November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 33
Nov. 16 (EIRNS)—A revolutionary
change is taking place in the Philippines,
threatening to collapse President
Obama’s mad drive for nuclear
confrontation with China. That plan,
first launched as Obama’s “Pivot to
Asia” in 2012, involves shifting expanded
naval, air, and land forces to
Asia, along with enhanced ballistic
missile defense systems, in a ring
around China and the Russian Far
East.
Most importantly, it includes
Obama’s plan to re-occupy the Philippines
militarily with the most advanced
naval, air, and ground forces
and military equipment.
Now, faced with Russian President
Putin’s brilliant flanking action
against Obama’s war policy in
Europe and the Middle East—by waging an effective
war on ISIS in cooperation with the Syrian government
and others—Obama has responded by focussing with a
vengeance on his policy of war against China.
Obama and his subservient President of the Philippines,
Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, are attempting to
circumvent the Philippine Constitution, which, since
1991, has explicitly forbidden the presence of any foreign
military bases on Philippine soil. Their ploy is to
pretend that the new U.S. bases are not bases at all, but
will be set up within Philippine military bases, with the
Americans declared to be merely “guests.”
Aquino further claims that the Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) which enables this
charade, is not a treaty, but only an “executive agreement,”
and thus does not require the approval of the
Philippine Senate, as required by law for such a treaty.
Fortunately, this scam is falling apart, thanks to a
series of actions and interventions by patriots of the
Philippines, joined by American patriots who recognize
the threat of global thermonuclear war inherent in
Obama’s confrontation with China. These actions, documented
below, include:
• A declaration by Filipinos in Solidarity for Sovereignty
(PINAS)—which has also taken the EDCA
to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds—
saying that the recent U.S. military provocations
against Chinese territories in the South China Sea
bring the world to the brink of war, and exemplify
why the Philippines must reject the U.S. military occupation.
• A friend of the court (Petition for Intervention)
brief by U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (Alaska 1969-81) to
the Philippine Supreme Court, arguing on moral, his-
III. Philippine Leaders Take Their Stand Against Obama’s Thermonuclear War
Philippines Revolts Against
Obama’s War on China
Xinhua/Rouelle Umali
Philippine President Benigno Aquino (right) greets Chinese Foreign Minister Wang
Yi at the presidential palace in Manila Nov. 10, 2015.
34 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
torical, and political grounds that the re-occupation of
the Philippines must be stopped.
• A call by Philippine Senator Kit Tatad (1992-2001)
for the Philippines to declare official neutrality.
• A dramatic vote in the Philippine Senate on November
9, passing a resolution by a vote of 15-1 that
declares that the EDCA is indeed a treaty and must be
approved by the Senate. The resolution—brought by
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a presidential
candidate for the 2016 election—pre-empted the the
Supreme Court, which had leaked that its decision
would approve the EDCA and would be released on
November 16, the day before President Obama is
scheduled to arrive in the Philippines for the annual
APEC Summit.
Obama’s effort to be ordained the new governorgeneral
of a colonial Philippines has been thwarted,
thus far.
Revolt Across Asia
These developments in the Philippines come at a
time when the rest of Asia is also reacting against
Obama’s war drive. A meeting of the defense ministers
of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus the United States, China,
Japan, and others, on Nov. 13 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
rejected Obama’s demand, delivered by U.S.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, that the final communiqué
denounce China for “aggression” in the
South China Sea. No communiqué was issued as a
result.
In fact, China’s President Xi Jinping on Nov. 6 visited
Vietnam—one of the countries Obama has encouraged
to denounce Chinese “aggression” in the South
China Sea—and the two nations re-established strong
strategic ties. Then Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
visited Manila to prepare for President Xi’s visit for the
APEC Summit. President Aquino promised that the
South China Sea issue would not be on the APEC
agenda.
The ASEAN members naturally want to be part of
China’s New Silk Road projects for real development,
rather than Obama’s anti-China alliance. But they also
increasingly recognize that the militarization of the
region is not coming from China, which is only building
up islands already under their control, but from
Obama, whose plan for at least eight U.S. military
bases in the Philippines even includes two in the South
China Sea, on Palawan Island—and they want no part
of it.
LaRouche’s Role
In several of these developments, friends of Lyndon
LaRouche are playing a crucial role. In their own words,
here is the documentation of the courageous steps taken
by citizens of a small nation to prevent the madness of
a global thermonuclear war, and to demand development
as the basis for peace.
Is Neutrality an Option
for the Philippines?
by Francisco S. Tatad
Nov. 16—The following (edited) op-ed in the Manila
Times was written by Francisco “Kit” Tatad, Minister
of Public Information under President Ferdinand
Marcos from 1969 to 1980, and Senator of the Philippines
from 1992 to 2001. Sen. Tatad is a founding
member of the National Transformation Council.
The Prospect of War
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 (EIRNS)—Given the maritime
conflict between China and Japan, between China
and the Philippines, and America’s concern over China’s
conduct in the disputed areas, armed hostilities
could arise between China on the one hand, and the
United States and Japan on the other, with the Philippines
probably absorbing some of the missiles. This is
the fear of some Filipino analysts I have met here.
. . .The Philippines is not militarily prepared for any
war, but by talking like it very badly needs to take on
the Asian hegemon, the Aquino regime may have created
a situation nobody wants or is ready for. . . .
The Idea of Being Neutral
One analyst, who asked that I withhold his name,
has proposed one such unthinkable question. Given
the growing rivalry between the United States and
China, and the distinct possibility that we might get
caught in the middle, if and when it explodes into a
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 35
violent confrontation, can neutrality be an option for
the Philippines? It is not easy to formulate this question,
for obvious reasons. Because of our longstanding
security alliance with the United States, just to ask
the question already carries with it the smell of treason.
. . .
Why neutrality? Because the analyst’s fear is that an
air-sea battle could erupt in our disputed waters, and it
would not be easy to remain a non-belligerent then. He
does not see hostilities being limited to a small war
solely between China and the Philippines on account of
their maritime territorial dispute. The issue has been
there since the 1950s, and only during the presidency of
B.S. Aquino III did it become a serious bilateral problem.
Imagining War
The analyst believes that, were real hostilities to
occur, they are more likely to be between the United
States and Japan on the one hand, and China on the
other, because of the larger question of regional dominance
and sphere of influence. As the oldest Asia-Pacific
power and the world’s only superpower, the United
States, with its Seventh Fleet, is not likely to give up its
historic role. But China is now a world economic power,
and a rising regional military power, and will not want
to be elbowed out of its own natural theatre. . . .
Can a country like the Philippines offer a
solution? This is what the analyst wanted me
to explore. The Philippines is one of China’s
oldest trading partners, and at the same time,
a historic U.S. military and political ally. It
should be a friend to both sides. . . .
Until 1975, when Marcos established diplomatic
relations with Beijing, the Chinese
Communist Party was said to be funding,
training, and arming the New People’s Army
(NPA) and the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP). The cessation of Chinese support
for the CPP/NPA was one of the conditions
for Marcos’ recognition of Beijing. On
the other hand, military assistance and security
support came solely from the United
States, with which the Philippines had a
Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1950 (and
in force until now), and a military bases
agreement, signed in 1947 and ending in
1991.
U.S.-Philippine Security Ties
When the bases agreement expired in 1991, the
United States tried to negotiate a new treaty extending
the bases by another 10 years. This was shot down by
the Senate in 1992, despite President Corazon Aquino’s
frenzied effort to win Senate approval. This chilled
Philippine-U.S. relations for a while until the two governments
entered into a Visiting Forces Agreement in
1999. As Senate Majority Leader at the time, I co-sponsored
the Senate resolution concurring in its ratification.
In 2014, the Aquino government signed an Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with
the United States without the participation of the
Senate. The Constitution provides that after 1991, foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed
in the Philippines except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose,
and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
state.
The EDCA does not create any new bases, but
allows the United States to deploy its troops and facilities
inside any Philippine military establishment. It also
allows nuclear vessels to come and go as they please,
despite the constitutional ban on nuclear weapons in the
Philippine Senator Francisco (Kit) Tatad, addressing a conference of the
Save the Nation movement, founded by Philippines LaRouche Society
leader Butch Valdes, in April 2013.
36 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
country. All this seems consistent with Aquino’s
support for President Obama’s pivot to Asia.
Undoing What Aquino Has Done
Aquino’s handling of the nation’s foreign and
national security policies has created a situation
that needs to be undone. . . . The Philippines needs
to compose its own differences with China, instead
of getting involved in any quarrel that is not
its own. It should try to promote friendship and
cooperation between China and the United States,
instead of getting caught in the middle of any possible
confrontation. How can this be done? The
analyst suggests either a non-aggression pact with
China or a state of neutrality for the Philippines.
