halperin et al (2006), it focuses on how various interests and priorities
of various government agencies, departments and individuals – and the conflicts
among them – can influence how foreign policy is made and implemented. This
encompasses interactions within the executive, between the executive and legislative,
public and private interests, as well as between personalities which may enter into the
decision-making dynamics. Most studies that use the bureaucratic politics model in
understanding foreign policy decisions have been done with reference to the United
States. In the case of the Philippines, a developing country that is still in the process
of building well-functioning governance institutions including for the management of
its foreign relations, it is interesting to find a political culture where informal
mechanisms and arrangements can and do in fact matter more than formal decisionmaking
processes.
In connection with Philippine relations with China, this paper explores the following
questions: (1) How have bureaucratic politics driven Philippine foreign policy
behavior toward China? (2) To what extent has the Philippine government
successfully managed the domestic drivers in order for it to behave as a “rational,
unitary actor” in promoting the State’s interests in its relations with China?; (3) Are
there major constraints (institutional, cultural, ideational) that have prevented the
attainment of more desirable outcomes in Philippine relations with China?
6
The study looks at three cases: the Philippines-China “Joint Marine Seismic
Undertaking (JMSU)” in disputed territories of the South China Sea (belatedly joined
by Vietnam); Chinese participation in the National Broadband Network (NBN)
project and the NorthRail project; and Philippine reactions to the Chinese execution of
3 Filipino drug mules. The first two cases were foreign policy-related initiatives under
the Arroyo government, while the last was a more recent issue faced by the current
government of Benigno Aquino III. Each of these cases corresponds to what
Philippine governments since Fidel V. Ramos have referred to as the “three pillars of
Philippine foreign policy”: respectively national security, economic diplomacy, and
protection and promotion of the welfare of Filipinos abroad. All four may be
considered foreign policy crises (particularly the JMSU episode) and were given
prominent attention in Philippine and international media, thus generating a fair
amount of opinion and analyses. Interestingly, while the Chinese government, its
organizations or companies were the other party in each of these foreign policy
problems, the Filipino public reserved its harshest criticism for its own public officials
and attributed to them -- rightly or wrongly -- either sinister and corrupt motivations
(in the cases of JMSU and NBN) or indifference and ineffectiveness (in the drug
mules execution case).
One caveat is that foreign policy analysis as a field of study often tends to focus on
crises and problems rather than success stories, and the examination of the role and
influence of domestic politics even more so implicitly seems to argue that such factors
serve to undermine, ruin or frustrate otherwise commendable goals and rational
strategies being pursued at the international level. Fearon (1998) notes the contrast
that “If a systemic IR [international relations] theory pictures states as unitary,
rational actors, then a domestic political explanation is one in which domestic
political interactions in at least one state yield a suboptimal foreign policy relative to
some normative standard” (emphasis mine).
Indeed, foreign policy crises among states with normal bilateral relations may be
considered ‘anomalies’ because they are discrepancies or deviations from the
established pattern or rule, this pattern or rule being (for the Philippines, just as for
most other countries) predominantly characterized by regular bilateral exchanges and
interactions; the uneventful streams of trade, investment, tourism and people-topeople
exchanges; and continuous flow of dialogue and consultations leading to
7
specific agreements. In that sense, Philippines-China relations are not exceptional.
However, what is interesting in the cases under study are both what they reveal about
Philippine relations with China seemingly being riddled with crises, and what they
reveal about the nature of the Philippine state, its political dynamics, and how these
impact on the country’s foreign policy.
Another caveat is that this study is necessarily exploratory because of incomplete
information about the motivations, calculations and actions of the key players, and
inability to verify the accuracy of some of the open sources on which the research is
based, given the highly charged political atmosphere in which these issues played out.
The research on the cases outlined here relies on news reports, investigative accounts
by journalists, commentaries, official reports, and interviews.
Uncovering the enigma of the Philippine State
Theorizing foreign policy means developing a theory of why particular states, with
individual, unit-level properties, make particular foreign policy moves at particular
times. The “why” is difficult to establish; as Waltz correctly described, a state’s
foreign policy is “determined by hundreds of highly variable and idiosyncratic
factors” (Fearon, 1998). The amount of leverage one country has over another,
personal rapport or enmity between their leaders, strong or weak domestic support for
a party in power, information available to one side but not the other, the amount of
trust or delegated authority an ambassador enjoys from his or her head of government,
the psychological state of a decision-maker at the time a foreign policy problem
emerges, etc. may each be determining factors in any particular situation requiring
diplomacy.
Even allowing for idiosyncracies, however, observers can anchor the study of foreign
policy behavior in an examination of the structures, institutional characteristics and
dynamics of politics in the particular state.
A recent paper prepared by RAND Corporation, examining Philippine responses to
China’s rise, appeared to zero in on a number of domestic factors that have been
written about by various scholars, as having some explanatory relevance to the topic
at hand. First, the paper notes that there has been “perennial domestic political
instability” since the fall of Marcos in 1986 (except for the Ramos presidency from
8
1992-1998), resulting in a Filipino public that is “inattentive to the external
environment” and political leaders who are “focused on short-term political
maneuvering” rather than foreign and security policy issues and strategies (Medeiros
et al, 99). Contributing to this inward-looking preoccupation are a communist
insurgency, a Muslim separatist movement, terrorist groups and criminal networks.
[In this author’s view, however, still more serious problems of instability arise from
widespread public cynicism about a government and political system perceived to be
corrupt and focused on elite interests, manifesting at one point in class fissures such
as the ‘EDSA 3’ movement during which the mostly low-income supporters of the
ousted populist president Estrada sought to remove an elite-backed Arroyo, and
occasionally in the propensity to resort to extra-constitutional means of political
change, including military interventionism.] Such a proliferation of internal
challenges have indeed prevented the Philippine political and administrative elite
from fixing their sights on more strategic goals or on the external environment.
Second, the RAND study says, the political system is personality-driven, with no
institutionalized or program-focused political parties. Instead, patron-client
relationships stretch across the lowest (barangay) to highest (national) levels of
government where the goals are to satisfy particular(istic) demands. “Politics is
characterized by competition among local elites for access to government patronage”
(99). Politicians as well as executives at the national and local levels are in turn
expected to be dispensers of patronage and favors to constituents.
From these two long-standing observations, the cumulative effect is general public
indifference to developments in the international arena, and the tendency of the ruling
political elite to behave only in reactive response to foreign initiatives and external
developments or crises.
Philippine democracy, largely patterned after the American system of government,
relies on the effective functioning of a system of checks and balances among three coequal
branches of government: the Executive (the President and his/her Cabinet); the
Legislature (a Congress with two chambers – a 24-member Senate and currently a
265-member House of Representatives); and the Judiciary (from lower courts all the
way to the Supreme Court). The two houses of Congress work independently and at
9
times in unhealthy competition, with the Senate of the post-Martial Law years
becoming known for investigating high-level corruption scandals in government,
while the House of Representatives would be typified by shifting coalitions until a
pro-government majority would eventually emerge. Among Philippine presidents,
Arroyo was seen to be highly successful in using the President’s power over the
budget to buy the allegiance of many legislators as well as that of elected local
officials (Carizo, 2010).
The military, as an institution, had its heyday of political influence during the Martial
Law years under Marcos, but since the 1986 Marcos overthrow (ironically triggered
by a military rebellion), many soldiers across the generations have felt they had a
critical role to fulfill in facilitating political succession outside of electoral exercises.
A reformist strand in the Armed Forces even garnered the support of some civil
society organizations (traditionally anti-military in outlook) for the legitimacy of
using military intervention to effect power transition.
The current president, Aquino III, campaigned and won on a platform of good
governance, promising to stamp out corruption perpetuated by the Arroyo
government, which itself came to power on the crest of a popular movement against
the corrupt and inept former president Estrada. The struggle for clean government
remains a challenge, as public office is still seen by many as a stepping stone to the
accumulation of private wealth.
The formal actors
As with other countries, foreign policy is largely an executive function in the
Philippines, with the president given much leeway as its chief architect, usually
relying on key advisers in the Cabinet. This was especially true during the Marcos
years, when a strong President and an authoritarian system made it difficult even for
career diplomats without personal ties to Marcos to play key decision-making roles.
Philippine presidents after Marcos who demonstrated a more activist foreign policy
were Fidel V. Ramos, who in the aftermath of US military withdrawal from its bases
in the Philippines, decisively turned the country toward a more ASEAN-centered
diplomacy, and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who was able to successfully balance
Philippine relations with both the United States as the Philippines’ oldest ally and
10
China as the region’s rising new power. Weak presidents have been challenged on
foreign policy issues by the political opposition. A case in point was how Corazon
Aquino’s support for a new treaty on the US bases was unable to prevent a Senate
vote against it. (Medeiros et al, 99)
The Department of Foreign Affairs consists mainly of a professional foreign service,
recruited through a highly competitive examination process and trained for the
generalist functions of a Philippine diplomat. However, there has traditionally been a
significant number of ambassadors who were not trained as part of the career system,
but were political appointees of the President. Presidents Estrada and Arroyo both had
highly controversial ambassadorial appointees, and were criticized for using foreign
service appointments to dispense political patronage. While there has been
tremendous improvement in the career training and recuitment into the diplomatic
service, Philippine diplomacy is far from being immune to patronage politics.
Economic policy, similarly, has to take into consideration the influence on policy of
established interests such as foreign investors, landed and financial interests, and
other groups that provide political support to the ruling elite. (Medeiros, quoting de
Dios, 1998)
Another problem besetting the foreign service, one that may be quite unique to the
Philippines, is the inordinate attention and resources that must be devoted by
Philippine missions abroad for providing services to Philippine nationals, in particular
the huge number of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in various parts of the world.
Given its limited resources as a developing country, this serves as a constraint to a
more strategic and pro-active security and economic diplomacy outlook by the
Philippine foreign policy community.
Congress has an important direct role in foreign policy making only in terms of treaty
ratification by the Senate, while the House of Representatives can intervene through
its authority over appropriations and over appointments and promotions of
ambassadors and foreign service officers. The role of Congress has also been critical,
however, in some major decisions related to foreign policy such as the Senate vote
leading to the closure of US military facilities in 1991, and the Senate ratification of
the Philippines-US Visiting Forces Agreement in 1999. More recently, decisions were
11
made by Congress involving the redefinition of Philippine territory (2009 Baselines
Law or R.A. 9522) which have a direct bearing on the disputes with neighboring
states over islands and waters in the South China Sea.
Occasionally, too, individual politicians would emerge from Congress to become
statesmen and play significant roles in shaping Philippine foreign policy, such as
Claro M. Recto and Raul Manglapus.
