How the US bankrolled Duterte’s alleged crimes against humanity
Less than a month after Duterte took office, then- Secretary of State John Kerry announced a $32 million weapons and training package specifically to support the Philippine National Police. He made no mention of Duterte’s numerous threats to weaponize law enforcement on the campaign trail, or the fact that 239 suspected drug users had already been killed by police without due process at that point.
Read More »
US policies pushing China, Philippines to brink of conflict
The China-Philippines maritime dispute does not, in of itself, reflect anything approaching an existential conflict. It has, however, become an increasingly dangerous proxy and potential flashpoint for underlying China-U.S. tensions in the South China Sea.
FYI, this article is full of disinformation. I’m posting it to point out that there’s an information war going on in the South China Sea (using embedded journalists, civil society activists, and various US think tanks). The Philippines plans on building a military base, on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal, to replace the BRP Sierra Madre (which is about to break apart). Marcos is also re-starting oil exploration, in the Reed Bank, which is part of the disputed territory.
Related:
US Shapes Philippines into Southeast Asia’s “Ukraine”
Why the US is Picking a Fight with China in the South China Sea
Beijing rejects tribunal’s ruling in South China Sea case
Paul Reichler, of the law firm Foley Hoag LLP, who who coordinated the Philippines’ legal team, said: “The tribunal’s ruling not only benefits the Philippines, it also benefits other states bordering the South China Sea like Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. If China’s nine-dash line is invalid as to the Philippines, it is equally invalid to those states and, indeed, the rest of the international community.”
Disclaimer: The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site.
Article 1 of the UN Charter says that one of the purposes of the UN is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” However, what “self-determination” means in specific international legal cases is far from a settled debate. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute explains that:
contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that “self-determination” exists on a spectrum. Internal self-determinationmay refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given “people” from the larger politico-legal state.
Media Support ‘Self-Determination’ for US Allies, Not Enemies
Related:
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 