This, he points out, is consistent with the Philippine
constitutional provision which renounces
war as an instrument of national policy.
U.S. Neutrality
With respect to neutrality, he points to the early
American experience. In 1793, he recalls, President
George Washington issued a proclamation of
neutrality, which enabled his young nation to
avoid the war raging between France and England.
The United States was militarily weak at the
time, and fighting a war would have endangered
its very existence. This enabled the United States
to grow from inside, so that by 1823, it was strong
enough to proclaim the Monroe Doctrine, which
warned the European powers that further efforts to
colonize land or interfere with states in North or South
America would be regarded as acts of aggression, requiring
U.S. intervention.
From 1935 to 1939, President Roosevelt invoked the
Neutrality Act again and again to avoid getting embroiled
in the European wars. . . . On Dec. 8, 1941, the
United States declared war on Japan, a day after it had
attacked Pearl Harbor. On Dec. 11, 1941, Germany and
Italy declared war on the United States, and on the same
day the United States responded with similar declarations.
By now the United States had become a great war
power, but for as long as it lasted, its neutrality had a
glorious run.
Some Rights and Duties of Neutrals
Under the Hague Convention of 1907, the territory
of neutral powers is inviolable.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops, or convoys
of either war munitions or supplies, across the
territory of a neutral power. They are likewise forbidden
to (a) erect on the territory of a neutral power a
wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the
purpose of communicating with belligerents on land
or sea, or (b) use any installation of this kind established
by them before the war on the territory of a
neutral power for purely military purposes, and which
has not been opened for the service of public messages.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting
agencies opened on the territory of a neutral power
to assist the belligerents.
A neutral power has the right and the duty to resist
any attempt to violate its neutrality, even by force, without
[being regarded as] committing a hostile act. . . .
Library of Congress
President George Washington declared U.S. neutrality in the midst of the
great European conflicts of the 1790s.
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 37
Effects of Neutrality
Were the Philippines to become neutral, it would
remove itself from the center of the evolving conflict
between China on the one hand, and the United States
and Japan on the other. It would also allow a policy of
equidistance from the competing Asia-Pacific powers.
This would enable it to develop an independent world
view and a foreign policy that looks primarily to its own
interests, rather than to those of its external patrons. For
the first time in its history, it would be compelled to
stand on its own. This would not be without pain in the
beginning, but if Switzerland provides any inspiration,
the end result could be rewarding. It would allow the
country to nourish and fulfill its own ambitions.
But it would mean dismantling the U.S.-Philippine
alliance which has helped to undergird the U.S. security
system in the Asia-Pacific region until now. Do you believe
there is anyone on the horizon who would risk his
chance of becoming president by suggesting to Washington
that this is one great idea whose time has come?
—fstatad@gmail.com
PINAS Statement on
U.S. Actions Hostile
to the Philippines
Nov. 16—The following statement was issued by Filipinos
in Solidarity for Sovereignty (PINAS) on the U.S.
provocation in the South China Sea and the planned
U.S. military occupation of Philippine bases. It was
drafted by Butch Valdes, the head of the Philippine La-
Rouche Society, and adopted by PINAS on Oct. 30.
PINAS also brought the case against EDCA to the Supreme
Court.
Despite our presently unresolved territorial issues
with countries surrounding the West Philippine Seas,
it is with unequivocal opposition that we view the
outrageous military provocation of China by U.S.
President Obama under the guise of freedom of navigation.
In blatant disregard for the sovereignty and security
concerns of Southeast Asian Nations, the U.S. has initiated
threatening actions against China, which not only
destabilize the whole region, but also may provide the
spark of thermonuclear confrontation between the two
superpowers.
Our concern is aggravated by the declared and
insane acquiescence of the current President, Benigno
Aquino III, in the critically dangerous advances by an
equally impaired Barack Obama. The risk to 100 million
Filipino lives notwithstanding, Aquino has signed
a constitutionally infirm agreement allowing the U.S.
forces to have access to all our airports and seaports,
ply our territorial waters, and set up American bases
within our Philippine bases.
It is this highly questionable accommodation by the
Philippine President, and the tacit approval of a mercenary
Senate and an obviously intimidated Supreme
Court, that has provided U.S. nuclear-armed warships
the bases to mount and implement provocative action
against their principal adversary in the region.
We call on all patriotic Filipinos to reject the presently
disastrous condition of allowing foreign military
installations in Philippine territories. The U.S. geopolitical
intentions, through President Obama’s actions,
are manifestly clear. Their decisions and actions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine
are now glaring examples of internal chaos, after they
have been supposedly liberated from dictatorship, into
democracy.
Let us uphold the principles of sovereignty, and advocate
a world community of Sovereign Nation-States—
bound by a common objective—to improve the quality
of life of every single human being on the planet, so that
our generation and those after us, can reap the benefits of
Man’s collaboration and collective creativity.
Antonio ‘Butch’ Valdes, addressing the Schiller Institute New
Paradigm conference of June 2103 in San Francisco by video.
38 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
U.S. Senator Mike Gravel
(D-AK 1969-81) filed the
following (slightly edited)
Friend of the Court brief
(called Petition for Intervention
in the Philippines)
in the Supreme Court of the
Philippines on November
10, 2015, in the case challenging
the constitutionality
of the EDCA.
Summary
The decision by the Philippine
government to enter
into an Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA) with the United
States government is neither
in the best interest of the
Philippine people nor in the best interest of the American
people.
Throughout human history, conflicts that develop
between national empires in decline ceding status and
power to ascending nations have invariably led to
war. This occurrence is what General Martin
Dempsey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, called the Thucydides trap, in which Athenian
fear of a rising Sparta made the Peloponnesian War
inevitable. It is noteworthy that it was the democratic
Athens that initiated the war, not the autocratic Sparta.
Fortunately, there are some instances in history in
which precarious superpower transitions have not led
to war. China’s ascendancy is primarily economic in
nature, and no evidence suggests that it seeks global
military hegemony even though its economic interests
are global. To the contrary, China’s military expenditures
in response to the irresponsible rhetoric of
some American leaders
have increased over the last
decade, but are still considerably
less than a third of
United States annual military
expenditures, which
amount equals half the
world’s total military expenditures.
President Obama’s recent
speech before the UN
General Assembly quieted
the chamber when he
articulated the following
threat:
I lead the strongest
military that the world
has ever known, and I
will never hesitate to
protect my country or our allies, unilaterally
and by force where necessary.
. . . I will argue below that the United States, whether
intentionally or by accident, is skirting ever so close to
the Thucydides trap. America’s political leadership is
unable to reverse that trajectory. Therefore, it is my hope
that a foreign national interest will step forward to protect
Americans from their own government’s military
foreign policies.
The Philippines could possibly take up a portion of
that task, and in so doing, safeguard its own sovereign
interests while avoiding military engagements and a
possible war that no one wants. The decision of this
esteemed Supreme Court can set in motion a chain of
circumstances that could have an impact on whether
the conflict caused by China’s global economic ascendency
and the loss of United States hegemonic mili-
Sen. Gravel
The Philippines Must Save Itself,
And Help Save Us From Ourselves
Nizar Abboud
Former Senator Mike Gravel speaking to the UN Press
Correspondents in New York City, Sept. 14, 2015.
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 39
tary primacy in the Indo-Pacific economic center of
gravity, will result in war by falling into the Thucydides
trap.
Credentials
We are most critical of what we hold most dear. I
love my country, but I cannot abide the concept ‘my
country right or wrong.’ When it is wrong, I hope to
propound an effective critique to negate that wrong.
As a young man, I enlisted in the United States Army
and graduated from the Infantry School’s Officer Candidate
Program at Fort Benning, Georgia. Most of my
class went to Korea at the worst of the fighting. I had
the good fortune, having been educated by the Army
as a Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) agent, of being
sent to Europe as the Adjutant of the Communications
Intelligence Service, an agency that used the CIC as its
cover. As a 23-year-old second lieutenant, I had the
authority to classify and declassify military documents.
Advancing 20 years, little wonder that, as a 41-yearold
U.S. Senator, I instantly accepted the responsibility
from Daniel Ellsberg of officially releasing the Pentagon
Papers, top secret documents that revealed the history
of how four presidential administrations, and later
a fifth, had lied to the American people about the reasons
for our involvement in the quagmire of the Vietnam
War. The Nixon Administration’s Justice Department
sought my indictment, occasioning a case that
was unanimously decided by the U.S. Supreme Court
that a member of Congress could
reveal any classified information
within the confines of the Congress
without being questioned by
any other authority under the provisions
of the speech and debate
clause of the U.S. Constitution. . . .
As a legislator, I served as a
representative and Speaker of the
Alaska House of Representatives
(1963-1966) and served two terms
in the U.S. Senate representing the
people of Alaska (1969-1981). Politically,
I had the honor of enjoying
the full electoral support of the
Alaskan Philippine community.
