Cloudy airspace in the West Philippine Sea's 'Great Wall' in the Sky

Photo from Youtube

By Chester B Cabalza

Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic 
(Copyright @ 2018 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).

The recent test on the freedom of the sky in the South China Sea above the airspace of Subi reef southwest of the Philippines’ occupied Thitu island and Mischief reef an atoll turned into a fake island by the People’s Republic of China drew an escalating conflict as China continuously fortify its ‘Great Wall’ in the sky.

In a monthly operational routine of oblique sky patrol by a Philippine Air Force plane over Mischief reef, a radio warning from the Chinese navy transmitted a message to the Filipino pilot to “leave immediately or bear responsibility for all the consequences” in a menacing tone. However, the same warning signalled to the US reconnaissance naval aircraft five times in a normal tone conducting lawful military surveillance accorded by the international law around the heavily militarized Spratlys archipelago. This is a first time in recent months under the complete two-year old tenure of President Rodrigo Duterte after he seriously altered his political will to a soft China policy.

The asymmetrical cautionary notice can be concealed as alarming despite Manila’s unceasing efforts to warm up a closer bilateral engagement with Beijing. Given the recent external security development, how come China inversely treats the Philippines over the routine overflight in the South China Sea? Could a code of conduct repair the recent squabble between two countries above the contested airspace?    

In 2009, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) concocted of building a ‘Great Iron Wall in the Blue Sky’ in celebration of its 60^th anniversary. This fourth great wall took off from China’s ancient great wall to elevate a terrestrial strength as a civilization-state that later on in post-modern history China purportedly flexed a naval power through massive reclamations of man-made islands in the South China Sea turning to a great wall at sea. It also marked a niche in their cyberspace generating the great firewall. The four instalments of the dragon’s great walls is a holistic approach to establish a grand strategy to fulfil a rejuvenated dream aspired to tame supremacy by protecting and controlling intently their land territories, maritime domains, cyber and air spaces. 

China unilaterally established and deeply enforced its own Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea over a maritime dispute with Japan and now with claimant-countries in the Spartly islands which garnered unilateral objection from major powers in the Indo-pacific region. It even imposed ADIZ without consultation from smaller neighbours that carry direct capabilities on land-based radar coverage, aerial refuelling, and early warning and control. Chinese ADIZ certainly was used as a buffer zone that delineated tasks to report a flight plan to their government, maintain radio communication, and announce warning to China’s armed forces in adopting defensive emergency measure to respond to foreign aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification. However, this military strategy does not grant state sovereignty over airspace. 

Viewing at it as China’s self-proclaimed rights in expanding outright supervision overflight and a constant exercise for China’s flexing an aerial power to enforce a susceptible anti-access area denial (A2/AD) strategy. It also nurtures a military aggression against the freedom of the sky to protect Chinese core interests in the South China Sea and China’s expanding maritime territories from intermittent incursion by the US military. Literally translated as, a way of the dragon trying to evict the eagle from its nest, creating havoc damage that may lead to regional instability and insecurity.

During the third state-of-the-nation address of President Duterte, the populist leader recognized the right of innocent passage and the air above the artificial islands. Only this month, the Philippine military aircraft grieved over intimidation after receiving at least 46 times warnings since the second half of 2017. Presidential spokesman Harry Roque boldly spewed to the media that the Chinese cannot stop unfazed Filipino pilots who expressed unfathomable nationalism by willing to die for the sake of asserting sovereignty while patrolling the skies of Philippine-claimed territories. 

South China Sea, a portion of it claimed by Filipinos as the West Philippine Sea, is a geopolitical tinderbox bearing profound strategic value and opulent natural resources. A code of conduct in the militarized zone should be agreed upon by claimant-countries. After the July 2016 arbitration award in favour of the Philippines gained a momentum, the jarring road to finalize and adopt a code of conduct in the South China Sea between China and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) slow motioned. Described as a holy grail, signifying a high desire but unattainable direction, that may be used by China to legalize its hegemonic trajectories while subverting the spirit of the code of conduct. Hence, the appeal to multilateral consensus-based decision-making order should progress geared towards a rules-based norms in the South China Sea that covers the right to exercise freedom of overflight over the international airspace.  