Public opinion. Public opinion in the Philippines is vocal on many things, but is
generally not perceived to be knowledgable or active in foreign policy concerns. The
previously mentioned RAND study cites an interview with former National Security
Adviser General Jose T. Almonte, who describes the Filipino public as having “no
real interest” in foreign policy “unless the interests of certain social groups are
directly involved” (Medeiros, p. 98) However, in the latter case, organized networks
of NGOs and certain media commentators can claim to have some influence. Foreign
policy issues which have had large public constituencies include rights and welfare of
overseas workers, globalization and the adoption of neoliberal economic policies.
The rest of this paper examines three episodes in recent Philippines-China relations,
with a view to explaining how domestic politics influenced the positions developed
and actions taken by the Philippine side. While there is no claim made here that
domestic politics provides the only or even the most credible causal explanation of the
ultimate outcomes, it is hoped that the narratives can add insight into the complexity
of Philippine diplomacy and foreign relations with China.
Case # 1: “The Joint Seismic Marine Undertaking” in the South China Sea
In September 2004, the Philippines and China agreed to engage in a “joint marine
seismic undertaking” covering disputed areas in the Spratlys, South China Sea, close
to the Philippines’ westernmost island of Palawan. The agreement covered an area of
142,886 sq.km of water, with a view to developing a clearer idea of the hydrocarbon
deposits in the area and pinpointing possible drilling locations.
Vietnam initially objected to the agreement because it impinged on its own territorial
claims but later joined in, as it feared that cooperation between the Philippines and
12
China alone would be detrimental to its interests. A Tripartite Agreement for Joint
Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea was then
crafted and signed in March 14, 2005 by the heads of the national oil companies of
the three countries – the Philippine National Oil Company- Exploration Corp.
(PNOC-EC), China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), and PetroVietnam.
The agreement was designed to be a commercial deal, without prejudice to the
countries’ respective sovereignty claims. Nonetheless, the agreement was hailed in
China both as an important step in implementing the 2002 Declaration of Conduct of
Parties in the South China Sea which it had signed with ASEAN and as a
breakthrough in efforts to implement Deng Xiaoping’s formula of shelving
sovereignty and pursuing joint development.
The agreement provided that the three parties were to divide the work along the
following tasks: China was to gather data, Vietnam was to process it, and the
Philippines was tasked with analyzing the information, with all three stages to involve
sharing of information and to be completed within three years. The possibility of
inviting international oil companies to participate in the actual exploration, if
warranted by the seismic survey results, was also considered (Tordesillas, 2006). By
allowing foreign oil companies to survey the areas closest to the Philippines, the
JMSU paved the way for the possible realization of a joint development zone in the
South China Sea as a means of managing the disputes.
The agreement itself was remarkable in terms of Philippine foreign policy on the
Spratlys. By agreeing initially to cooperate with China alone, it represented a break
from the previous stand of the Philippine government to pursue multilateral solutions
to the disputes in the framework of ASEAN and international law, thus
accommodating China’s preference for a bilateral approach. Some observers criticized
the Philippine position as undermining ASEAN solidarity on the issue. (Since
Arroyo’s term ended, the Aquino III government has indeed been hard pressed to try
to restore policy on this question to a more multilateralist framework.)
There are several possible rational explanations for the shift in policy of the
Philippine government toward greater accommodation of China: that Arroyo wanted
13
to play a China card following the strong rebuke from the US over her decision to pull
out Philippine troops from Iraq; that the Philippines was becoming frustrated with the
glacial pace of ASEAN –China progress in negotiating a regional code of conduct in
the South China Sea; or that energy supply concerns were beginning to trump security
and sovereignty interests in her government’s view. However, the domestic context
and the decision-making processes on the issue reveal that there was much more at
play.
In March 2008, when the JMSU was on its third year, the political opposition in the
Philippines led by three senators pounced on the JMSU to accuse Arroyo of
committing treason against the country, after a blog by then journalist Ricky
Carandang (2008) had implied that the JMSU was concluded explicitly in exchange
for promises of fat loans to the Arroyo government. Attention to the JMSU had also
been triggered by a report published the previous month by Barry Wain which
appeared in Far Eastern Economic Review, titled “Manila’s Bungle in the South
China Sea” (Jan/Feb 2008). In this article, Wain revealed, quoting South China Sea
expert Mark Valencia, that the Philippines had included even undisputed areas of its
continental shelf in the joint seismic undertaking with China. Wain also quoted
unnamed Filipino officials as saying that “politicians with business links who have
other things going with the Chinese” had persuaded Arroyo to go along.
Although the JMSU agreement had been signed and announced years before, it
attained notoriety only after these published comments and in the context of a
snowballing movement to impeach Arroyo following a series of electoral and
corruption scandals. In particular was one scandal called the “Hello Garci” affair
where the President was caught on audio tape discussing with an election
commissioner over the telephone what appeared to be plans to rig the mid-term
election results. Critics also singled out the fact that the JMSU agreement was
shrouded in secrecy, after repeated demands for a public release of its text were
ignored by government. Others said it was unconstitutional, while still others asked
why it was not subject to ratification by the Senate, as required of treaties.
In tracing the history of the agreement, interestingly, the key Filipino decision makers
involved in the Tripartite agreement were not foreign policy nor security experts from
14
the Department of Foreign Affairs, National Security Council or the Department of
National Defense, agencies that had long been handling policy on the Spratlys
disputes. Instead, there were two individuals who would stand out as its main
champions – Speaker of the House of Representatives Jose de Venecia Jr. and the
president of the Philippine National Oil Company Eduardo Manalac (Bordadera,
2008). The third actor was President Gloria Arroyo herself, who stood firmly behind
the agreement.
Former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., described in one source as an “itinerant
internationalist” (Bower, 2010), was at that time a staunch political ally of the
Philippine president, working closely to have President Arroyo’s agenda and her
political survival supported in the House of Representatives. His support for the
President became particularly critical when Arroyo became besieged by the “Hello
Garci” scandal, as the threat of impeachment (a process initiated under Philippine law
by the House of Representatives) emerged.
Speaker de Venecia also had a background of being associated with Philippine
Landoil Resources Group and other oil interests since the 1970s. His website
mentions that he is “the first Southeast Asian to drill for oil in the Arab world, in the
United Arab Emirates; he was one of the pioneers of the first offshore oil discoveries
in the Philippines’ Palawan Island in the mid 1970s, and received citations from the
Philippine Government and the Palawan provincial government”. At the same time,
he is a “believer in informal diplomacy and the role of parliament in back-channel
conflict resolution.” (www.josedeveneciajr.com/page2.php)
On the other hand, Eduardo Manalac was an oil geologist and industry expert who
had had a 28-year long association with China’s Philips-CONOCO before he became
head of Philippine National Oil Company. He had also been Undersecretary for
Energy from 2003-2004. In his early career, he had been involved in the first
geological mapping of the Palawan basin. His vitae mentions that “(h)is most notable
international exploration achievement was the discovery of Peng Lai 19-3 in the year
2000, the largest offshore oil field in China for which he received China’s prestigious
Friendship Award and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s Model Worker
15
Award. In other words, Manalac was an expert who likely enjoyed the trust of
Chinese oil partners, while he also tended to put his trust in the Chinese.
Personal accounts by various officials who had been involved in Philippine-China
relations, and information which surfaced publicly during Senate investigations of the
NBN-ZTE affair indicate the crucial role Mr. de Venecia played in not just the JMSU,
but as we will see later, other agreements between the two sides. De Venecia claimed
in a newspaper interview that the original bilateral agreement that the Philippines had
with China had been “debated extensively” by the Cabinet, particularly under
Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo (who later developed a reputation as the
country’s most pro-China foreign minister), then Foreign Secretary Delia Albert and
then Energy Secretary Vince Perez (Bordadora, 2008). Other sources report, however,
that the Department of Foreign Affairs was largely kept out of the negotiations, and
that below the level of Secretary, the recommendation was NOT to proceed with the
agreement, on the grounds that ASEAN would consider it a violation of the 2002
ASEAN-China Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea2, and that
there would be questions of constitutional violation, specifically in regard to the
provision of the Philippine Constitution reserving the right to engage in natural
resources exploitation for Filipino nationals (Interview, R1).
The government’s then Acting Justice Secretary Merceditas Gutierrez reportedly also
harbored serious reservations about the JMSU, arguing its unconstitutionality
(Carandang, 2008; as related by former Senator Frank Drilon). Based on newspaper
reports and separate interviews with staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
the National Security Council, these two agencies were largely excluded from the
processes, but subsequently had to take the flak and the responsibility for rationalizing
the decisions that had already been made above their heads.
When news broke in Manila that the JMSU area included parts of the Philippines that
were not even disputed by China, there was a public clamor to reveal the exact area in
question through maps, which government ignored. Speaker De Venecia in a
remarkable gesture to ensure his political survival, joined the calls for transparency,
2
For full text of the Declaration, see http://www.aseansec.org/13163.htm.
16
after a member of his own bailiwick the House of Representatives asked that he be
investigated for his role in the agreement. Specifically, he was being asked to say if
there was indeed a link between the JMSU agreement and China's extension of a softloan
facility of $2 billion a year to the Philippine government (Bordadora).
The lack of transparency led to suspicions that the JMSU deal had been agreed upon
in exchange for graft-riddled loans from the PRC, including the NBN-ZTE agreement
and the NorthRail project of which details are provided below. While de Venecia
denies any direct quid pro quo between the JMSU and these deals, the windfall of
Chinese investment and loan projects that followed the signing of JMSU – and the
Chinese government’s commitment to provide US$2 billion in aid for three years until
2010 – could not help but be noticed.
De Venecia’s role demonstrates the importance of informal patronage networks in
foreign policy decision-making. On the one hand, President Arroyo was indebted to
him and depended upon his influence on other members of the House of
Representatives for her political survival, in light of the impeachment threats. Thus,
his influence over the President was clear. On the other hand, like Manalac, de
Venecia also appeared to have considerable clout with the Chinese. From his website,
we know that he is responsible for helping the Chinese Communist Party develop
networks with other Asian counterparts.
Jose de Venecia Jr. was president of the Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, the
ruling party under Arroyo. He takes credit for founding the International Conference
of Asian Political Parties (ICAPP), which was launched in Manila in 2000 and
convenes every two years. He invited the Chinese Communist Party to join the
organization, providing them the first opportunity to network and gain legitimacy with
other political parties of the region, until the CCP even hosted the third General
Assembly in Beijing in September 2004, and organized an ICAPP conference on
poverty alleviation in Kunming in July 2010 (http://josedeveneciajr.com/page23.php).
The ICAPP General Assembly in Beijing hosted 82 political parties from 34
countries, of which only 18 were Communist and Left parties from 17 countries.
From China’s point of view, ICAPP gave it an opportunity to change the image of the
17
CCP held by other political parties in the region, as one that was “peaceful, open,
enlightened and progressive”. Moreover, as “the first of its kind” hosted by the CCP,
the General Assembly was seen as conducive to “strengthening the CPC's strategic
thinking and administrative capability”(www.china.org.cn).