During my Senate career I had occasion
to visit the Philippines as
the guest of Ferdinand Marcos—a
visit I found most instructive.
Since I was committed to the enactment of the Law
of the Sea and played a leadership role in seeking its
ratification in the Senate, I was appointed the delegate
from the U.S. Senate to the 31st General Assembly of
the United Nations.
As I stated above, I love my country, however, I
hold my love of mankind above that of my country. I
hold the life of any human being equal to that of any
American.
I pray this distinguished Court will find the above
credentials sufficient to warrant your attention to the
views I express in this paper.
History
History forgotten is often repeated. Please keep in
the forefront of your deliberations the history of the
United States as it impacted the Philippines and the
peoples of Southeast Asia. Understanding this history
will clarify what possible effects the EDCA could have
on the Philippine people.
As you know, after several centuries of Spanish colonial
rule, the Katipunan revolt began in 1892 and was
formalized with the Filipino War of Independence in
1896. Most of America’s media attention centered on
Cuba. When the United States declared war against
Spain in 1898, the congressional declaration included
the Teller Amendment, which disclaimed any intention
of the United States to annex Cuba, and promised to
leave the island as soon as the war was over. No such
The result of falling for the Thucydides trap: The Peloponnesian War between Athens
and Sparta, 431-404 BC.
40 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
declaratory reservation was made
with respect to the Philippine archipelago,
also in a revolt against Spain.
In one spectacular battle, Admiral
George Dewey destroyed the entire
Spanish fleet bottled up in Manila
Bay. He then invited Emilio Aguinaldo
to return from exile to prosecute
a land war against the Spanish—
American ground troops had yet to
arrive—with the inducement of prospective
independence for a Philippine
Republic.
Henceforth, a duplicitous manipulation
ensued involving all of the
usual suspects: the U.S. President,
the State Department, the Congress,
the Navy, the Army, the jingoistic
American media, and the ill-informed
patriotic American public, oblivious
to the trashing of its most fundamental values: liberty,
freedom, national sovereignty, and self-determination.
From such realpolitik stagecraft under the administrations
of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt,
and Woodrow Wilson evolved a crushing insurgent war
on the Philippine population, exhibiting a level of cruelty
and atrocity equal to the worst in the annals of conquest
and war. The result: All opposition was brutally
crushed and the Filipino leadership and population remained
supine to American interests, except for a brief
interlude commencing on September 16, 1991.
At the Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898, ending
the Spanish-American War, Spain would not involve
the lowly revolutionaries of Cuba or the Philippines in
the surrender process, to which the U.S. did not object.
In the treaty, Spain renounced its rights to Cuba, acknowledging
its independence, ceded Puerto Rico and
the island of Guam to the United States, and sold the
Philippines to the United States for $20,000,000. The
sale afforded a level of legitimacy to the U.S. ownership
of the archipelago because of the earlier purchase
of Alaska from Russia.
It was not until the presidential administration of
Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 that the right of Filipino
self-determination was acknowledged with a promise
of independence—delayed until 1946, after the end of
World War II, during which Filipino fighters acquitted
themselves with courage and resolve equal to that of
any nation.
. . .Add to this limited recitation of past facts the
criminal complicity that the United States foisted on the
Philippines with the prosecution of wars against fellow
South Asians. I am not only referring to our conduct in
Indochina, but also to the wanton invasions of Cambodia,
Laos, and the corruption of Thailand. Subic Bay
and Clark Air Base were the main platforms outside the
war zone to supply military resources to American
forces to prosecute the Vietnam War in a manner not
dissimilar to the pacification of the insurgent war pursued
against the Philippine population at the turn of the
century.
We need to remember that a commander of the
American Air Force advocated the use of nuclear weapons
to bomb the Vietnamese into submission—in effect
depopulating the country to save it from going communist.
We should also remember that during the Korean
War General Douglas MacArthur, the son of General
Arthur MacArthur who figured prominently in the suppression
of the Philippine insurgency, advocated the
use of nuclear weapons in Korea and on China. It is not
unfair to conclude that some Western elites placed little
value on Asian lives.
Even to this day, a significant leader in Congress
and a former presidential candidate still believes that
we should have won the Vietnam War, and that we only
failed for lack of political resolve. That war was never
winnable, for the Vietnamese were prepared to pay any
price to become an independent sovereign nation.
Perley Fremont Rockett/Library of Congress
The brutal Philippine-American War of the late Nineteenth-early Twentieth Century.
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 41
When we decamped under pressure
because of American protests at
home, we left many of our Asian
allies at the mercy of the enemies we
had created for them. We also left a
refugee crisis—boat people—that
had some impact on the Philippines.
At the height of the war, America’s
leaders knew it was a mistake and
had long given up on the Domino
Theory. They were only concerned
with a face-saving exit.
Nevertheless, our global reputation
was damaged. As a result, we
punished the people of Southeast
Asia with sanctions and trade embargoes
for a generation.
The truth of this history, so hard to
accept, is that the millions of Filipinos,
Indo-Chinese, Laotians, Cambodians,
and Americans all died in vain.
The political ideology of communism
we so abhorred still exists, but
now Vietnam enjoys most favored
trade status with America. They did die in vain. There is
no question that the Philippines benefited economically
from America’s war in Southeast Asia. However, I
would maintain that the moral price and the militarization
of the Filipino culture was far too high a price to
pay.
The phenomena of this interlude in history baffle
many Americans. We don’t know why these people,
who have been so abused by us, have forgiven us and
still greet us with amity. Do they not understand what
we have done?
China
. . .The U.S. agitation over the Spratly Islands created
by China dredging and building up reefs has great
propaganda value for America. However, the charge
that they are military bases is somewhat specious. A
military base presupposes that it would play some
useful operational role in the event of hostilities. Physically
these small islands are easily destroyed in the
event of a conflict and therefore are not military bases
in any sense of the word. These islands are outposts of
a symbolic nature—markers that would enhance legal
arguments for rights at some future date.
However, from a Philippine and Chinese perspective,
these disputes are serious. Filipino fishermen make
their living fishing these waters, and the economic benefits
from prospective oil and gas discoveries could be
significant. The solutions to these disputes, not only for
the Philippines but for all the interested nations in the
region, are best dealt with diplomatically under the auspices
of the United Nations and not by military confrontations.
In the Scarborough Reef incident, China confronted
Filipino fishermen over their access to the reef. Even
though the United States got involved, the Filipinos
were forced to back down. This successful incident in
2012 suggests a policy for China to go it alone in the
South China Sea. It offers a model for continued Chinese
confrontations, nibbling at the margins of the national
interests of the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan,
Indonesia, and Vietnam.
At present, the issue rests with the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea. I would hope that the tribunal
would use its influence to initiate a UN regional
forum, inviting all the interested parties to treat these
sovereignty issues from a broader perspective than that
of any one single party. This should have appeal to
China, which has advantaged economically all parties
in the region with its spectacular global growth. This
courtesy of South Sea Conversations via New Sohu.com
A section of the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, a source of simmering
conflict between the Philippines and China. Here a Philippines member of parliament
leads military and media personnel to the Shoal in May 1997.
42 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
forum would permit China to showcase its Silk Road—
One Belt, One Road—vision by including the disputants
in the economic vision with specific development
projects, and thereby advance harmony by sharing the
commons of the China Sea.
The Scarborough Reef incident should inform the
Philippine leadership that when push turns to shove,
the United States will not provoke a military showdown
with China over Filipino fishing or mineral
rights. It should drive home the fact that U.S. militarization
of the Philippines is not really designed to
protect Philippine interests but rather to afford the
United States a geographic advantage to confront
China over its ascendant superpower status, which the
United States finds offensive to its global hegemonic
status.
It is somewhat disingenuous for the United States to
claim that it is patrolling the South China Sea to protect
the right of free maritime passage when the United
States is one of very few nations that refuse to ratify the
Law of the Sea (LOS) convention, which expressly
codified in international law the protection of the oceans
environment, its fisheries, the sovereign rights of bordering
nations, and free maritime passage, and provides
a tribunal to adjudicate maritime disputes under the
convention.
My personal assessment of China is not that of
America’s conventional wisdom. When President
Obama praised the UN record during its 70-year existence
for raising more than a billion people out of poverty
into the middle class, he failed to mention that half
of that number were Chinese. It was done in three decades—
a record of human improvement never equaled
in the recorded annals of civilization. China is not a
democracy, but a communist country operating as a
meritocracy, struggling to limit corruption, a vice endemic
to free-market capitalism. China’s accomplishment
in improving the wellbeing of more than
500,000,000 people in a generation—a number more
than one and a half times the entire population of the
United States—should have been noted by the American
president.