Philippines’ War on Drugs: Punitive or Restorative?

Photo from CNN Philippines

By Chester B Cabalza

Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic 
(Copyright @ 2018 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).

In the third State of the Nation Address (SONA) of President Rodrigo Duterte this year, he bluntly began his litany of reform by spewing his adamant rhetoric on the war on drugs which for him resulted in the seizure of illegal drugs worth billions of pesos, and confidently declared, “I can only shudder at the harm that those drugs could have caused had they reached the street of every province, city, municipality, barangay and community throughout the country.”

His banner policy on the Philippine drug war has ascended into the spotlight when Duterte was elected as president in June 2016. This promise he made as the longest mayor of Davao City became his legacy in Mindanao’s largest city. Putting interest on the drug problem in the Philippines, the strongman’s heightened crack down using a punitive enforcement of law resulted to the surrender of almost two million illicit drug users to the government. It also caught the attention of the Human Rights Watch when almost 12,000 Filipinos died from police operations and alleged systemic extrajudicial executions since he assumed office. Early in February, the International Criminal Court (ICC) based at The Hague denounced the killings linked to the Philippine drug war and initiated a preliminary investigation which the firebrand Southeast Asian leader halted.

Thus, he sharply uttered in his SONA speech, “And when illegal drug operations turn nasty and bloody, advocates of human rights lash at—and pillory—our law enforcers and this administration to no end. Sadly, I have yet to hear really howls of protest from the human rights advocates and church leaders against drug-lordism, drug dealing and drug pushing as forceful and vociferous as the ones directed against the alleged errant [law] enforcers in the fight against this social scourge.”

Historically speaking, the Philippines’ transformation into a narcostate could be carved by its own history when Filipino ancestors had betel chewed since 1521. Opium was banned in 1908. Marijuana prevailed in 1954, which remained a preference, among persons who used drugs during Martial Law in 1972. While shabu users surfaced in Manila later in 1983 but reached its peak in 2004. Under Duterte’s tenure as president, he continuously crashes the world by tenaciously executing his controversial campaign against illegal drugs. Originally  pitched in as Project “Double Barrel” that connotes a two-pronged approach; namely, project Tokhang (lower barrel approach) and project High Value Target (upper barrel approach), spearheaded by the Philippine National Police (PNP), intended to attain utopian drug-free communities across the country.

However, it was the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or Republic Act No. 9165 that paved way for strengthening the country’s fight against illegal drugs that was extremely enacted with stricter penalties for drug offenders. As a consequence, there were millions of drug users put to jail around the Philippines, according to the Dangerous Drugs Board, which made the country having the highest rate of shabu addicts in East Asia. Taking off from that supposed all-inclusive illegal drug law, the National Anti-Drug Plan of Action 2015-2020 was formulated, headed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), to eradicate the supply of and demand for dangerous drugs. Under President Duterte, he also approved the Inter-Agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs (ICAD), signed through Executive Order No. 15, giving teeth to the comprehensive drug law “by putting behind bars the manufacturers, traffickers, and peddlers of illegal drugs and by transforming drug users into productive members of society through, among others, balanced and integrated approaches of supply and demand reduction strategies under Barangay Drug Clearing Program.”

The sudden constructions of treatment and rehabilitation centers and the lack of it ensured preponderance of political aid that questioned a posteriori human rights issue. And those who either voluntarily or involuntarily surrendered to law enforcers add to the harrowing condition of prisons in the country. In response to the war on drugs as a restorative act, the Dangerous Drugs Board created OPLAN Sagip (an operation plan to rescue), operated in September 2016 to establish guidelines for dealing with drugs surrenderees by establishing the Community-Based Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation (CBDTR) services and interventions to low-risk or low-to-mild severity use disorder, which comprises ninety percent of drug users around the Philippines.