With his strategic networks, de Venecia was thus able to fashion himself as a
gatekeeper for major Chinese investment projects in the Philippines. He became the
staunchest champion of JMSU, so confident of his position that in some cases, he
appeared to be making commitments to the Chinese side without the necessary
consultations or staff work within the Philippine policy mills (Interview, R2).
However, after his falling out with President Arroyo over another Chinese-funded
project (the NBN-ZTE deal), he tried to distance himself from JMSU.
Nonetheless, he remained committed to the concept of joint development as an
approach to the territorial disputes. Reacting to the brewing disagreement between
China and US over the South China Sea which emerged at the 2010 meeing of the
ASEAN Regional Forum, he is quoted as saying:
“To restore stability to the South China Sea, we should shelve—for future
leadership generations to resolve, in a more congenial climate—the prickly
question of sovereignty. We should focus instead on sharing equitably the
hydrocarbon resources of this great inland sea our countries share—as China,
Vietnam and the Philippines are starting to do.
This approach to the South China Sea issue makes unnecessary any need for
American interventionism—which will merely complicate the problem and
raise the tensions in the area. However, after we work out a common
exploration and production-sharing formula, we can invite the most
experienced U.S., European and international companies to undertake the
drilling in the Spratlys in the South China Sea.” (de Venecia, Jr., Jan 2011
speech)
In the JMSU case, decisions were made outside of the usual channels involving the
foreign affairs and defense/security departments (or for that matter even the
Department of Energy). Rather than being a case of bureaucratic infighting among
agencies with different mandates, this was a case of political interference by wellconnected
individuals.
Any suspicions of a sell-out of Philippine territorial integrity in exchange for
sweetened business deals, or even the mere doubt that the national interest was not
18
faithfully served by the JMSU agreement, might have been avoided if the regular
institutional channels for decision-making on such a critical issue as territorial claims
had been honored. Moreover, aside from the energy dimension of the issue, the
concerns of other claimant states, security considerations, ASEAN unity of approach,
or even balance of power factors – all of which should be familiar issues to the
professional diplomats and security specialists who had been working on the subject
of the territorial disputes for some time, would have formed a greater part of the
calculations before the Philippines offered up its claim areas for joint surveys. The
resulting resentment and frustration of career diplomats and bureaucrats at being
sidelined in such a critical policy move could also have been avoided.
The JMSU agreement was allowed to lapse in July 1, 2008 and was not extended.
While China has expressed interest in pursuing it, the Philippines is far from inclined
to do so. President Benigno Aquino III in January 2011 was reported in Philippine
newspapers to have said the JMSU “shouldn’t have happened” as it encroached on
Philippine territorial waters. (ABS-CBN News, 4 Jan 2011)
Case # 2:
The NBN-ZTE deal
Under the Arroyo government, the Philippines and China were experiencing new
heights in bilateral economic cooperation. China’s assistance had been enlisted to help
the Philippines develop such priority investment areas as housing, railways, mining,
public works and infrastructure, energy and power, industrial parks,economic zones,
tourism, agriculture, fisheries and garments and textile factories.
In 2006, the Chinese government offered to give the Philippines aid in the amount of
US$2 billion a year until 2010, from its Export-Import Bank. The Philippines at the
time had been negotiating a $200m loan from the World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank, as well as $1 billion from Japan (Perlez, 2006). Western aid
officials were reportedly surprised when the announcement came during a meeting of
aid donors at the Asian Development Bank, which has its headquarters in Manila, a
few months before the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. During Wen Jiabao’s
visit in December 2006, Manila and Beijing signed 12 cooperation documents and
announced initiatives to expand cooperation not just on economics (including trade,
19
finance, and infrastructure), but also on defence matters, disaster mitigation, and
nontraditional security. They pledged to strengthen educational, cultural, and social
exchanges and friendly exchanges at all levels, to draw up a joint action plan for
strategic cooperation between China and the Philippines, and to consult and
coordinate closely in international and regional affairs.
The attractiveness of Chinese aid to developing countries has been the subject of
various studies and commentaries, particularly citing the lack of the types of
conditionalities that are often imposed by more stringent Western donors. For
instance, the head of the Philippines’ National Economic Development Authority
Romulo Neri indicated some preference for Chinese aid when he remarked that
Chinese aid was free from the usual World Bank requirements of hiring expensive
foreign consultants (Perlez, 2006). Others, however, argue that Chinese aid can also
be considered “tied aid” because typically the Chinese government imposes the right
to name its own contractor and to use Chinese labor.
Another reason why Chinese Official Development Assistance (ODA) is believed by
many to be attractive is that there is ostensibly leeway for the leaders of beneficiary
countries to engage in corruption.3 A test case for the latter in the case of the
Philippine appeared to be the so-called NBN-ZTE project.
The Chinese telecommunications giant Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment
Corporation entered into a deal with the Philippine government in 2006 to help build a
National Broadband Network (NBN). The NBN was ostensibly for the purpose of
linking 2,295 national offices and 24,549 barangay (or village) municipal offices of
the Philippine government into a single broadband network, with the concept later on
expanded to include linking up the public education infrastructure to grant students
and schools better Internet access. The total investment of ZTE of $329.5 million
would be secured through concessional loans by China’s Export-Import Bank,
3 However, a study conducted for the African Development Bank Group found that:
“Regarding governance, both China and the traditional sources of development finance have
rules that discourage corruption in the procurement of aid, but export credits are less well
policed. Neither seem to have rules for when or how aid should be restricted when a pattern of
corruption characterises an entire recipient government.”(Brautigam 2010)
20
payable at 3% interest over a period of 15 years, with a 10-year grace period
(Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations; henceforth
“Committee Report”, November 2009, 72).
Critics of the project, led by economics professors of the University of the
Philippines, argued that the broadband project was not necessary because the
country’s private telecommunication companies could easily provide the needed
service, and that previous attempts by the national government to build such an
infrastructure had ended in failure. They also said that what the Chinese side was
offering was not concessionary loans, but tied aid (Fabella and de Dios, 2010). 4 At
$329.5 M, or even the original cost of $262m (which reportedly increased due to a
change in the required configuration of electronic equipment), technical experts said
the project was grossly overpriced. A technical consultant of the project who was later
on called by the Philippine Senate to testify on the case even said that the real cost of
the project was only US$50 m. (Committee Report, 69)
The project had been approved originally as a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) project,
with a private company Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. (AHI) having submitted a proposal
to implement it. As a commercial transaction between government and a private
company, the Philippine government would not absorb the risk, as there would be no
cash out on the part of government, and no government guarantees. Of interest is the
fact that the head of AHI was Jose de Venecia III (a.k.a Joey de Venecia), son and
namesake of Speaker of the House Jose de Venecia Jr. whose strategic links with the
Chinese leadership and gatekeeping role we have already remarked on in the previous
section of this paper.
4 The authors argued that: “China’s newly-discovered generosity is, of course, nether strange nor
totally unexpected. That country is, after all, currently sitting on some1.33 trillion in foreign exchange
reserves. It therefore has an obvious imperative to offload some of these so that they yield a return of
some sort, but also in order to deflect the incessant criticism of its policy of undervaluing the yuan. As
most parvenu trading powers are prone to do, however, China has sought to use tied foreign assistance
as a tool to simultaneously unload some of its reserves and still advance its mercantilist purpose. An
obvious solution is to pass off some of its idle reserves as loans to developing countries as an incentive
for the latter to import from Chinese home firms, thus sustaining employment and the breakneck
growth at home. Moreover, collecting a risk-free three percent (because sovereign-guaranteed) on
multimillion dollar loans is not such a bad use of money – it in fact represents a higher return than
those Chinese reserves are fetching anyway. In many ways, therefore, China is doing a favor primarily
to itself – “very concessionary”, indeed.”
21
In March 2007, despite indications that the Philippine government including President
Arroyo herself had initially preferred to bid out the NBN project as a BOT
arrangement, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) suddenly
agreed to convert the NBN project into a government-to-government project, to be
financed through a loan from the Chinese government. As such, the contract would be
considered an executive agreement, not subject to bidding rules of the Philippine
government; moreover, under the Chinese system of concessionary loans, the Chinese
side could designate the contractor, in this case ZTE.
The NBN-ZTE project was ill-fated from the very beginning. The contract was signed
in Boao, China in a hurried ceremony witnessed by no less than Arroyo herself , and
on the day it was signed, the original copy of the contract of the Philippine side was
lost under circumstances that to this day remain a mystery. By September 2007,
facing weeks of exposés of corruption and criticism by the political opposition over
the deal, President Gloria Arroyo suspended the contract. During a visit to China in
October of that year, she cancelled the deal altogether.
The NBN-ZTE story was one of intra-elite competition for the spoils of power and
influence. On the one hand was private businessman Joey de Venecia, who no doubt -
convinced of his father’s influence with the Chinese and with the President - wanted a
big piece of action for his small, undercapitalized firm when he bid for the original
project under build-operate-transfer terms. On the opposite side was the Chairman of
the Election Commission Benjamin Abalos, who was brokering for the Chinese
company ZTE -- to whom he had boasted that he was about to become the country’s
“most powerful man” with the onset of 2007 mid-term elections process. Abalos was
apparently backed by Jose Miguel Arroyo, the President’s husband. Eventually,
supporting the position of the Abalos camp were officials of the National Economic
Development Authority and the Department of Transportation and Communication
whose roles were critical in converting the deal into a government-to-government
agreement, as well as in approval and implementation of the project.
From the information that surfaced during Senate investigations into the “NBN-ZTE
scandal”, it became evident that Abalos was extracting huge commissions and bribes
22
from the ZTE partners (ostensibly in the name of the President, her political party and
even House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr). He was also offering bribes himself to the
approving authorities (the NEDA Secretary, for one), and to the competing company
AHI to persuade it to pull out its interest. It was when a whistle-blower made all this
information public that a huge political scandal ensued that forced the President to
suspend and eventually cancel the project. Within months, Abalos had resigned as
Chair of the Election Commission, Jose de Venecia Jr had been ousted as Speaker of
the House, and President Arroyo was in very, very hot water.
By then, ZTE had already paid US$41m in “advances”, broken down, according to
testimonies, as follows: US$1m as representation fees, $10m as “success fee”, and
$30m “to aid the administration during the 2007 elections” Another tranche worth
US$5 million would reportedly have been given to Joey de Venecia had he not
walked out of a meeting with Abalos and ZTE in China (Committee Report).
The Philippine Senate investigation pieced together details of the corrupt business
negotiations gone awry. In November 2009, following thirteen public hearings, four
technical working groups and two Supreme Court rulings stretching out over 2 years,
the Philippine Senate Committee on Public Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations (Blue Ribbon Committee) concluded its investigation on the so-called
NBN-ZTE scandal.
The Committee Report said:
“This is a story of how people in high places: the relatives of the most
powerful men and women in government took advantage of their
relationships, either with their parent or spouse, to cajole the Executive into
entering a contract that would obtain something our country did not need, and
that is manifestly disadvantageous to the Filipino people. It is about the war of
the most powerful, most influential and most organized syndicates in
government, some members of which are public officers, who were at each
other's throats because of an alleged double-cross. It is about the never- ending
battle among the political elite for economic power, domination and control.”