The governance problems that China faces, and for
that matter that India and Indonesia face, are almost
beyond comprehension. I do not pretend to know the
nuanced relationship that existed between China and
the Philippines over the last century, but I am sure some
degree of fraternity must exist over the shared experience
of colonial exploitation. That would be enough to
build upon.
I am not suggesting that the Philippines alienate
itself from the United States, but I think it wise to divorce
itself from any military entanglements, whether
with the United States, Japan, the European Union, or
China. Is there a threat of invasion from China or from
any other nation against the Philippines? If not, then
why the fascination with taking on the burden of militarism,
and why pay for wasteful munitions when those
monies can better be used to improve the life of Filipinos?
China, supported by the BRICS—Brazil, Russia,
India, China and South Africa—has defined a 30-year
vision, already undertaken, to unite the world’s economies
through the construction of high-speed railroads,
roads, and fiber optic communications across the Eurasian
land mass of Russia from western China to
Europe, with extensions north into Scandinavian
countries and south into Iran and Arab countries.
This visionary plan makes good sense for China,
which must productively utilize the excess industrial
capacity it developed for its double-digit economic
growth.
The Silk Road—One Belt, One Road—plan has a
maritime component to build efficient port developments
to increase world trade. The plan envisions a
similar economic expansion to all continents. Hegemonic
influences will not be tolerated, nor will it have a
military component. The BRICS have already set up
financial institutions to help underwrite developments
undertaken by the plan. Embarrassingly, America tried
to dissuade its allies, without success, from participating
in the plan.
It would be a tremendous boon to the Philippine
economy to avoid the American military expansion and
instead join the BRICS in this sensible global economic
development plan. The Philippines, India, and China
are not included in the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), which serves to add greater power to the
multinational corporations who already control major
portions of the world economy. This agreement is the
U.S. strategy to confront the BRICS global economic
alignment. In my view, it makes more sense for the
Philippines to align itself with the BRICS and eschew
the militarism offered by the United States.
Compare China’s vision for a successful, prosperous,
economically unified world to what America offers
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 43
by way of a militarized world that brooks no challenge
to its hegemonic leadership. Compare the suffering of
untold numbers of people in a plethora of nations
around the world over the last 30 years. A suffering inflicted
by the hubris of backroom American neocons
punishing people with economic sanctions to bring
about regime change and their liberal interventionists
wantonly invading sovereign nations that do not conform
to their ideological standards.
Save Yourselves
. . .The United States is attempting to make the Philippines
the sharpened point of its offensive spear with
which to confront China. Ultimately, Filipinos will find
themselves impaled on that spear. The Philippines is the
ideal strategic location for the United States to establish
a military platform in East Asia, on China’s doorstep, in
preparation for a possible war.
Chinese Navy unofficial spokesman Admiral Yin
Zhuo (PLA Navy ret.) made the point recently: “If in
the future, there is U.S.-China conflict, then it will
likely take place on our doorstep. Speaking bluntly,
fighting on our doorstep, we fear no one.” The doorstep
he is referring to is the Philippines.
The U.S. design on Philippine real estate is understandable.
The more confusing question: Why would
any country choose to place itself at the frictional edge
of the world’s two conflicting superpowers? If there is a
war, the conventional phase of it would first be fought
on Philippine soil housing the American military, before
moving to the nuclear phase of the war on the Chinese
and American populations, in which case we are all
doomed.
Unfortunately, many American civilian and military
leaders, intoxicated with the sense of superiority they
feel towards the rest of the world, tend to miscalculate
in their political and military planning. . . . The vaunted
nuclear carrier armadas the United States boasts of to
protect its Asian allies—most particularly the Philippines—
can be wiped out in minutes with anti-ship ballistic
missiles and a plethora of China’s new classes of
advanced supersonic cruise missiles.
What could possibly be the benefit for the Philippines
of turning itself over to a foreign power? Because
that will be the case if the EDCA stands. Your country
will be garrisoned to the hilt in order to back up America’s
threats to anyone in Asia. Take a look at the neighborhoods
around military bases to see what your country
will become. Who other than military contractors
would dare invest and develop alternate industries in
such a circumstance? The economic activities that will
follow military expansion will of necessity control and
corrupt your political institutions to protect their investments.
The government would prostitute itself to a foreign
power and will then demand payments. However,
such payments would be a pittance compared to what
could be realized from the normal growth of a healthy,
independent economy blessed with an industrious
people.
Save Us from Ourselves
As an American, realistic enough to understand the
internal dilemma that afflicts my country, I sincerely
ask for the help of this illustrious Court by taking a decision
that could set in motion a chain of circumstances
that could possibly thwart the planned expansion of
America’s military presence in Asia, using the Philippines
as its main base. This is what some call the pivot
to Asia. Let me explain why it is impossible for some of
us to alter or correct the present direction of our foreign
and military policy.
Our culture is infused with a sense of superiority,
enlarged beyond reality. Our nation was blessed by geography
providing oceanic security, by a land welling
up with vast resources, and an ever-expanding educated
and industrious population. After France midwifed
our nation’s birth, we saw ourselves as the city
on the hill, with a manifest destiny to transcend the
continent.
Of course, we rarely acknowledge that we are a violent
people who annihilated the indigenous population
of the continent and institutionalized slavery in our
Constitution, only to have it corrected by a calamitous
Civil War, which left a legacy of racism that haunts us
to this day at home and abroad. The seeds of hubris
grew when we saved the world in the Second World
War, while the communist Soviet Union did the heavy
lifting. This left us as the only imperial power with the
atomic bomb able to assume the white man’s burden
from the British Empire. The acquisition of the bomb
by the USSR and China altered that equation.
After the war, our elites reasoned that we could
avoid another terrible depression if we kept the economy
on a war footing. This policy was legislated into
existence in 1947 with the National Security Act under
the Truman administration and carried forward by the
44 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
Eisenhower administration. The military-industrial
complex reasoned that if it located the military’s economic
presence—manufacturing and military bases—
in every congressional district, it could control the Congress.
And it has. . . .
The U.S. Empire is in decline even though we still
lead the European Union and North Asia around by the
nose. NATO, 90% funded by the United States and
commanded by an American general, is the vehicle for
the globalization of the military-industrial complex.
American leadership and the public refuse to accept the
fact of decline. You need but look at our failing educational
system, our health system controlled by the insurance
industry, our bankrupt financial system, and the
disrepair of our national infrastructure. In the face of all
this, the defense budget remains sacrosanct. The American
public is not stupid, but remains steeped in ignorance
by a mainstream media controlled by six corporations
responsible to Wall Street and the military-industrial
complex.
We are no longer a democracy in the real sense of
the word. A democracy is not just elections. For elections
to be meaningful, people must be informed in
order to render intelligent judgment. The American
public is purposely kept in ignorance.
American political and military diplomacy is contriving
to gain control of your archipelago for reasons
that will not benefit the people who live there.
Conclusion
. . .The discussion above is made in an attempt to
motivate this distinguished Court to render a judicial
decision that will in effect transfer the deliberations on
the EDCA from its secret confines to the Philippine
Senate, where arguments will be made in full public
view. I hope my arguments made above will contribute
to that debate. Matters of extreme importance to the
wellbeing of Filipinos and the survivability of Philippine
democracy are at stake in that debate.
Your judicial decision could well set a chain of circumstances
in motion that could ultimately affect the
course of world affairs. In this regard, I am reminded of
a famous statement made by the renowned sociologist
Margaret Mead: Never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
by Mike Gravel
October 15, 2015
Obama’s War on America: 9/11 Two
New Updated Edition
EIR
Special Report
Obama’s War on America:
9/11 Two
February 2013
NEW UPDATED EDITION
EIR Special Report
A new, updated edition of the EIR Special Report, “Obama’s War on America:
9/11 Two” is now available from larouchepub.com. The expanded report is an
urgent intervention into the ongoing strategic crisis brought on by the British/
Saudi/Obama alliance behind the overthrow of Qaddafi, and the subsequent
explosion of jihadist uprisings throughout Africa and the Arab world.
The Orginal Material:
• Obama’s 9/11
• The London-Saudi Role in International Terrorism
• 9/11 Take One
The Updates:
• LaRouchePAC’s Fact Sheet on Obama’s alliance with al-Qaeda
• LaRouchePAC’s draft questions for Congress
• A transcript of the pre-election press conference held by Lyndon
LaRouche and Jeffrey Steinberg on the impeachable crimes of Barack
Obama.
Price $100
(Available in paperback and PDF. For paper, add shipping and handling;
Va. residents add 5% sales tax.)