Drug policy-making worldwide has become increasingly evidence-based. The same approach should be applied to the Philippines’ current drug policy. Two schools of thought may challenge Duterte’s quixotic program on the war on drugs; whether it is crime deterrence or clinical problem that is essentially seen as a social cancer. Given the drug policy’s messianic complex against a malignant phenomenon, gradually offsetting a relentless dream encompassing suppression, prosecution and rehabilitation in a holistic manner; the failed vision may botch inadequacy of serious policy-making and rigid methods that protects asymmetrical rights of the felony and the victims.

The bloody war on drugs besets wars on poor people, the youth, and crime busters who lost the appetite of seeing the real picture of turning a blind eye about a genuine social dilemma depriving a person of life, liberty and property.  In the end, unconditional surrender programs for users and peddlers must be encouraged augmenting a well-financed management of voluntary submission for drug pushers and rehabilitated drug users. Mainstreaming of drug education in the curriculum of secondary education as explicitly constituted in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act must be properly supported and implemented by the government. There should be a comprehensive plan for long/medium/ and short term anti-drug operations to formalize the drug war procedures with a maximum end of safeguarding human rights, and not only human lives.

Federalism: Duterte's Biggest Security Reform?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sagada, Mountain Province

     Photographs by CBCabalza. Copyright © 2018 by Chester B. Cabalza. All Rights Reserved.

My Indiana Jones Adventure with my son! Returned to this nirvana after almost two decades and Sagada never stops mesmerizing me!

The Philippine Rise Conundrum

By Chester B Cabalza

Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic 
(Copyright @ 2018 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).

In an act of bravado to signify Philippine interest to cordon off the Philippines’ latest maritime gem, President Rodrigo Duterte aboard BRP Davao del Sur signed on May 15 a presidential proclamation declaring portions of the Philippine Rise, formerly known as the Benham Rise, and Eastern Kalayaan in the Spratly Islands as protected areas. The 50,000 hectares resource-rich continental shelf which became a Strict Protection Zone exclusively for Philippine scientific studies was ruled out by the United Nations in 2012 as part of the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) giving the Southeast Asian’s archipelagic nation-state the sovereign rights to explore and exploit resources in the area.

The Philippine Rise is an uncontested underwater plateau about 150 nautical miles to the east of the northern Philippine island of Luzon. It was renamed also in May last year from Benham Rise, fortified through the Executive Order No. 25, renaming the 13-million hectare area undersea landmass off Aurora and Cagayan provinces in an apparent bid to assert the country’s sovereignty amid alleged incursions by Chinese ships.

Two years ago, in a campaign showdown between and among presidential candidates in the Philippines, the firebrand leader caught the attention of Filipino voters when Duterte said, out of his witticism to augment his tactical approach, to ride a jet ski to the contested waters of the West Philippine Sea on China’s reclaimed land in the Spratlys and plant the Philippine flag there to stir his patriotism to the country at the height of the ongoing row in the West Philippine Sea between China and the Philippines. As of this time, that political promise has yet to be realized.

Last year, China sought permission from the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs to conduct its own hydrographic surveys in the uninhabited and structure-free Philippine Rise which saw its presence in several periods. The massive rise has no scintilla of ownership dispute and is recognized by international law that gives an apparent geostrategic importance to China in its quest to establish itself as a regional hegemon. China’s newfound defense and economic confidence is near completion on its reenvisioned maritime power. Understandably, this undersea scientific playing ground matters to China’s quest for maritime expansion.  

Despite the warming relationship of China and the Philippines and frequent visits of strongmen Asian leaders in Beijing and Manila, how come that the Filipino president tries to assert his sovereignty rights over the Philippines Rise? Will China continuously pursue bilateral cooperation in the exploration and exploitation of the resource-rich rise?