23
The report cited the President as being “unable to control and discipline her
own men as they fight over their kickbacks. She kept her silence in the midst
of the corruption- acquiescing and condoning the deed.”
The President apparently did more than keep silent, however. She played golf upon
the invitation of ZTE executives in Shenzhen, at the time when ZTE was lobbying for
a contract with her government; she witnessed the signing of a supply contract she
knew to be anomalous and in circumvention of Philippine procurement laws, even
though the contract specified that it was to be governed under Philippine law.
The Blue Ribbon Committee ultimately recommended filing of charges against the
President, the President’s husband, the Speaker of the House, his businessman son,
the Chairman of the Election Commission, the NEDA Secretary, the Secretary of
Transportation and Communication, the “whistle-blower” and various other officials
involved.
Throughout this saga, Philippines-China relations hung on the balance. ZTE, a major
company with many similar foreign engagements, and the Chinese government were
at pains to distance themselves from the large-scale corruption involved. Prior to the
suspension of the NBN project, ZTE officials had issued a press statement that there
had been "complete transparency in the proposal, evaluation, and approval of ZTE's
application for the Philippines’ NBN contract” (ABS-CBN News, Timeline, 2008).
The cancellation of the project was believed by at least one senator to have caused
“serious consternation of the officialdom of the People’s Republic of China” because
“ZTE, after all, for all corporate intents and purposes, is a wholly-owned government
subsidiary.” Senator Joker Arroyo (no relation to the President) said: “Philippines-
China relations, not apparent but very real, was impaired as a consequence of the
investigation” (Committee Report).
The close relationship between the Election Commission Chairman Abalos and ZTE
officials was indicated by his presence at various meetings which he personally
attended and apparently in which he had no official role except, as noted by the Blue
Ribbon Committee report, as an “influence peddler”. Abalos himself had admitted
that he and ZTE officials were “golfing buddies” and that ZTE had paid for his trips
to China (ABS-CBN News, Timeline, 2008).
24
At some points during the Senate investigation, there were summons issued to
Manila-based ZTE officials to participate in the proceedings, but these were largely
ignored by ZTE. Perhaps conscious of the possible negative repercussions on foreign
relations, the Senate did not insist. Nonetheless, the Committee report noted that:
“An investigation must be done on the ZTE Corporation, as well, in order to
determine its role in the whole mess. While we must, the government must, encourage
the influx of foreign investors and corporations in order to contribute to employment
and wealth creation in the country, these corporations must be warned not to
participate in illegal transactions. These companies must not contribute or encourage
the corruption of public officers. It is also worth mentioning that ZTE should be
warned in the manner that it conducts its business in the Philippines.”
The warning seems to have been taken to heart at least by a new Chinese ambassador
Liu Jianchao who arrived in the aftermath of the NBN-ZTE scandal. After the May
2010 elections, he was the first foreign ambassador to meet with President-elect
Benigno Aquino III, who had run a campaign on promises of going after corrupt
officials. During the call, he assured Aquino III that China was ready to cooperate
with the incoming administration in ensuring that contracts between the two countries
would be "transparent and clean" (Calica, 2011).
In this story, Abalos (an election commissioner) and his apparent backer Jose Miguel
Arroyo (a presidential spouse with no official position), were the sources of political
interference in economic negotiations that were properly the business of the executive
departments under the command responsibility of the President. The fate of the
business deal was closed during informal meetings organized by Abalos at a popular
golf course in Manila as well as in Shenzhen, where he brought the key players
together. Had the loan agreement been consumated and the project implemented, the
result would have been complicity of the Chinese company in the defrauding of the
Filipino people, who would end up paying for a loan that had fattened the pockets of
politicians for a broadband network that could all along have been acquired at far less
cost.
25
In the previous case, it was then Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. whose political
interference in crafting the JMSU agreement with China subverted the proper
decision-making processes for foreign and external security policy, leading to illadvised
measures that rendered President Arroyo vulnerable to public accusations of
treason, no less.
De Venecia Jr. was also involved in an even bigger investment deal – the NorthRail
project – that would have been China’s biggest investment in the Philippines,
involving a US$503m soft loan also at highly concessionary rates. Here, he even
claimed credit for “convincing two Chinese presidents, two Chinese Prime Ministers,
two Speakers of Parliament, and three Chinese Ambassadors to the Philippines for
China to undertake the project,” which would have constructed 80 kilometers of
railway between Metro Manila with two northern provinces (Landingin, 2010)
Like the NBN-ZTE deal, the NorthRail project never took off amid accusations of
overpricing and corruption. The Chinese contractor designated by the PRC
government, was China National Machinery and Equipment Corp (CNMEC). In this
case, political pressure from Speaker De Venecia and local government officials who
stood to benefit from the rail links to Manila had hurried the signing of the agreement,
despite lack of technical specifications. Residents of communities to be displaced by
the railway have filed a case in Philippine courts, effectively preventing any progress
on the ground. Years after the 2004 signing, with the Chinese side having put in a
significant amount and with the costs of the project balooning, there is as yet nothing
to show by way of a railway being built. To make matters worse, the Philippine
government is expected to pay $400,000 or P20.8 million in penalties and interest for
every month of delay. This led business journalist Roel Landingin (2010) to write:
“At heart, the Northrail project is a tragic tale of what happens when cheap Chinese
aid money hooks up with weak governance in a borrowing country”.5 Unlike the
cancellation of the JMSU and the NBN-ZTE deals, however, the Aquino government
has agreed with the Chinese government to reconfigure and proceed with this project.
5 More details about how these Chinese aid projects are structured may be viewed in congressional
testimony to the U.S. China Commission provided by CSIS Senior Adviser Ernest Bower on February
4, 2010. These are available at http://csis.org/files/100204_bower_testimony.pdf.
26
Case # 3: The execution of Filipino drug couriers in China
This final case examines the role of leadership populism in reaction to a more recent
irritant in the relations between the Philippines and China. The case refers to the
imprisonment of Filipinos on various drug-related charges in China, where the
punishment for smuggling 50 grams of heroin or other drugs is death. Just as there are
many Chinese nationals serving or awaiting sentence in Philippine prisons due to
involvement in drug manufacturing, there are over 200 Filipinos in Chinese prisons
who have been arrested for smuggling prohibited drugs into the country on behalf of
international syndicates (Padua, 2011). 6 Organized criminal groups have also been
known to take advantage of Filipino overseas workers who consent to traffic drugs for
them.
In March 2011, three of these Filipino drug mules were executed in China. This was
the first time China would be executing Filipino prisoners, and the matter had to be
handled with great sensitivity by both parties. The Philippine government asked for a
stay of the execution. The Chinese side argued that their judicial authorities had
already made the decision following due process where the rights of the accused had
been safeguarded, and that their side had fulfilled international obligations in the
process. Mindful that the tensions over the issue were taking place alongside
heightened disagreements over territorial disputes in the South China Sea, the Chinese
Foreign Ministry spokesperson expressed the hope that "We would not like to see any
impact on bilateral relations" (Agence France Press, 3-30-2011).
A month before the execution, President Aquino III sent his vice-president Jejomar
Binay as his special representative to convey a request that the Chinese government
commute the sentences of the three Filipinos. Binay returned home only partially
successful, as the Chinese reportedly promised to review the case. But the news was
welcomed by Filipinos, as indicated by the boost in Binay’s popularity in public
opinion surveys where he garnered the “most trusted public official” rating (GMA
6 The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that there are 695 Filipinos detained in various
jails abroad because of drug trafficking. Of this number, 328 are in China, 86 in the Middle East and
Africa, 156 in the Americas, and 125 in Europe. There are also 73 Filipinos on death row in China,
eight in Malaysia, and one in Indonesia.
27
News, Pulse, 3-24-2011). Instead of commutation, a temporary one-month reprieve
was granted but the executions were still scheduled to take place.
As background, the imprisonment and execution of Filipinos overseas is a potentially
explosive issue in Philippine politics, ever since the execution in Singapore of
domestic helper Flor Contemplacion in 1995, following her conviction for killing
another Filipino. Contemplacion’s fate received much sympathy from a broad
segment of the Filipino population, many of whom believed that it is poverty that
drives Filipinos to seek work abroad, and that she would not have suffered such a fate
were it not for government neglect in the first place. This execution almost ruptured
diplomatic ties with Singapore, and led to the axing by then President Fidel Ramos of
the Secretaries of Labor and of Foreign Affairs, bowing to public pressure for failing
to prevent the execution. It also resulted in the passage of new laws mandating
government protection of the rights and welfare of Filipino migrant workers abroad.
The same threat of public opprobrium over failure to help overseas workers had led
the government of Gloria Arroyo to advance its troop pull out from Iraq, in the case of
truck driver Angelo dela Cruz who had been held hostage by militants. In the China
case, among the three Filipinos executed was Sally Villanueva, a Xiamen cellphone
dealer and mother of two, who claimed she had been duped by her recruiter into
carrying a bag with a secret compartment filled with 4 kg of heroin. The other two
Filipino mules had carried 4 to 6.9 kilograms of heroin each.
The decision to execute the three was met with condemnation by the Catholic Church,
which had years earlier worked to overturn the death sentence in the Philippines.
Prayer vigils were held to seek divine intercession, and the television networks
pounced on the issue, perhaps helping to stir up public indignation. Amnesty
International and its Philippine organization, which had also been lobbying for
abolition of the death penalty, saw China -- long criticized as having the largest
number of prisoner executions worldwide– as an easy target. Migrant workers’ NGOs
and leftist political groups expressed sympathy for overseas workers who they argued
were not only duped into the drug trafficking trade, but were victims of a government
that in their view pushed Filipinos into these circumstances by its failure to provide
solutions to chronic poverty and unemployment.
28
While the request for clemency for the three drug mules was pending, the Philippine
government made two controversial foreign policy decisions in the hope that the
Chinese would be persuaded to act favorably on clemency. The first was to not attend
the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony in Oslo, where Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo
was being honored. In what many observers see as a blunder, Pres. Aquino III
explicitly linked the decision not to attend the Nobel ceremony with the hope of
saving the lives of the three drug couriers, thus giving the action the ludicruous
semblance of supporting a Chinese “boycott” of the award (even though the Chinese
government denied it had called for such a boycott)(Pedrosa, 12-19-2010).
The second was a decision to deport 14 Taiwanese, along with 10 mainland Chinese
who were arrested in the Philippines, to Beijing rather than to Taipei. The 24 had been
facing fraud charges in China, and the PRC government had made representations for
them to be returned to face trial in Beijing. The deportation to Beijing naturally
infuriated the government in Taipei where over 72,000 Filipinos reside and work.