Order from EIR News Service 1-800-278-3135 Or online: www.larouchepub.com
Nov. 16 (EIRNS)—A revolutionary
change is taking place in the Philippines,
threatening to collapse President
Obama’s mad drive for nuclear
confrontation with China. That plan,
first launched as Obama’s “Pivot to
Asia” in 2012, involves shifting expanded
naval, air, and land forces to
Asia, along with enhanced ballistic
missile defense systems, in a ring
around China and the Russian Far
East.
Most importantly, it includes
Obama’s plan to re-occupy the Philippines
militarily with the most advanced
naval, air, and ground forces
and military equipment.
Now, faced with Russian President
Putin’s brilliant flanking action
against Obama’s war policy in
Europe and the Middle East—by waging an effective
war on ISIS in cooperation with the Syrian government
and others—Obama has responded by focussing with a
vengeance on his policy of war against China.
Obama and his subservient President of the Philippines,
Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, are attempting to
circumvent the Philippine Constitution, which, since
1991, has explicitly forbidden the presence of any foreign
military bases on Philippine soil. Their ploy is to
pretend that the new U.S. bases are not bases at all, but
will be set up within Philippine military bases, with the
Americans declared to be merely “guests.”
Aquino further claims that the Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) which enables this
charade, is not a treaty, but only an “executive agreement,”
and thus does not require the approval of the
Philippine Senate, as required by law for such a treaty.
Fortunately, this scam is falling apart, thanks to a
series of actions and interventions by patriots of the
Philippines, joined by American patriots who recognize
the threat of global thermonuclear war inherent in
Obama’s confrontation with China. These actions, documented
below, include:
• A declaration by Filipinos in Solidarity for Sovereignty
(PINAS)—which has also taken the EDCA
to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds—
saying that the recent U.S. military provocations
against Chinese territories in the South China Sea
bring the world to the brink of war, and exemplify
why the Philippines must reject the U.S. military occupation.
• A friend of the court (Petition for Intervention)
brief by U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (Alaska 1969-81) to
the Philippine Supreme Court, arguing on moral, his-
III. Philippine Leaders Take Their Stand Against Obama’s Thermonuclear War
Philippines Revolts Against
Obama’s War on China
Xinhua/Rouelle Umali
Philippine President Benigno Aquino (right) greets Chinese Foreign Minister Wang
Yi at the presidential palace in Manila Nov. 10, 2015.
34 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
torical, and political grounds that the re-occupation of
the Philippines must be stopped.
• A call by Philippine Senator Kit Tatad (1992-2001)
for the Philippines to declare official neutrality.
• A dramatic vote in the Philippine Senate on November
9, passing a resolution by a vote of 15-1 that
declares that the EDCA is indeed a treaty and must be
approved by the Senate. The resolution—brought by
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a presidential
candidate for the 2016 election—pre-empted the the
Supreme Court, which had leaked that its decision
would approve the EDCA and would be released on
November 16, the day before President Obama is
scheduled to arrive in the Philippines for the annual
APEC Summit.
Obama’s effort to be ordained the new governorgeneral
of a colonial Philippines has been thwarted,
thus far.
Revolt Across Asia
These developments in the Philippines come at a
time when the rest of Asia is also reacting against
Obama’s war drive. A meeting of the defense ministers
of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus the United States, China,
Japan, and others, on Nov. 13 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
rejected Obama’s demand, delivered by U.S.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, that the final communiqué
denounce China for “aggression” in the
South China Sea. No communiqué was issued as a
result.
In fact, China’s President Xi Jinping on Nov. 6 visited
Vietnam—one of the countries Obama has encouraged
to denounce Chinese “aggression” in the South
China Sea—and the two nations re-established strong
strategic ties. Then Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
visited Manila to prepare for President Xi’s visit for the
APEC Summit. President Aquino promised that the
South China Sea issue would not be on the APEC
agenda.
The ASEAN members naturally want to be part of
China’s New Silk Road projects for real development,
rather than Obama’s anti-China alliance. But they also
increasingly recognize that the militarization of the
region is not coming from China, which is only building
up islands already under their control, but from
Obama, whose plan for at least eight U.S. military
bases in the Philippines even includes two in the South
China Sea, on Palawan Island—and they want no part
of it.
LaRouche’s Role
In several of these developments, friends of Lyndon
LaRouche are playing a crucial role. In their own words,
here is the documentation of the courageous steps taken
by citizens of a small nation to prevent the madness of
a global thermonuclear war, and to demand development
as the basis for peace.
Is Neutrality an Option
for the Philippines?
by Francisco S. Tatad
Nov. 16—The following (edited) op-ed in the Manila
Times was written by Francisco “Kit” Tatad, Minister
of Public Information under President Ferdinand
Marcos from 1969 to 1980, and Senator of the Philippines
from 1992 to 2001. Sen. Tatad is a founding
member of the National Transformation Council.
The Prospect of War
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 (EIRNS)—Given the maritime
conflict between China and Japan, between China
and the Philippines, and America’s concern over China’s
conduct in the disputed areas, armed hostilities
could arise between China on the one hand, and the
United States and Japan on the other, with the Philippines
probably absorbing some of the missiles. This is
the fear of some Filipino analysts I have met here.
. . .The Philippines is not militarily prepared for any
war, but by talking like it very badly needs to take on
the Asian hegemon, the Aquino regime may have created
a situation nobody wants or is ready for. . . .
The Idea of Being Neutral
One analyst, who asked that I withhold his name,
has proposed one such unthinkable question. Given
the growing rivalry between the United States and
China, and the distinct possibility that we might get
caught in the middle, if and when it explodes into a
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 35
violent confrontation, can neutrality be an option for
the Philippines? It is not easy to formulate this question,
for obvious reasons. Because of our longstanding
security alliance with the United States, just to ask
the question already carries with it the smell of treason.
. . .
Why neutrality? Because the analyst’s fear is that an
air-sea battle could erupt in our disputed waters, and it
would not be easy to remain a non-belligerent then. He
does not see hostilities being limited to a small war
solely between China and the Philippines on account of
their maritime territorial dispute. The issue has been
there since the 1950s, and only during the presidency of
B.S. Aquino III did it become a serious bilateral problem.
Imagining War
The analyst believes that, were real hostilities to
occur, they are more likely to be between the United
States and Japan on the one hand, and China on the
other, because of the larger question of regional dominance
and sphere of influence. As the oldest Asia-Pacific
power and the world’s only superpower, the United
States, with its Seventh Fleet, is not likely to give up its
historic role. But China is now a world economic power,
and a rising regional military power, and will not want
to be elbowed out of its own natural theatre. . . .
Can a country like the Philippines offer a
solution? This is what the analyst wanted me
to explore. The Philippines is one of China’s
oldest trading partners, and at the same time,
a historic U.S. military and political ally. It
should be a friend to both sides. . . .
Until 1975, when Marcos established diplomatic
relations with Beijing, the Chinese
Communist Party was said to be funding,
training, and arming the New People’s Army
(NPA) and the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP). The cessation of Chinese support
for the CPP/NPA was one of the conditions
for Marcos’ recognition of Beijing. On
the other hand, military assistance and security
support came solely from the United
States, with which the Philippines had a
Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1950 (and
in force until now), and a military bases
agreement, signed in 1947 and ending in
1991.
U.S.-Philippine Security Ties
When the bases agreement expired in 1991, the
United States tried to negotiate a new treaty extending
the bases by another 10 years. This was shot down by
the Senate in 1992, despite President Corazon Aquino’s
frenzied effort to win Senate approval. This chilled
Philippine-U.S. relations for a while until the two governments
entered into a Visiting Forces Agreement in
1999. As Senate Majority Leader at the time, I co-sponsored
the Senate resolution concurring in its ratification.
In 2014, the Aquino government signed an Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with
the United States without the participation of the
Senate. The Constitution provides that after 1991, foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed
in the Philippines except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so
requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose,
and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
state.
The EDCA does not create any new bases, but
allows the United States to deploy its troops and facilities
inside any Philippine military establishment. It also
allows nuclear vessels to come and go as they please,
despite the constitutional ban on nuclear weapons in the
Philippine Senator Francisco (Kit) Tatad, addressing a conference of the
Save the Nation movement, founded by Philippines LaRouche Society
leader Butch Valdes, in April 2013.
36 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
country. All this seems consistent with Aquino’s
support for President Obama’s pivot to Asia.
Undoing What Aquino Has Done
Aquino’s handling of the nation’s foreign and
national security policies has created a situation
that needs to be undone. . . . The Philippines needs
to compose its own differences with China, instead
of getting involved in any quarrel that is not
its own. It should try to promote friendship and
cooperation between China and the United States,
instead of getting caught in the middle of any possible
confrontation. How can this be done? The
analyst suggests either a non-aggression pact with
China or a state of neutrality for the Philippines.
This, he points out, is consistent with the Philippine
constitutional provision which renounces
war as an instrument of national policy.