In a conciliatory bid to soften Manila’s aggressive attack on Beijing, President Duterte’s  recalibrated diplomatic knack swiftly nurtured a welcoming friendly ties with Xi Jinping after the highly-talked about July 2016 Arbitral Tribunal invalidation of China’s nine-dash line claims, for which after several high-level summits, it will pave a way for an holistic Framework on the Code of Conduct in managing the contested islands to avert the costly consequences of any potential outbreak of armed confrontations in the disputed sea region.

Underlining President Duterte’s action man persona proves that he is trying to assert sovereignty to Philippine territories bounded by the spirit of the Philippine Constitution that explicitly adheres to the protection and security of the country’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity. In his thrust to accelerate federalism, he had ordered the composition of the Consultative Commission that intends to harmonize the country’s 1987 constitution with existing international laws of the sea.

In the proposed Article 1 of the draft charter on Sovereignty Over Territory and Sovereign Rights, Section 1 states that, “the Philippines has sovereignty over its territory, consisting of the islands and waters encompassed by its archipelagic baselines, its territorial sea, and its airspace. It has sovereignty over islands and features outside its archipelagic baselines pursuant to the laws of the Federal Republic, the law of nations, and the judgments of competent international courts or tribunals. It likewise has sovereignty over all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title. While Section 2 stipulates that, “the Philippines has sovereign rights over that maritime expanse beyond its territorial sea to the extent reserved to it by international law, as well as over its extended continental shelf including the Philippine (Benham) Rise. Its citizens shall enjoy the right to all resources to which they are entitled by historic rights.”

However historic right and legal title on the Philippine Rise can become a potent factor to circumvent the ambiguity and volatility of regional security environment that may make or break any strategic undertaking. To subscribe to the historical claims would be a haphazard calculation of China’s saber rattling military manuevering to legitimize its claims in the disputed islands in the region. It is a double-edged sword tactic resulting to pessimistic multiplier effects on how to deal with the Philippine Rise conundrum.

On the query on bilateral cooperation between the Philippines and China, it appears relatively affirmative and promising. In terms of joint scientific research, Philippine law would allow foreign research in its territory as long Filipino scientists are aboard the research vessel and the findings of the study are shared internationally. Hence, Article 246 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) permits in normal circumstances the granting of consent for marine scientific research projects by other countries.

Nonetheless, the world’s second largest archipelago remained weak in defending its stolen territory and maritime entitlements despite an increase to 13 million hectares on Philippine archipelagic territory based on endowment of the Unclos to the Philippine Rise. Hence, Philippine defense laws and security executive issuances should essentially identify fundamental interests, primarily for the fortification of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In the end, the Philippines is still locked in a period when hegemony of naval powers reign at seas to regain its real independence.

Anilao, Batangas (Scuba Diving)

     Photographs by CBCabalza. Copyright © 2018 by Chester B. Cabalza. All Rights Reserved.

In the deep end of the ocean

when natural born divers

swim gracefully, among the

school of fish, the barracudas,

and other creatures in a

vast body of a deep blue sea;

only goggles as their apparatus

to explore the finest haven

or empire that few can only see

They hold their breath,

crawling like an eel, to catch

a glimpse of an underwater sanctuary

peculiar colors of fish flash

to the sight, jellies as lanterns,

corals as grotto of tiny school,

seahorses robe the majestic kingdom

Beneath the endless basin,

a fortune of ornaments and splendor

amaze divers,

and like fish, they are bestowed with

gills to breath underwater,

the mermen and guardians

of creatures of the abyss

So when divers exhale

no way the whale splash their breath,

is like an astonishing relieve

to glance once more

the dome of the earth,

heedless, the clear skies

ready to clasp them in

their resurrection,

and all the while they inhale

oxygen

then the underwater

guzzle them again

to see more of the power

down, down, down…

(Poetry by CBCabalza)

Boracay Island’s Tragedy of the Commons

By Chester B Cabalza

Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic 
(Copyright @ 2018 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).