Aquino defended the deportation, saying that at the time of the arrest of the
Taiwanese, “there was a red flag from the Interpol (to arrest them) and when their
identification was being requested, they failed to present proper identification and in
that regard, we did what was the proper thing to do" (Legaspi, 2011). His spokesman
Edwin Lacierda added “The evidence is in China, the crime was committed in China,
so it was in our best interest, in our national interest to deport them to China”. Some
quarters in the Philippines linked this action to appeasement of China on account of
the drug mules, but also on account of the Philippine authorities’ poor management of
a hostage-taking in Manila in 2010 that had left eight Hong Kong tourists dead
(Pamintuan, 2011).
This incident led to major frictions between Manila and Taipei, especially as the latter
government was in the midst of presidential elections in which cross-Strait relations
was a sensitive matter. Taiwan accused the Philippine government of interfering in
cross-Straits relations, and retaliated by imposing new burdensome visa requirements
for Filipino workers deploying to Taiwan. Manila had to do much to mollify the
Taiwan government.
29
While the Aquino government appeared to be bending over backwards to save the 3
drug couriers from death row, public opinion in the Philippines was actually much
more divided on the decision of China to execute them. Some prominent
commentators even questioned why the Philippine government was going to such
great lengths on behalf of persons who had been found guilty of committing very
serious crimes.
“If (the Filipino drug mules) had not been caught, imagine how many lives in
China would have been destroyed because of them.…Now, put yourself in the
shoes of the Chinese people and then think about the Filipinos who would
become drug addicts if some Chinese brought in the same amounts of drugs
into the country.” (Tulfo, 2011)
“The Filipino drug mules now languishing in Chinese jails have brought
nothing but disgrace to their compatriots and their country. Just as disgraceful
are the attempts of publicity-hungry politicians like (Vice President) Binay to
take on the role of saviors of criminals who are the least deserving of
salvation. The politician’s call for the Chinese authorities to become merciful
ring hollow.” (Mariano, 2011)
Eventually, some congressmen chimed in and opined that the limited resources of the
Philippine government would be better spent on more important things than lobbying
for clemency or arranging family visits to Filipino compatriots who had already been
convicted and sentenced to die (Cabacungan, 2011).
Notably, the execution issue did not contribute much to anti-China sentiment in the
Philippines, unlike the more emotional responses in the wake of several later incidents
in the South China Sea and perceptions of Chinese high-handedness toward the
Philippines, where at one point, a call for a boycott of Chinese products garnered 70%
support from 30,000 participants in an online survey conducted in July 2011
(Adriano, 2011).
It appears therefore that in the handling of the “Filipino drug mules” case, the
Philippine government was again taking a populist position that previous governments
(Ramos in the Contemplacion case, Arroyo in the Angelo dela Cruz case) had already
30
taken with respect to the need to assure the public that the welfare of overseas
workers (albeit misplaced in the case of drug traffickers) would always be its priority.
In the context of overall Philippine relations with China, tensions in the South China
Sea and the tougher position that the Aquino government was taking at the time
towards Beijing on the territorial disputes may have implied a need to avoid
approaching China from a supplicant’s position vis-à-vis other aspects of relations.
However, for the Aquino government it did not seem to matter that in the process of
pleading for clemency for its nationals, it risked being perceived by Beijing as weak
and vulnerable whenever the welfare of its nationals were concerned. The Aquino
government even risked criticism of its own human rights policy (by “boycotting” the
Nobel award given to a well-known Chinese human rights advocate), its respect for
the rule of law (by appearing to coddle criminals such as drug mules), and it risked
unraveling the fragile arrangements that make up the Philippines’ one-China policy
(by deporting Taiwanese to the rival Beijing government). All of these may have been
considered worthwhile in the name of assuring the Filipino public of government’s
commitment to the struggling overseas Filipinos, but questions arise as to whether
higher national interests were being served.
Concluding Observations
The JMSU and NBN-ZTE affairs (as well as the Northrail episode) are instructive of
the role of informal players and the longstanding practices of patronage in influencing
policy and foreign policy-related decisions even at the highest levels of decision
making. In these two instances, the mandated agencies e.g. the Cabinet, and career
foreign service, were marginalized and decisions were railroaded by the top
leadership (Pres. Arroyo herself) acting under pressure from informal advisers,
cronies and interest groups. The formal institutions and processes of governance
pertaining to the respective areas of national security, foreign policy and foreign
investments were subverted along the way, and took on instrumental roles only in
rationalizing decisions. By affirming the cancellation of the JMSU and NBN-ZTE
projects, the Aquino III government was driven by its priority agenda of restoring
good governance, correcting perceived policy errors, and bringing to justice the
perpetrators of these anomalous undertakings.
31
These cases also indicate how domestic corruption and the political polarization such
as that surrounding the Arroyo government in its final years can undermine the
advancement of perceived higher-order national or even regional interests. In the case
of the JMSU, the opportunity to shift the approach toward the South China Sea
territorial disputes from bilateral conflict to one of regional cooperation possibly
leading to joint development is foregone, and the momentum for similar initiatives
may be long in coming again. Renewed bilateral tensions between Manila and Beijing
since Aquino assumed office bear this out (see Baviera, 2011).
On the other hand, as an outcome of the Philippine handling of the NBNZTE/
NorthRail issues, the potentially huge impact of the massive assistance and
investments promised by the Chinese remains unrealized, while greater caution in
future economic negotiations may slow down the process of economic cooperation
henceforth. Were it not for the strategic importance of the Philippines in the context
of China’s ASEAN and South China Sea policies, and perhaps China’s need for land
and mineral resources in this neighboring state, the NBN-ZTE fiasco might have
proved to be a major disincentive for further Chinese investment and ODA.
The costs in terms of relations with China may also be deemed high in certain
quarters, especially as the complicity in corruption of the Chinese partner
organizations caused embarrassment to the PRC government, validating criticisms of
its ODA policy as undermining good governance goals.
In the third case of how the Aquino government managed Filipinos’ involvement in
drug trafficking in China, the challenge was how to balance the need to demonstrate
to the Filipino public its commitment to protection of nationals, with the need to
accord respect for Chinese law while promoting cooperation against transnational
crime. Actions of the Philippine government with respect to China were directed
mainly at pandering to even non-rational public expectations of “justice” for Filipinos
(although at the national level, more preventive measures were put into place), rather
than the latter. The inexperienced Aquino government was unwise to link the issue of
saving the lives of drug couriers with other unrelated issues (e.g. the Nobel awards
boycott or deportation of Taiwanese), but it was what a populist leader would do.
32
(This paper was written in July 2011).
33
References:
ABS-CBN News. PNoy: JMSU with China, Vietnam 'shouldn't have happened’ .
Updated as of 01/04/2011 4:56 PM.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/04/11/pnoy-jmsu-china-vietnam-shouldnthave-
happened.
ABS-CBN News. Pulse: Binay most trusted gov't officialPosted at 03/24/2011 11:26
AM Updated as of 03/24/2011 4:59 PM.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/24/11/pulse-binay-most-trusted-govt-official.
ABS-CBN News/Newsbreak. TIMELINE: Exposing the ZTE Overprice.Posted at
11/24/2008 7:50 PM | Updated as of 11/26/2008.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/24/08/timeline-exposing-zte-overprice
Adriano, J. (2011) citing a report from Hong Kong Asia Times, 13 July 2011. “Anti-
Chinese sentiment in the Philippines on the rise.”
http://mabuhaycity.com/forums/pinoys-mainland-china-hong-kong-macautaiwan/
16015-anti-chinese-sentiment-philippines-rise.html.
Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, “3 Filipino drug mules executed in China”
inquirer.net, First Posted 11:53:00 03/30/2011.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110330-328415/3-
Filipino-drug-mules-executed-in-China.
Baviera, A. (2011) “China and the South China Sea: Time for a Code of Conduct?”
RSIS Commentary No. 91/2011. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
http://bavierablogonintlrelations.blogspot.com/2011/07/china-and-south-china-seatime-
for-code.html
Bower, E, (2010) The JMSU: A tale of bilateralism and secrecy in the South China
Sea in East Asia Forum. August 3, 2010.
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/08/03/the-jmsu-a-tale-of-bilateralism-andsecrecy-
in-the-south-china-sea/
Brautigam, D. (2010) “China, Africa, and the International Aid Architecture”. African
Development Bank Group Working Paper No 107, April 2010.
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/WORKING%2
0107%20%20PDF%20E33.pdf.
Cabacungan, G. (2011) “Philippine lawmakers: Stop saving drug mules” in Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Dec 12, 2011. http://globalnation.inquirer.net/20757/lawmakers-stopsaving-
drug-mules.
Calica, A. (2011)."China Vows Cooperation in Fight Vs Corruption", The Philippine
Star. 28 May 2011.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=579168&publication
SubCategoryId=63
34
Carandang, Ricky (2008) “Treason” in Ricky Carandang Reporting. February 27,
2008. http://www.rickycarandang.com/?p=133.
Carizo, J. (2010) “The NBN-ZTE Scandal, the Brown Bags and the President’s
Budgetary Powers”, in Project 2010: Confronting the Legacy of the GMA Regime.
(Quezon City: Focus on the Global South)
China.org.cn (2004) “ICAPP displays peace, open image of CPC”.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/106034.htm. Xinhua News Agency, 4
Sept 2004.
Clapp, P.; Halperin, M. and Kanter, A (1974). Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign
Policy. (Washington DC: Brookings Institution)
De Dios, E. S. (1998). Philippine Economic Growth: Can It Last? In David G.
Timberman, The Philippines: New Directions in Domestic Policy and Foreign
Relations. New York: The Asia Society.
De Venecia dares Palace: Release full text of RP-Sino accord by Norman Bordadora,
Philippine Daily Inquirer; First Posted 02:23:00 03/08/2008.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080308-123488/De-
Venecia-dares-Palace-Release-full-text-of-RP-Sino-accord
De Venecia, J. Jr. (2011) “Parliamentarians, politicians, and civic leaders as informal
diplomats” Speech before the Consular Corps of the Philippines, 26 January 2011.
http://josedeveneciajr.com/page20.php
Fabella, R. and De Dios, E. (2007) Lacking a Backbone: The Controversy over the
“National Broadband Network” and the Cyber Education Projects. Unpublished
paper. http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/respub/dp/pdf/DP2007-07.pdf
Fearon, J. D. (1998). Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International
Relations. Annual Review of Political Science , 1, 289-313.
ICAPP/Jose de Venecia Jr. Web Site. http://www.josedeveneciajr.com/page2.php.
Accessed on July 2011.
Labog-Javellana, J. (2008) “Spratlys deals irked US, says Drilon; RP envoy also says
DFA had no part in pact”. Philippine Daily Inquirer. First Posted 01:28:00
03/08/2008. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080308-
123476/Spratlys-deals-irked-US--Drilon
Landingin. R. (2010) .”Chinese foreign aid goes offtrack in the Philippines.” in South-
South Cooperation: A Challenge to the Aid System? The Reality of Aid. (Quezon
City: Ibon Books)
35
Legaspi, A. (2011) “PNoy: We did right in deporting 14 Taiwanese to China”.