U.S. Neutrality
With respect to neutrality, he points to the early
American experience. In 1793, he recalls, President
George Washington issued a proclamation of
neutrality, which enabled his young nation to
avoid the war raging between France and England.
The United States was militarily weak at the
time, and fighting a war would have endangered
its very existence. This enabled the United States
to grow from inside, so that by 1823, it was strong
enough to proclaim the Monroe Doctrine, which
warned the European powers that further efforts to
colonize land or interfere with states in North or South
America would be regarded as acts of aggression, requiring
U.S. intervention.
From 1935 to 1939, President Roosevelt invoked the
Neutrality Act again and again to avoid getting embroiled
in the European wars. . . . On Dec. 8, 1941, the
United States declared war on Japan, a day after it had
attacked Pearl Harbor. On Dec. 11, 1941, Germany and
Italy declared war on the United States, and on the same
day the United States responded with similar declarations.
By now the United States had become a great war
power, but for as long as it lasted, its neutrality had a
glorious run.
Some Rights and Duties of Neutrals
Under the Hague Convention of 1907, the territory
of neutral powers is inviolable.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops, or convoys
of either war munitions or supplies, across the
territory of a neutral power. They are likewise forbidden
to (a) erect on the territory of a neutral power a
wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the
purpose of communicating with belligerents on land
or sea, or (b) use any installation of this kind established
by them before the war on the territory of a
neutral power for purely military purposes, and which
has not been opened for the service of public messages.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting
agencies opened on the territory of a neutral power
to assist the belligerents.
A neutral power has the right and the duty to resist
any attempt to violate its neutrality, even by force, without
[being regarded as] committing a hostile act. . . .
Library of Congress
President George Washington declared U.S. neutrality in the midst of the
great European conflicts of the 1790s.
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 37
Effects of Neutrality
Were the Philippines to become neutral, it would
remove itself from the center of the evolving conflict
between China on the one hand, and the United States
and Japan on the other. It would also allow a policy of
equidistance from the competing Asia-Pacific powers.
This would enable it to develop an independent world
view and a foreign policy that looks primarily to its own
interests, rather than to those of its external patrons. For
the first time in its history, it would be compelled to
stand on its own. This would not be without pain in the
beginning, but if Switzerland provides any inspiration,
the end result could be rewarding. It would allow the
country to nourish and fulfill its own ambitions.
But it would mean dismantling the U.S.-Philippine
alliance which has helped to undergird the U.S. security
system in the Asia-Pacific region until now. Do you believe
there is anyone on the horizon who would risk his
chance of becoming president by suggesting to Washington
that this is one great idea whose time has come?
—fstatad@gmail.com
PINAS Statement on
U.S. Actions Hostile
to the Philippines
Nov. 16—The following statement was issued by Filipinos
in Solidarity for Sovereignty (PINAS) on the U.S.
provocation in the South China Sea and the planned
U.S. military occupation of Philippine bases. It was
drafted by Butch Valdes, the head of the Philippine La-
Rouche Society, and adopted by PINAS on Oct. 30.
PINAS also brought the case against EDCA to the Supreme
Court.
Despite our presently unresolved territorial issues
with countries surrounding the West Philippine Seas,
it is with unequivocal opposition that we view the
outrageous military provocation of China by U.S.
President Obama under the guise of freedom of navigation.
In blatant disregard for the sovereignty and security
concerns of Southeast Asian Nations, the U.S. has initiated
threatening actions against China, which not only
destabilize the whole region, but also may provide the
spark of thermonuclear confrontation between the two
superpowers.
Our concern is aggravated by the declared and
insane acquiescence of the current President, Benigno
Aquino III, in the critically dangerous advances by an
equally impaired Barack Obama. The risk to 100 million
Filipino lives notwithstanding, Aquino has signed
a constitutionally infirm agreement allowing the U.S.
forces to have access to all our airports and seaports,
ply our territorial waters, and set up American bases
within our Philippine bases.
It is this highly questionable accommodation by the
Philippine President, and the tacit approval of a mercenary
Senate and an obviously intimidated Supreme
Court, that has provided U.S. nuclear-armed warships
the bases to mount and implement provocative action
against their principal adversary in the region.
We call on all patriotic Filipinos to reject the presently
disastrous condition of allowing foreign military
installations in Philippine territories. The U.S. geopolitical
intentions, through President Obama’s actions,
are manifestly clear. Their decisions and actions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, and Ukraine
are now glaring examples of internal chaos, after they
have been supposedly liberated from dictatorship, into
democracy.
Let us uphold the principles of sovereignty, and advocate
a world community of Sovereign Nation-States—
bound by a common objective—to improve the quality
of life of every single human being on the planet, so that
our generation and those after us, can reap the benefits of
Man’s collaboration and collective creativity.
Antonio ‘Butch’ Valdes, addressing the Schiller Institute New
Paradigm conference of June 2103 in San Francisco by video.
38 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
U.S. Senator Mike Gravel
(D-AK 1969-81) filed the
following (slightly edited)
Friend of the Court brief
(called Petition for Intervention
in the Philippines)
in the Supreme Court of the
Philippines on November
10, 2015, in the case challenging
the constitutionality
of the EDCA.
Summary
The decision by the Philippine
government to enter
into an Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA) with the United
States government is neither
in the best interest of the
Philippine people nor in the best interest of the American
people.
Throughout human history, conflicts that develop
between national empires in decline ceding status and
power to ascending nations have invariably led to
war. This occurrence is what General Martin
Dempsey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, called the Thucydides trap, in which Athenian
fear of a rising Sparta made the Peloponnesian War
inevitable. It is noteworthy that it was the democratic
Athens that initiated the war, not the autocratic Sparta.
Fortunately, there are some instances in history in
which precarious superpower transitions have not led
to war. China’s ascendancy is primarily economic in
nature, and no evidence suggests that it seeks global
military hegemony even though its economic interests
are global. To the contrary, China’s military expenditures
in response to the irresponsible rhetoric of
some American leaders
have increased over the last
decade, but are still considerably
less than a third of
United States annual military
expenditures, which
amount equals half the
world’s total military expenditures.
President Obama’s recent
speech before the UN
General Assembly quieted
the chamber when he
articulated the following
threat:
I lead the strongest
military that the world
has ever known, and I
will never hesitate to
protect my country or our allies, unilaterally
and by force where necessary.
. . . I will argue below that the United States, whether
intentionally or by accident, is skirting ever so close to
the Thucydides trap. America’s political leadership is
unable to reverse that trajectory. Therefore, it is my hope
that a foreign national interest will step forward to protect
Americans from their own government’s military
foreign policies.
The Philippines could possibly take up a portion of
that task, and in so doing, safeguard its own sovereign
interests while avoiding military engagements and a
possible war that no one wants. The decision of this
esteemed Supreme Court can set in motion a chain of
circumstances that could have an impact on whether
the conflict caused by China’s global economic ascendency
and the loss of United States hegemonic mili-
Sen. Gravel
The Philippines Must Save Itself,
And Help Save Us From Ourselves
Nizar Abboud
Former Senator Mike Gravel speaking to the UN Press
Correspondents in New York City, Sept. 14, 2015.
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 39
tary primacy in the Indo-Pacific economic center of
gravity, will result in war by falling into the Thucydides
trap.
Credentials
We are most critical of what we hold most dear. I
love my country, but I cannot abide the concept ‘my
country right or wrong.’ When it is wrong, I hope to
propound an effective critique to negate that wrong.
As a young man, I enlisted in the United States Army
and graduated from the Infantry School’s Officer Candidate
Program at Fort Benning, Georgia. Most of my
class went to Korea at the worst of the fighting. I had
the good fortune, having been educated by the Army
as a Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) agent, of being
sent to Europe as the Adjutant of the Communications
Intelligence Service, an agency that used the CIC as its
cover. As a 23-year-old second lieutenant, I had the
authority to classify and declassify military documents.
Advancing 20 years, little wonder that, as a 41-yearold
U.S. Senator, I instantly accepted the responsibility
from Daniel Ellsberg of officially releasing the Pentagon
Papers, top secret documents that revealed the history
of how four presidential administrations, and later
a fifth, had lied to the American people about the reasons
for our involvement in the quagmire of the Vietnam
War. The Nixon Administration’s Justice Department
sought my indictment, occasioning a case that
was unanimously decided by the U.S. Supreme Court
that a member of Congress could
reveal any classified information
within the confines of the Congress
without being questioned by
any other authority under the provisions
of the speech and debate
clause of the U.S. Constitution. . . .
As a legislator, I served as a
representative and Speaker of the
Alaska House of Representatives
(1963-1966) and served two terms
in the U.S. Senate representing the
people of Alaska (1969-1981). Politically,
I had the honor of enjoying
the full electoral support of the
Alaskan Philippine community.