A month after President Rodrigo Duterte ordered the total closure of Boracay Islands to recover from climate change and the influx of tourism, about millions of local and foreign tourists have been deprived from its celebrated white-sand beaches since its declaration as a cesspool.  The archipelagic country’s recent environmental disaster sums up the tragedy of the commons on its sustainable development meshing economic growth and environmental protection. Based from the Department of Tourism report, around 152,391 individual in Western Visayas of the Philippines could be affected by the closure giving the local economy a decrease by only five percent.

More than 1,000 structures are being partially or completely demolished to give way for the road widening. Although an initial master plan seeks for upgrades to address issues including the island’s infrastructure, transportation, environmental law violations, sewerage and waste management problems that will allot 70 percent for open space and only 30 percent for establishments under its rehabilitation program. 

President Duterte’s adamant upper hand on the island’s closure could save Boracay’s carrying capacity as a tourist destination to restore its wonder in addressing damages to the nature, degradation of tourist experience, alienation of local residents, and threats to culture and heritage which affected the ecological footprint of tourists.

The Philippines has a coastline of 37,008 kilometers, longer than the coastlines of China and the United States. The total coastal population of the country is estimated at 55.3 million or almost half of the country’s total population. Despite these omnipresent connections, environmental issues are still not high on the national security agenda in the country. The nexus of environmental security is seen neither as a security issue nor an environmental issue. However, it can be construed that environmental issues are often security concerns that have the potential to displace populations and lead to state collapse.

Boracay Islands is a best template for ecotourism that should embrace certain principles in the conservation of natural ecosystems, biodiversity and culture; community participation in the growth of the local tourism industry; inclusive growth that involves, women,  children, indigenous peoples, informal sector; increased  awareness  on environmental conservation and responsible travel; and balanced development by taking into consideration  economic, environmental and social goals.

In rehabilitating Boracay islands, there should be a good development plan to preserve the overall quality of the environment and tourist resources that will allow it to be used in the future. The planning and management of tourist development must not trigger serious ecological or socio-cultural problems. The attraction of open area should be maintained to continue the level of tourist satisfaction that will sustain commercial potential of the area and ultimately benefiting all the members of the community. It is therefore imperative that with increasing activities on various tourist destinations, it certainly requires the cooperation of all stakeholders in the community.

Moreover, sustainable tourism development must be supervised by Boracay island’s local authorities, and jointly managed and developed by non-government organizations (NGOs), local business groups and the residents because tourists or the consumers are the ones that are brought to the product made not only of individual local goods and services but the entire complex range of elements. Local authorities are in the best capacity to establish a sustainable approach to tourism in destinations, setting a strategic plan and balancing the interests of tourism enterprises, tourists and local residents. They are in the position to enforce tourism development, including spatial planning, development control, environmental management and community services.

Filipinos must understand that Boracay’s closure calls for a national support system on which all other commercial enterprises depend to save the country’s premiere tourist destination from greater havoc and for the bright future of the next generation. If political, social, cultural, and most importantly economic systems are to remain secure and viable, Boracay islands must also remain secure and viable. This will make the Philippines’ tourism gem a legitimate national security concern.

The social impacts of the environment security on Philippine tourism need niches for the effective use and conservation of the environment as a component of a wider sustainable development strategy in consonance with the principles of ecotourism and sustainable tourism development. It needs political will to champion environmental protection of beaches and islands against abusive economic gains that forgets the future of tomorrow.

The closure of Boracay island heralds the implementation of environmental laws in the country to protect Mother Nature premised on a foundation of ethics and respect for life.  Its closure sets example and offers a lessons learned practice that the there is a need to educate tourists, tourists stakeholders and communities of responsible tourism. It must create opportunities for raising awareness and support for the conservation of the environment and provide the forum to forge local and international network of individuals, institutions, the tourism industry and environmental line agencies. Notable efforts in prominent marine tourist destinations would call for proper resource utilization, protection and rehabilitation, as well as detection, apprehension, confiscation, prosecution and adjudication of environment-related violations. Lastly, the intersection of environmental justice and security considerations must lead to the formulation of policies that will influence the sunrise tourism industry, government institutions, civil society, and private sector to institutionalize the principles of environmental security governance.