GMANews.TV February 22, 2011.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/213682/news/nation/pnoy-we-did-right-indeporting-
14-taiwanese-to-china.
Mariano, D. (2011) Do Drug Mules Deserve Mercy? Manila Times. Published
December 05, 2011.
http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/opinion/columnist1/12610-do-drug-mulesdeserve-
mercy
Medeiros, E., Crane K., Heginbotham E., Lvin N., Lowell J., Rabasa A., Seong S.
(2008). Pacific Currents: The Responses of US Allies and Security Partners in East
Asia to China's Rise (RAND Corporation)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG736.sum.pdf.
Nido Petroleum Ltd. “Palawan Pioneer appointed as new Director”, a company
announcement. http://www.nido.com.au/download-282.htm. Accessed on October
2011.
Padua, R. (2011) “Fewer Filipino drug mules this year – PDEA” in The Philippine
Star, 17 December 2011.
http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?publicationsubcategoryid=65&articleid=
75923
Pamintuan, A.M. (2011). Sketches: Foreign Policy.
http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/ht/ht009774.htm
Pedrosa, C.N. (2010) “Wrong reasons for 'boycott'; South China conflict” in From A
Distance. The Philippine Star, updated December 19, 2010.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=640643&publicationSubCategoryId=
64.
Perlex, J. (2006) “China competes with West in aid to its neighbors”, New York
Times, Sept 18,2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/asia/18china.html?_r=1&pagewanted=pri
nt&oref=slogin
Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-level
Games. International Organization , 42.3, Summer, 427-460.
Republic of the Philippines, Senate. Committee on Accountability of Public Officers
and Investigations. (Nov 11, 2009) Information Sheet On Committee Report No. 743
(Short Title: NBN-ZTE Scandal) http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1293411633!.pdf
Tordesillas, E. (2006) Interview with Eduardo Manalac, President of the Philippine
National Oil Corporation, 13 July 2006. http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=2273
36
Tulfo, R. (2011) A Monument to Drug Mules in On Target. Philippine Daily Inquirer.
First Posted 21:59:00 03/30/2011.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view/20110330-328476/Amonument-
to-the-drug-mules
Tyner, J. (2005). Iraq, Terror, and the Philippines’ Will to War. (Lanham, Maryland:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers), 103-4.
Uy, V. et al (2008) Lawmakers seek Senate, House probes on Spratlys deal
INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer, First Posted 03:52:00 03/07/2008.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080307-
123283/Lawmakers-seek-Senate-House-probes-on-Spratlys-deal
Wain, B. (2008) “Manila’s Bungle in the South China Sea” Far Eastern Economic
Review (Jan/Feb). http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/Manila_South_China_Sea.htm.
Xinhuanet (2004). “ICAPP displays peace, open image of CPC”.3 Sept 2004.
http://in.china embassy.org/eng/zgbd/t155822.htm Accessed May 2011.
Interviews with officials of the Arroyo Administration who choose to remain
anonymous.
RSIS Working Paper Series
1. Vietnam-China Relations Since The End of The Cold War
Ang Cheng Guan
(1998)
2. Multilateral Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Prospects and Possibilities
Desmond Ball
(1999)
3. Reordering Asia: “Cooperative Security” or Concert of Powers?
Amitav Acharya
(1999)
4. The South China Sea Dispute re-visited
Ang Cheng Guan
(1999)
5. Continuity and Change In Malaysian Politics: Assessing the Buildup to the 1999-2000
General Elections
Joseph Liow Chin Yong
(1999)
6. ‘Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo’ as Justified, Executed and Mediated by NATO:
Strategic Lessons for Singapore
Kumar Ramakrishna
(2000)
7. Taiwan’s Future: Mongolia or Tibet?
Chien-peng (C.P.) Chung
(2001)
8. Asia-Pacific Diplomacies: Reading Discontinuity in Late-Modern Diplomatic Practice
Tan See Seng
(2001)
9. Framing “South Asia”: Whose Imagined Region?
Sinderpal Singh
(2001)
10. Explaining Indonesia's Relations with Singapore During the New Order Period: The Case
of Regime Maintenance and Foreign Policy
Terence Lee Chek Liang
(2001)
11. Human Security: Discourse, Statecraft, Emancipation
Tan See Seng
(2001)
12. Globalization and its Implications for Southeast Asian Security: A Vietnamese Perspective
Nguyen Phuong Binh
(2001)
13. Framework for Autonomy in Southeast Asia’s Plural Societies
Miriam Coronel Ferrer
(2001)
14. Burma: Protracted Conflict, Governance and Non-Traditional Security Issues
Ananda Rajah
(2001)
15. Natural Resources Management and Environmental Security in Southeast Asia: Case Study
of Clean Water Supplies in Singapore
Kog Yue Choong
(2001)
16. Crisis and Transformation: ASEAN in the New Era
Etel Solingen
(2001)
17. Human Security: East Versus West?
Amitav Acharya
(2001)
18. Asian Developing Countries and the Next Round of WTO Negotiations
Barry Desker
(2001)
19. Multilateralism, Neo-liberalism and Security in Asia: The Role of the Asia Pacific
Economic Co-operation Forum
Ian Taylor
(2001)
20. Humanitarian Intervention and Peacekeeping as Issues for Asia-Pacific Security
Derek McDougall
(2001)
21. Comprehensive Security: The South Asian Case
S.D. Muni
(2002)
22. The Evolution of China’s Maritime Combat Doctrines and Models: 1949-2001
You Ji
(2002)
23. The Concept of Security Before and After September 11
a. The Contested Concept of Security
Steve Smith
b. Security and Security Studies After September 11: Some Preliminary Reflections
Amitav Acharya
(2002)
24. Democratisation In South Korea And Taiwan: The Effect Of Social Division On Inter-
Korean and Cross-Strait Relations
Chien-peng (C.P.) Chung
(2002)
25. Understanding Financial Globalisation
Andrew Walter
(2002)
26. 911, American Praetorian Unilateralism and the Impact on State-Society Relations in
Southeast Asia
Kumar Ramakrishna
(2002)
27. Great Power Politics in Contemporary East Asia: Negotiating Multipolarity or Hegemony?
Tan See Seng
(2002)
28. What Fear Hath Wrought: Missile Hysteria and The Writing of “America”
Tan See Seng
(2002)
29. International Responses to Terrorism: The Limits and Possibilities of Legal Control of
Terrorism by Regional Arrangement with Particular Reference to ASEAN
Ong Yen Nee
(2002)
30. Reconceptualizing the PLA Navy in Post – Mao China: Functions, Warfare, Arms, and
Organization
Nan Li
(2002)
31. Attempting Developmental Regionalism Through AFTA: The Domestics Politics –
Domestic Capital Nexus
Helen E S Nesadurai
(2002)
32. 11 September and China: Opportunities, Challenges, and Warfighting
Nan Li
(2002)
33. Islam and Society in Southeast Asia after September 11
Barry Desker
(2002)
34. Hegemonic Constraints: The Implications of September 11 For American Power
Evelyn Goh
(2002)
35. Not Yet All Aboard…But Already All At Sea Over Container Security Initiative
Irvin Lim
(2002)
36. Financial Liberalization and Prudential Regulation in East Asia: Still Perverse?
Andrew Walter
(2002)
37. Indonesia and The Washington Consensus
Premjith Sadasivan
(2002)
38. The Political Economy of FDI Location: Why Don’t Political Checks and Balances and
Treaty Constraints Matter?
Andrew Walter
(2002)
39. The Securitization of Transnational Crime in ASEAN
Ralf Emmers
(2002)
40. Liquidity Support and The Financial Crisis: The Indonesian Experience
J Soedradjad Djiwandono
(2002)
41. A UK Perspective on Defence Equipment Acquisition
David Kirkpatrick
(2003)
42. Regionalisation of Peace in Asia: Experiences and Prospects of ASEAN, ARF and UN
Partnership
Mely C. Anthony
(2003)
43. The WTO In 2003: Structural Shifts, State-Of-Play And Prospects For The Doha Round
Razeen Sally
(2003)
44. Seeking Security In The Dragon’s Shadow: China and Southeast Asia In The Emerging
Asian Order
Amitav Acharya
(2003)
45. Deconstructing Political Islam In Malaysia: UMNO’S Response To PAS’ Religio-Political
Dialectic
Joseph Liow
(2003)
46. The War On Terror And The Future of Indonesian Democracy
Tatik S. Hafidz
(2003)
47. Examining The Role of Foreign Assistance in Security Sector Reforms: The Indonesian
Case
Eduardo Lachica
(2003)
48. Sovereignty and The Politics of Identity in International Relations
Adrian Kuah
(2003)
49. Deconstructing Jihad; Southeast Asia Contexts
Patricia Martinez
(2003)
50. The Correlates of Nationalism in Beijing Public Opinion
Alastair Iain Johnston
(2003)
51. In Search of Suitable Positions’ in the Asia Pacific: Negotiating the US-China Relationship
and Regional Security
Evelyn Goh
(2003)
52. American Unilaterism, Foreign Economic Policy and the ‘Securitisation’ of Globalisation
Richard Higgott
(2003)
53. Fireball on the Water: Naval Force Protection-Projection, Coast Guarding, Customs Border
Security & Multilateral Cooperation in Rolling Back the Global Waves of Terror from the
Sea
Irvin Lim
(2003)
54. Revisiting Responses To Power Preponderance: Going Beyond The Balancing-
Bandwagoning Dichotomy
Chong Ja Ian
(2003)
55. Pre-emption and Prevention: An Ethical and Legal Critique of the Bush Doctrine and
Anticipatory Use of Force In Defence of the State
Malcolm Brailey
(2003)
56. The Indo-Chinese Enlargement of ASEAN: Implications for Regional Economic
Integration
Helen E S Nesadurai
(2003)
57. The Advent of a New Way of War: Theory and Practice of Effects Based Operation
Joshua Ho
(2003)
58. Critical Mass: Weighing in on Force Transformation & Speed Kills Post-Operation Iraqi
Freedom
Irvin Lim
(2004)
59. Force Modernisation Trends in Southeast Asia
Andrew Tan
(2004)
60. Testing Alternative Responses to Power Preponderance: Buffering, Binding, Bonding and
Beleaguering in the Real World
Chong Ja Ian
(2004)
61. Outlook on the Indonesian Parliamentary Election 2004
Irman G. Lanti
(2004)
62. Globalization and Non-Traditional Security Issues: A Study of Human and Drug
Trafficking in East Asia
Ralf Emmers
(2004)
63. Outlook for Malaysia’s 11th General Election
Joseph Liow
(2004)
64. Not Many Jobs Take a Whole Army: Special Operations Forces and The Revolution in
Military Affairs.