During my Senate career I had occasion
to visit the Philippines as
the guest of Ferdinand Marcos—a
visit I found most instructive.
Since I was committed to the enactment of the Law
of the Sea and played a leadership role in seeking its
ratification in the Senate, I was appointed the delegate
from the U.S. Senate to the 31st General Assembly of
the United Nations.
As I stated above, I love my country, however, I
hold my love of mankind above that of my country. I
hold the life of any human being equal to that of any
American.
I pray this distinguished Court will find the above
credentials sufficient to warrant your attention to the
views I express in this paper.
History
History forgotten is often repeated. Please keep in
the forefront of your deliberations the history of the
United States as it impacted the Philippines and the
peoples of Southeast Asia. Understanding this history
will clarify what possible effects the EDCA could have
on the Philippine people.
As you know, after several centuries of Spanish colonial
rule, the Katipunan revolt began in 1892 and was
formalized with the Filipino War of Independence in
1896. Most of America’s media attention centered on
Cuba. When the United States declared war against
Spain in 1898, the congressional declaration included
the Teller Amendment, which disclaimed any intention
of the United States to annex Cuba, and promised to
leave the island as soon as the war was over. No such
The result of falling for the Thucydides trap: The Peloponnesian War between Athens
and Sparta, 431-404 BC.
40 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
declaratory reservation was made
with respect to the Philippine archipelago,
also in a revolt against Spain.
In one spectacular battle, Admiral
George Dewey destroyed the entire
Spanish fleet bottled up in Manila
Bay. He then invited Emilio Aguinaldo
to return from exile to prosecute
a land war against the Spanish—
American ground troops had yet to
arrive—with the inducement of prospective
independence for a Philippine
Republic.
Henceforth, a duplicitous manipulation
ensued involving all of the
usual suspects: the U.S. President,
the State Department, the Congress,
the Navy, the Army, the jingoistic
American media, and the ill-informed
patriotic American public, oblivious
to the trashing of its most fundamental values: liberty,
freedom, national sovereignty, and self-determination.
From such realpolitik stagecraft under the administrations
of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt,
and Woodrow Wilson evolved a crushing insurgent war
on the Philippine population, exhibiting a level of cruelty
and atrocity equal to the worst in the annals of conquest
and war. The result: All opposition was brutally
crushed and the Filipino leadership and population remained
supine to American interests, except for a brief
interlude commencing on September 16, 1991.
At the Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898, ending
the Spanish-American War, Spain would not involve
the lowly revolutionaries of Cuba or the Philippines in
the surrender process, to which the U.S. did not object.
In the treaty, Spain renounced its rights to Cuba, acknowledging
its independence, ceded Puerto Rico and
the island of Guam to the United States, and sold the
Philippines to the United States for $20,000,000. The
sale afforded a level of legitimacy to the U.S. ownership
of the archipelago because of the earlier purchase
of Alaska from Russia.
It was not until the presidential administration of
Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 that the right of Filipino
self-determination was acknowledged with a promise
of independence—delayed until 1946, after the end of
World War II, during which Filipino fighters acquitted
themselves with courage and resolve equal to that of
any nation.
. . .Add to this limited recitation of past facts the
criminal complicity that the United States foisted on the
Philippines with the prosecution of wars against fellow
South Asians. I am not only referring to our conduct in
Indochina, but also to the wanton invasions of Cambodia,
Laos, and the corruption of Thailand. Subic Bay
and Clark Air Base were the main platforms outside the
war zone to supply military resources to American
forces to prosecute the Vietnam War in a manner not
dissimilar to the pacification of the insurgent war pursued
against the Philippine population at the turn of the
century.
We need to remember that a commander of the
American Air Force advocated the use of nuclear weapons
to bomb the Vietnamese into submission—in effect
depopulating the country to save it from going communist.
We should also remember that during the Korean
War General Douglas MacArthur, the son of General
Arthur MacArthur who figured prominently in the suppression
of the Philippine insurgency, advocated the
use of nuclear weapons in Korea and on China. It is not
unfair to conclude that some Western elites placed little
value on Asian lives.
Even to this day, a significant leader in Congress
and a former presidential candidate still believes that
we should have won the Vietnam War, and that we only
failed for lack of political resolve. That war was never
winnable, for the Vietnamese were prepared to pay any
price to become an independent sovereign nation.
Perley Fremont Rockett/Library of Congress
The brutal Philippine-American War of the late Nineteenth-early Twentieth Century.
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 41
When we decamped under pressure
because of American protests at
home, we left many of our Asian
allies at the mercy of the enemies we
had created for them. We also left a
refugee crisis—boat people—that
had some impact on the Philippines.
At the height of the war, America’s
leaders knew it was a mistake and
had long given up on the Domino
Theory. They were only concerned
with a face-saving exit.
Nevertheless, our global reputation
was damaged. As a result, we
punished the people of Southeast
Asia with sanctions and trade embargoes
for a generation.
The truth of this history, so hard to
accept, is that the millions of Filipinos,
Indo-Chinese, Laotians, Cambodians,
and Americans all died in vain.
The political ideology of communism
we so abhorred still exists, but
now Vietnam enjoys most favored
trade status with America. They did die in vain. There is
no question that the Philippines benefited economically
from America’s war in Southeast Asia. However, I
would maintain that the moral price and the militarization
of the Filipino culture was far too high a price to
pay.
The phenomena of this interlude in history baffle
many Americans. We don’t know why these people,
who have been so abused by us, have forgiven us and
still greet us with amity. Do they not understand what
we have done?
China
. . .The U.S. agitation over the Spratly Islands created
by China dredging and building up reefs has great
propaganda value for America. However, the charge
that they are military bases is somewhat specious. A
military base presupposes that it would play some
useful operational role in the event of hostilities. Physically
these small islands are easily destroyed in the
event of a conflict and therefore are not military bases
in any sense of the word. These islands are outposts of
a symbolic nature—markers that would enhance legal
arguments for rights at some future date.
However, from a Philippine and Chinese perspective,
these disputes are serious. Filipino fishermen make
their living fishing these waters, and the economic benefits
from prospective oil and gas discoveries could be
significant. The solutions to these disputes, not only for
the Philippines but for all the interested nations in the
region, are best dealt with diplomatically under the auspices
of the United Nations and not by military confrontations.
In the Scarborough Reef incident, China confronted
Filipino fishermen over their access to the reef. Even
though the United States got involved, the Filipinos
were forced to back down. This successful incident in
2012 suggests a policy for China to go it alone in the
South China Sea. It offers a model for continued Chinese
confrontations, nibbling at the margins of the national
interests of the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan,
Indonesia, and Vietnam.
At present, the issue rests with the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea. I would hope that the tribunal
would use its influence to initiate a UN regional
forum, inviting all the interested parties to treat these
sovereignty issues from a broader perspective than that
of any one single party. This should have appeal to
China, which has advantaged economically all parties
in the region with its spectacular global growth. This
courtesy of South Sea Conversations via New Sohu.com
A section of the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, a source of simmering
conflict between the Philippines and China. Here a Philippines member of parliament
leads military and media personnel to the Shoal in May 1997.
42 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
forum would permit China to showcase its Silk Road—
One Belt, One Road—vision by including the disputants
in the economic vision with specific development
projects, and thereby advance harmony by sharing the
commons of the China Sea.
The Scarborough Reef incident should inform the
Philippine leadership that when push turns to shove,
the United States will not provoke a military showdown
with China over Filipino fishing or mineral
rights. It should drive home the fact that U.S. militarization
of the Philippines is not really designed to
protect Philippine interests but rather to afford the
United States a geographic advantage to confront
China over its ascendant superpower status, which the
United States finds offensive to its global hegemonic
status.
It is somewhat disingenuous for the United States to
claim that it is patrolling the South China Sea to protect
the right of free maritime passage when the United
States is one of very few nations that refuse to ratify the
Law of the Sea (LOS) convention, which expressly
codified in international law the protection of the oceans
environment, its fisheries, the sovereign rights of bordering
nations, and free maritime passage, and provides
a tribunal to adjudicate maritime disputes under the
convention.
My personal assessment of China is not that of
America’s conventional wisdom. When President
Obama praised the UN record during its 70-year existence
for raising more than a billion people out of poverty
into the middle class, he failed to mention that half
of that number were Chinese. It was done in three decades—
a record of human improvement never equaled
in the recorded annals of civilization. China is not a
democracy, but a communist country operating as a
meritocracy, struggling to limit corruption, a vice endemic
to free-market capitalism. China’s accomplishment
in improving the wellbeing of more than
500,000,000 people in a generation—a number more
than one and a half times the entire population of the
United States—should have been noted by the American
president.
The governance problems that China faces, and for
that matter that India and Indonesia face, are almost
beyond comprehension. I do not pretend to know the
nuanced relationship that existed between China and
the Philippines over the last century, but I am sure some
degree of fraternity must exist over the shared experience
of colonial exploitation. That would be enough to
build upon.
I am not suggesting that the Philippines alienate
itself from the United States, but I think it wise to divorce
itself from any military entanglements, whether
with the United States, Japan, the European Union, or
China. Is there a threat of invasion from China or from
any other nation against the Philippines? If not, then
why the fascination with taking on the burden of militarism,
and why pay for wasteful munitions when those
monies can better be used to improve the life of Filipinos?
China, supported by the BRICS—Brazil, Russia,
India, China and South Africa—has defined a 30-year
vision, already undertaken, to unite the world’s economies
through the construction of high-speed railroads,
roads, and fiber optic communications across the Eurasian
land mass of Russia from western China to
Europe, with extensions north into Scandinavian
countries and south into Iran and Arab countries.
This visionary plan makes good sense for China,
which must productively utilize the excess industrial
capacity it developed for its double-digit economic
growth.
The Silk Road—One Belt, One Road—plan has a
maritime component to build efficient port developments
to increase world trade. The plan envisions a
similar economic expansion to all continents. Hegemonic
influences will not be tolerated, nor will it have a
military component. The BRICS have already set up
financial institutions to help underwrite developments
undertaken by the plan. Embarrassingly, America tried
to dissuade its allies, without success, from participating
in the plan.
It would be a tremendous boon to the Philippine
economy to avoid the American military expansion and
instead join the BRICS in this sensible global economic
development plan. The Philippines, India, and China
are not included in the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), which serves to add greater power to the
multinational corporations who already control major
portions of the world economy. This agreement is the
U.S. strategy to confront the BRICS global economic
alignment. In my view, it makes more sense for the
Philippines to align itself with the BRICS and eschew
the militarism offered by the United States.
Compare China’s vision for a successful, prosperous,
economically unified world to what America offers
November 20, 2015 EIR Release the 28 Pages! 43
by way of a militarized world that brooks no challenge
to its hegemonic leadership. Compare the suffering of
untold numbers of people in a plethora of nations
around the world over the last 30 years. A suffering inflicted
by the hubris of backroom American neocons
punishing people with economic sanctions to bring
about regime change and their liberal interventionists
wantonly invading sovereign nations that do not conform
to their ideological standards.
Save Yourselves
. . .The United States is attempting to make the Philippines
the sharpened point of its offensive spear with
which to confront China. Ultimately, Filipinos will find
themselves impaled on that spear. The Philippines is the
ideal strategic location for the United States to establish
a military platform in East Asia, on China’s doorstep, in
preparation for a possible war.
Chinese Navy unofficial spokesman Admiral Yin
Zhuo (PLA Navy ret.) made the point recently: “If in
the future, there is U.S.-China conflict, then it will
likely take place on our doorstep. Speaking bluntly,
fighting on our doorstep, we fear no one.” The doorstep
he is referring to is the Philippines.
The U.S. design on Philippine real estate is understandable.
The more confusing question: Why would
any country choose to place itself at the frictional edge
of the world’s two conflicting superpowers? If there is a
war, the conventional phase of it would first be fought
on Philippine soil housing the American military, before
moving to the nuclear phase of the war on the Chinese
and American populations, in which case we are all
doomed.
Unfortunately, many American civilian and military
leaders, intoxicated with the sense of superiority they
feel towards the rest of the world, tend to miscalculate
in their political and military planning. . . . The vaunted
nuclear carrier armadas the United States boasts of to
protect its Asian allies—most particularly the Philippines—
can be wiped out in minutes with anti-ship ballistic
missiles and a plethora of China’s new classes of
advanced supersonic cruise missiles.
What could possibly be the benefit for the Philippines
of turning itself over to a foreign power? Because
that will be the case if the EDCA stands. Your country
will be garrisoned to the hilt in order to back up America’s
threats to anyone in Asia. Take a look at the neighborhoods
around military bases to see what your country
will become. Who other than military contractors
would dare invest and develop alternate industries in
such a circumstance? The economic activities that will
follow military expansion will of necessity control and
corrupt your political institutions to protect their investments.
The government would prostitute itself to a foreign
power and will then demand payments. However,
such payments would be a pittance compared to what
could be realized from the normal growth of a healthy,
independent economy blessed with an industrious
people.
Save Us from Ourselves
As an American, realistic enough to understand the
internal dilemma that afflicts my country, I sincerely
ask for the help of this illustrious Court by taking a decision
that could set in motion a chain of circumstances
that could possibly thwart the planned expansion of
America’s military presence in Asia, using the Philippines
as its main base. This is what some call the pivot
to Asia. Let me explain why it is impossible for some of
us to alter or correct the present direction of our foreign
and military policy.
Our culture is infused with a sense of superiority,
enlarged beyond reality. Our nation was blessed by geography
providing oceanic security, by a land welling
up with vast resources, and an ever-expanding educated
and industrious population. After France midwifed
our nation’s birth, we saw ourselves as the city
on the hill, with a manifest destiny to transcend the
continent.
Of course, we rarely acknowledge that we are a violent
people who annihilated the indigenous population
of the continent and institutionalized slavery in our
Constitution, only to have it corrected by a calamitous
Civil War, which left a legacy of racism that haunts us
to this day at home and abroad. The seeds of hubris
grew when we saved the world in the Second World
War, while the communist Soviet Union did the heavy
lifting. This left us as the only imperial power with the
atomic bomb able to assume the white man’s burden
from the British Empire. The acquisition of the bomb
by the USSR and China altered that equation.
After the war, our elites reasoned that we could
avoid another terrible depression if we kept the economy
on a war footing. This policy was legislated into
existence in 1947 with the National Security Act under
the Truman administration and carried forward by the
44 Release the 28 Pages! EIR November 20, 2015
Eisenhower administration. The military-industrial
complex reasoned that if it located the military’s economic
presence—manufacturing and military bases—
in every congressional district, it could control the Congress.
And it has. . . .
The U.S. Empire is in decline even though we still
lead the European Union and North Asia around by the
nose. NATO, 90% funded by the United States and
commanded by an American general, is the vehicle for
the globalization of the military-industrial complex.
American leadership and the public refuse to accept the
fact of decline. You need but look at our failing educational
system, our health system controlled by the insurance
industry, our bankrupt financial system, and the
disrepair of our national infrastructure. In the face of all
this, the defense budget remains sacrosanct. The American
public is not stupid, but remains steeped in ignorance
by a mainstream media controlled by six corporations
responsible to Wall Street and the military-industrial
complex.
We are no longer a democracy in the real sense of
the word. A democracy is not just elections. For elections
to be meaningful, people must be informed in
order to render intelligent judgment. The American
public is purposely kept in ignorance.
American political and military diplomacy is contriving
to gain control of your archipelago for reasons
that will not benefit the people who live there.
Conclusion
. . .The discussion above is made in an attempt to
motivate this distinguished Court to render a judicial
decision that will in effect transfer the deliberations on
the EDCA from its secret confines to the Philippine
Senate, where arguments will be made in full public
view. I hope my arguments made above will contribute
to that debate. Matters of extreme importance to the
wellbeing of Filipinos and the survivability of Philippine
democracy are at stake in that debate.
Your judicial decision could well set a chain of circumstances
in motion that could ultimately affect the
course of world affairs. In this regard, I am reminded of
a famous statement made by the renowned sociologist
Margaret Mead: Never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
by Mike Gravel
October 15, 2015
Obama’s War on America: 9/11 Two
New Updated Edition
EIR
Special Report
Obama’s War on America:
9/11 Two
February 2013
NEW UPDATED EDITION
EIR Special Report
A new, updated edition of the EIR Special Report, “Obama’s War on America:
9/11 Two” is now available from larouchepub.com. The expanded report is an
urgent intervention into the ongoing strategic crisis brought on by the British/
Saudi/Obama alliance behind the overthrow of Qaddafi, and the subsequent
explosion of jihadist uprisings throughout Africa and the Arab world.
The Orginal Material:
• Obama’s 9/11
• The London-Saudi Role in International Terrorism
• 9/11 Take One
The Updates:
• LaRouchePAC’s Fact Sheet on Obama’s alliance with al-Qaeda
• LaRouchePAC’s draft questions for Congress
• A transcript of the pre-election press conference held by Lyndon
LaRouche and Jeffrey Steinberg on the impeachable crimes of Barack
Obama.
Price $100
(Available in paperback and PDF. For paper, add shipping and handling;
Va. residents add 5% sales tax.)
Order from EIR News Service 1-800-278-3135 Or online: www.larouchepub.com
No comments:
Post a Comment