Malcolm Brailey
(2004)
65. Technological Globalisation and Regional Security in East Asia
J.D. Kenneth Boutin
(2004)
66. UAVs/UCAVS – Missions, Challenges, and Strategic Implications for Small and Medium
Powers
Manjeet Singh Pardesi
(2004)
67. Singapore’s Reaction to Rising China: Deep Engagement and Strategic Adjustment
Evelyn Goh
(2004)
68. The Shifting Of Maritime Power And The Implications For Maritime Security In East Asia
Joshua Ho
(2004)
69. China In The Mekong River Basin: The Regional Security Implications of Resource
Development On The Lancang Jiang
Evelyn Goh
(2004)
70. Examining the Defence Industrialization-Economic Growth Relationship: The Case of
Singapore
Adrian Kuah and Bernard Loo
(2004)
71. “Constructing” The Jemaah Islamiyah Terrorist: A Preliminary Inquiry
Kumar Ramakrishna
(2004)
72. Malaysia and The United States: Rejecting Dominance, Embracing Engagement
Helen E S Nesadurai
(2004)
73. The Indonesian Military as a Professional Organization: Criteria and Ramifications for
Reform
John Bradford
(2005)
74. Martime Terrorism in Southeast Asia: A Risk Assessment
Catherine Zara Raymond
(2005)
75. Southeast Asian Maritime Security In The Age Of Terror: Threats, Opportunity, And
Charting The Course Forward
John Bradford
(2005)
76. Deducing India’s Grand Strategy of Regional Hegemony from Historical and Conceptual
Perspectives
Manjeet Singh Pardesi
(2005)
77. Towards Better Peace Processes: A Comparative Study of Attempts to Broker Peace with
MNLF and GAM
S P Harish
(2005)
78. Multilateralism, Sovereignty and Normative Change in World Politics
Amitav Acharya
(2005)
79. The State and Religious Institutions in Muslim Societies
Riaz Hassan
(2005)
80. On Being Religious: Patterns of Religious Commitment in Muslim Societies
Riaz Hassan
(2005)
81. The Security of Regional Sea Lanes
Joshua Ho
(2005)
82. Civil-Military Relationship and Reform in the Defence Industry
Arthur S Ding
(2005)
83. How Bargaining Alters Outcomes: Bilateral Trade Negotiations and Bargaining Strategies
Deborah Elms
(2005)
84. Great Powers and Southeast Asian Regional Security Strategies: Omni-enmeshment,
Balancing and Hierarchical Order
Evelyn Goh
(2005)
85. Global Jihad, Sectarianism and The Madrassahs in Pakistan
Ali Riaz
(2005)
86. Autobiography, Politics and Ideology in Sayyid Qutb’s Reading of the Qur’an
Umej Bhatia
(2005)
87. Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea: Strategic and Diplomatic Status Quo
Ralf Emmers
(2005)
88. China’s Political Commissars and Commanders: Trends & Dynamics
Srikanth Kondapalli
(2005)
89. Piracy in Southeast Asia New Trends, Issues and Responses
Catherine Zara Raymond
(2005)
90. Geopolitics, Grand Strategy and the Bush Doctrine
Simon Dalby
(2005)
91. Local Elections and Democracy in Indonesia: The Case of the Riau Archipelago
Nankyung Choi
(2005)
92. The Impact of RMA on Conventional Deterrence: A Theoretical Analysis
Manjeet Singh Pardesi
(2005)
93. Africa and the Challenge of Globalisation
Jeffrey Herbst
(2005)
94. The East Asian Experience: The Poverty of 'Picking Winners
Barry Desker and Deborah Elms
(2005)
95. Bandung And The Political Economy Of North-South Relations: Sowing The Seeds For
Revisioning International Society
Helen E S Nesadurai
(2005)
96. Re-conceptualising the Military-Industrial Complex: A General Systems Theory Approach
Adrian Kuah
(2005)
97. Food Security and the Threat From Within: Rice Policy Reforms in the Philippines
Bruce Tolentino
(2006)
98. Non-Traditional Security Issues: Securitisation of Transnational Crime in Asia
James Laki
(2006)
99. Securitizing/Desecuritizing the Filipinos’ ‘Outward Migration Issue’in the Philippines’
Relations with Other Asian Governments
José N. Franco, Jr.
(2006)
100. Securitization Of Illegal Migration of Bangladeshis To India
Josy Joseph
(2006)
101. Environmental Management and Conflict in Southeast Asia – Land Reclamation and its
Political Impact
Kog Yue-Choong
(2006)
102. Securitizing border-crossing: The case of marginalized stateless minorities in the Thai-
Burma Borderlands
Mika Toyota
(2006)
103. The Incidence of Corruption in India: Is the Neglect of Governance Endangering Human
Security in South Asia?
Shabnam Mallick and Rajarshi Sen
(2006)
104. The LTTE’s Online Network and its Implications for Regional Security
Shyam Tekwani
(2006)
105. The Korean War June-October 1950: Inchon and Stalin In The “Trigger Vs Justification”
Debate
Tan Kwoh Jack
(2006)
106. International Regime Building in Southeast Asia: ASEAN Cooperation against the Illicit
Trafficking and Abuse of Drugs
Ralf Emmers
(2006)
107. Changing Conflict Identities: The case of the Southern Thailand Discord
S P Harish
(2006)
108. Myanmar and the Argument for Engagement: A Clash of Contending Moralities?
Christopher B Roberts
(2006)
109. TEMPORAL DOMINANCE
Military Transformation and the Time Dimension of Strategy
Edwin Seah
(2006)
110. Globalization and Military-Industrial Transformation in South Asia: An Historical
Perspective
Emrys Chew
(2006)
111. UNCLOS and its Limitations as the Foundation for a Regional Maritime Security Regime
Sam Bateman
(2006)
112. Freedom and Control Networks in Military Environments
Paul T Mitchell
(2006)
113. Rewriting Indonesian History The Future in Indonesia’s Past
Kwa Chong Guan
(2006)
114. Twelver Shi’ite Islam: Conceptual and Practical Aspects
Christoph Marcinkowski
(2006)
115. Islam, State and Modernity : Muslim Political Discourse in Late 19th and Early 20th century
India
Iqbal Singh Sevea
(2006)
116. ‘Voice of the Malayan Revolution’: The Communist Party of Malaya’s Struggle for Hearts
and Minds in the ‘Second Malayan Emergency’
(1969-1975)
Ong Wei Chong
(2006)
117. “From Counter-Society to Counter-State: Jemaah Islamiyah According to PUPJI”
Elena Pavlova
(2006)
118. The Terrorist Threat to Singapore’s Land Transportation Infrastructure: A Preliminary
Enquiry
Adam Dolnik
(2006)
119. The Many Faces of Political Islam
Mohammed Ayoob
(2006)
120. Facets of Shi’ite Islam in Contemporary Southeast Asia (I): Thailand and Indonesia
Christoph Marcinkowski
(2006)
121. Facets of Shi’ite Islam in Contemporary Southeast Asia (II): Malaysia and Singapore
Christoph Marcinkowski
(2006)
122. Towards a History of Malaysian Ulama
Mohamed Nawab
(2007)
123. Islam and Violence in Malaysia
Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid
(2007)
124. Between Greater Iran and Shi’ite Crescent: Some Thoughts on the Nature of Iran’s
Ambitions in the Middle East
Christoph Marcinkowski
(2007)
125. Thinking Ahead: Shi’ite Islam in Iraq and its Seminaries (hawzah ‘ilmiyyah)
Christoph Marcinkowski
(2007)
126. The China Syndrome: Chinese Military Modernization and the Rearming of Southeast Asia
Richard A. Bitzinger
(2007)
127. Contested Capitalism: Financial Politics and Implications for China
Richard Carney
(2007)
128. Sentinels of Afghan Democracy: The Afghan National Army
Samuel Chan
(2007)
129. The De-escalation of the Spratly Dispute in Sino-Southeast Asian Relations
Ralf Emmers
(2007)
130. War, Peace or Neutrality:An Overview of Islamic Polity’s Basis of Inter-State Relations
Muhammad Haniff Hassan
(2007)
131. Mission Not So Impossible: The AMM and the Transition from Conflict to Peace in Aceh,
2005–2006
Kirsten E. Schulze
(2007)
132. Comprehensive Security and Resilience in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s Approach to
Terrorism and Sea Piracy
Ralf Emmers
(2007)
133. The Ulama in Pakistani Politics
Mohamed Nawab
(2007)
134. China’s Proactive Engagement in Asia: Economics, Politics and Interactions
Li Mingjiang
(2007)
135. The PLA’s Role in China’s Regional Security Strategy
Qi Dapeng
(2007)
136. War As They Knew It: Revolutionary War and Counterinsurgency in Southeast Asia
Ong Wei Chong
(2007)
137. Indonesia’s Direct Local Elections: Background and Institutional Framework
Nankyung Choi
(2007)
138. Contextualizing Political Islam for Minority Muslims
Muhammad Haniff bin Hassan
(2007)
139. Ngruki Revisited: Modernity and Its Discontents at the Pondok Pesantren al-Mukmin of
Ngruki, Surakarta
Farish A. Noor
(2007)
140. Globalization: Implications of and for the Modern / Post-modern Navies of the Asia Pacific
Geoffrey Till
(2007)
141. Comprehensive Maritime Domain Awareness: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Irvin Lim Fang Jau
(2007)
142. Sulawesi: Aspirations of Local Muslims
Rohaiza Ahmad Asi
(2007)
143. Islamic Militancy, Sharia, and Democratic Consolidation in Post-Suharto Indonesia
Noorhaidi Hasan
(2007)
144. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: The Indian Ocean and The Maritime Balance of Power
in Historical Perspective
Emrys Chew
(2007)
145. New Security Dimensions in the Asia Pacific
Barry Desker
(2007)
146. Japan’s Economic Diplomacy towards East Asia: Fragmented Realism and Naïve
Liberalism
Hidetaka Yoshimatsu
(2007)
147. U.S. Primacy, Eurasia’s New Strategic Landscape,and the Emerging Asian Order
Alexander L. Vuving
(2007)
148. The Asian Financial Crisis and ASEAN’s Concept of Security
Yongwook RYU
(2008)
149. Security in the South China Sea: China’s Balancing Act and New Regional Dynamics
Li Mingjiang
(2008)
150. The Defence Industry in the Post-Transformational World: Implications for the United
States and Singapore
Richard A Bitzinger
(2008)
151. The Islamic Opposition in Malaysia:New Trajectories and Directions
Mohamed Fauz Abdul Hamid
(2008)
152. Thinking the Unthinkable: The Modernization and Reform of Islamic Higher Education in
Indonesia
Farish A Noor
(2008)
153. Outlook for Malaysia’s 12th General Elections
Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman, Shahirah Mahmood and Joseph Chinyong Liow
(2008)
154. The use of SOLAS Ship Security Alert Systems
Thomas Timlen
(2008)
155. Thai-Chinese Relations:Security and Strategic Partnership
Chulacheeb Chinwanno
(2008)
156. Sovereignty In ASEAN and The Problem of Maritime Cooperation in the South China Sea
JN Mak
(2008)
157. Sino-U.S. Competition in Strategic Arms
Arthur S. Ding
(2008)
158. Roots of Radical Sunni Traditionalism
Karim Douglas Crow
(2008)
159. Interpreting Islam On Plural Society
Muhammad Haniff Hassan
(2008)
160. Towards a Middle Way Islam in Southeast Asia: Contributions of the Gülen Movement
Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman
(2008)
161. Spoilers, Partners and Pawns: Military Organizational Behaviour and Civil-Military
Relations in Indonesia
Evan A. Laksmana
(2008)
162. The Securitization of Human Trafficking in Indonesia
Rizal Sukma
(2008)
163. The Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) of Malaysia: Communitarianism Across
Borders?
Farish A. Noor
(2008)
164. A Merlion at the Edge of an Afrasian Sea: Singapore’s Strategic Involvement in the Indian
Ocean
Emrys Chew
(2008)
165. Soft Power in Chinese Discourse: Popularity and Prospect
Li Mingjiang
(2008)
166. Singapore’s Sovereign Wealth Funds: The Politcal Risk of Overseas Investments
Friedrich Wu
(2008)
167. The Internet in Indonesia: Development and Impact of Radical Websites
Jennifer Yang Hui
(2008)
168. Beibu Gulf: Emerging Sub-regional Integration between China and ASEAN
Gu Xiaosong and Li Mingjiang
(2009)
169. Islamic Law In Contemporary Malaysia: Prospects and Problems
Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid
(2009)
170. “Indonesia’s Salafist Sufis”
Julia Day Howell
(2009)
171. Reviving the Caliphate in the Nusantara: Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia’s Mobilization Strategy
and Its Impact in Indonesia
Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman
(2009)
172. Islamizing Formal Education: Integrated Islamic School and a New Trend in Formal
Education Institution in Indonesia
Noorhaidi Hasan
(2009)
173. The Implementation of Vietnam-China Land Border Treaty: Bilateral and Regional
Implications
Do Thi Thuy
(2009)
174. The Tablighi Jama’at Movement in the Southern Provinces of Thailand Today: Networks
and Modalities
Farish A. Noor
(2009)
175. The Spread of the Tablighi Jama’at Across Western, Central and Eastern Java and the role
of the Indian Muslim Diaspora
Farish A. Noor
(2009)
176. Significance of Abu Dujana and Zarkasih’s Verdict
Nurfarahislinda Binte Mohamed Ismail, V. Arianti and Jennifer Yang Hui
(2009)
177. The Perils of Consensus: How ASEAN’s Meta-Regime Undermines Economic and
Environmental Cooperation
Vinod K. Aggarwal and Jonathan T. Chow
(2009)
178. The Capacities of Coast Guards to deal with Maritime Challenges in Southeast Asia
Prabhakaran Paleri
(2009)
179. China and Asian Regionalism: Pragmatism Hinders Leadership
Li Mingjiang
(2009)
180. Livelihood Strategies Amongst Indigenous Peoples in the Central Cardamom Protected
Forest, Cambodia
Long Sarou
(2009)
181. Human Trafficking in Cambodia: Reintegration of the Cambodian illegal migrants from
Vietnam and Thailand
Neth Naro
(2009)
182. The Philippines as an Archipelagic and Maritime Nation: Interests, Challenges, and
Perspectives
Mary Ann Palma
(2009)
183. The Changing Power Distribution in the South China Sea: Implications for Conflict
Management and Avoidance
Ralf Emmers
(2009)
184. Islamist Party, Electoral Politics and Da‘wa Mobilization among Youth: The Prosperous
Justice Party (PKS) in Indonesia
Noorhaidi Hasan
(2009)
185. U.S. Foreign Policy and Southeast Asia: From Manifest Destiny to Shared Destiny
Emrys Chew
(2009)
186. Different Lenses on the Future: U.S. and Singaporean Approaches to Strategic Planning
Justin Zorn
(2009)
187. Converging Peril : Climate Change and Conflict in the Southern Philippines
J. Jackson Ewing
(2009)
188. Informal Caucuses within the WTO: Singapore in the “Invisibles Group”
Barry Desker
(2009)
189. The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: A Failure in Practice
Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan
(2009)
190. How Geography Makes Democracy Work
Richard W. Carney
(2009)
191. The Arrival and Spread of the Tablighi Jama’at In West Papua (Irian Jaya), Indonesia
Farish A. Noor
(2010)
192. The Korean Peninsula in China’s Grand Strategy: China’s Role in dealing with North
Korea’s Nuclear Quandary
Chung Chong Wook
(2010)
193. Asian Regionalism and US Policy: The Case for Creative Adaptation
Donald K. Emmerson
(2010)
194. Jemaah Islamiyah:Of Kin and Kind
Sulastri Osman
(2010)
195. The Role of the Five Power Defence Arrangements in the Southeast Asian Security
Architecture
Ralf Emmers
(2010)
196. The Domestic Political Origins of Global Financial Standards: Agrarian Influence and the
Creation of U.S. Securities Regulations
Richard W. Carney
(2010)
197. Indian Naval Effectiveness for National Growth
Ashok Sawhney
(2010)
198. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) regime in East Asian waters: Military and intelligencegathering
activities, Marine Scientific Research (MSR) and hydrographic surveys in an
EEZ
Yang Fang
(2010)
199. Do Stated Goals Matter? Regional Institutions in East Asia and the Dynamic of Unstated
Goals
Deepak Nair
(2010)
200. China’s Soft Power in South Asia
Parama Sinha Palit
(2010)
201. Reform of the International Financial Architecture: How can Asia have a greater impact in
the G20?
Pradumna B. Rana
(2010)
202. “Muscular” versus “Liberal” Secularism and the Religious Fundamentalist Challenge in
Singapore
Kumar Ramakrishna
(2010)
203. Future of U.S. Power: Is China Going to Eclipse the United States? Two Possible Scenarios
to 2040
Tuomo Kuosa
(2010)
204. Swords to Ploughshares: China’s Defence-Conversion Policy
Lee Dongmin
(2010)
205. Asia Rising and the Maritime Decline of the West: A Review of the Issues
Geoffrey Till
(2010)
206. From Empire to the War on Terror: The 1915 Indian Sepoy Mutiny in Singapore as a case
study of the impact of profiling of religious and ethnic minorities.
Farish A. Noor
(2010)
207. Enabling Security for the 21st Century: Intelligence & Strategic Foresight and Warning
Helene Lavoix
(2010)
208. The Asian and Global Financial Crises: Consequences for East Asian Regionalism
Ralf Emmers and John Ravenhill
(2010)
209. Japan’s New Security Imperative: The Function of Globalization
Bhubhindar Singh and Philip Shetler-Jones
(2010)
210. India’s Emerging Land Warfare Doctrines and Capabilities
Colonel Harinder Singh
(2010)
211. A Response to Fourth Generation Warfare
Amos Khan
(2010)
212. Japan-Korea Relations and the Tokdo/Takeshima Dispute: The Interplay of Nationalism
and Natural Resources
Ralf Emmers
(2010)
213. Mapping the Religious and Secular Parties in South Sulawesi and Tanah Toraja, Sulawesi,
Indonesia
Farish A. Noor
(2010)
214. The Aceh-based Militant Network: A Trigger for a View into the Insightful Complex of
Conceptual and Historical Links
Giora Eliraz
(2010)
215. Evolving Global Economic Architecture: Will We have a New Bretton Woods?
Pradumna B. Rana
(2010)
216. Transforming the Military: The Energy Imperative
Kelvin Wong
(2010)
217. ASEAN Institutionalisation: The Function of Political Values and State Capacity
Christopher Roberts
(2010)
218. China’s Military Build-up in the Early Twenty-first Century: From Arms Procurement to
War-fighting Capability
Yoram Evron
(2010)
219. Darul Uloom Deoband: Stemming the Tide of Radical Islam in India
Taberez Ahmed Neyazi
(2010)
220. Recent Developments in the South China Sea: Grounds for Cautious Optimism?
Carlyle A. Thayer
(2010)
221. Emerging Powers and Cooperative Security in Asia
Joshy M. Paul
(2010)
222. What happened to the smiling face of Indonesian Islam?
Muslim intellectualism and the conservative turn in post-Suharto Indonesia
Martin Van Bruinessen
(2011)
223. Structures for Strategy: Institutional Preconditions for Long-Range Planning in Cross-
Country Perspective
Justin Zorn
(2011)
224. Winds of Change in Sarawak Politics?
Faisal S Hazis
(2011)
225. Rising from Within: China’s Search for a Multilateral World and Its Implications
for Sino-U.S. Relations
Li Mingjiang
(2011)
226. Rising Power… To Do What?
Evaluating China’s Power in Southeast Asia
Evelyn Goh
(2011)
227. Assessing 12-year Military Reform in Indonesia: Major Strategic Gaps for the Next Stage
of Reform
Leonard C. Sebastian and Iisgindarsah
(2011)
228. Monetary Integration in ASEAN+3: A Perception Survey of Opinion Leaders
Pradumna Bickram Rana, Wai-Mun Chia & Yothin Jinjarak
(2011)
229. Dealing with the “North Korea Dilemma”: China’s Strategic Choices
You Ji
(2011)
230. Street, Shrine, Square and Soccer Pitch: Comparative Protest Spaces in Asia and the
Middle East
Teresita Cruz-del Rosario and James M. Dorsey
(2011)
231. The Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) in the landscape of Indonesian Islamist Politics:
Cadre-Training as Mode of Preventive Radicalisation?
Farish A Noor
(2011)
232. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Negotiations: Overview and Prospects
Deborah Elms and C.L. Lim
(2012)
233. How Indonesia Sees ASEAN and the World: A Cursory Survey of the Social Studies and
History textbooks of Indonesia, from Primary to Secondary Level.
Farish A. Noor
(2012)
234. The Process of ASEAN’s Institutional Consolidation in 1968-1976: Theoretical
Implications for Changes of Third-World Security Oriented Institution
Kei Koga
(2012)
235. Getting from Here to There: Stitching Together Goods Agreements in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) Agreement
Deborah Elms
(2012)
236. Indonesia’s Democratic Politics and Foreign Policy-Making: A Case Study of Iranian
Nuclear Issue, 2007-2008
Iisgindarsah
(2012)
237. Reflections on Defence Security in East Asia
Desmond Ball
(2012)
238. The Evolving Multi-layered Global Financial Safety Net: Role of Asia
Pradumna B. Rana
(2012)
239. Chinese Debates of South China Sea Policy: Implications for Future Developments
Li Mingjiang
(2012)
240. China’s Economic Restructuring : Role of Agriculture
Zhang Hongzhou
(2012)
241. The Influence of Domestic Politics on Philippine Foreign Policy: The case of Philippines-
China relations since 2004
Aileen S.P. Baviera
(2012)