Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Balanced & independent foreign policy possible for the Philippines?



When can the Philippines have a truly independent foreign policy, neither pro-USA or pro-China, but first and foremost pro-Philippines in strategic priorities, orientation and mindset?


I wish to share a recent opinion column by the outstanding newspaper columnist Conrado de Quiros:

 


There's the Rub column

Very foreign policy

By Conrado de Quiros

Philippine Daily Inquirer


A couple of things are happening in our part of the world that say much about us. One is Barack Obama’s visit to Burma (Myanmar) and the other is our breaking up with Asean and going it alone in our approach to China.



First, Obama’s visit to Burma or, more to the point, his nonvisit to the Philippines: Several observers have made this out as a snub to us. The reasoning goes: Obama is hopping from Thailand to Burma to Cambodia, the last where a regional summit is taking place. Surely, he can drop by Manila, if only for a day, just to say hello to an old and loyal friend? It costs so little and pays so much. That he’s not doing it can only mean a snub.

Well, if it’s a snub, it’s not undeserved. The Fil-Ams were the odd man out among the immigrants in the United States, going for Mitt Romney over Obama, and not without racial, or indeed racist, overtones.
What has he got to be grateful to Filipinos for?

But that’s presuming that’s how their thinking goes. Which only shows how our thinking goes. Taking things personally, particularly in foreign policy, is in fact not an American pastime, it is a Filipino one.

The specific principle, or cultural value, that underpins our foreign policy is “may pinagsamahan” and its corollary, “walang iwanan.” To begin with, our foreign policy rests only on our relationship with one country, the United States. Everything pivots around it. The principle of may pinagsamahan says we’ve gone through a great deal with America, we’ll remain together through thick and thin. And the principle of walang iwanan says we won’t abandon America and America won’t abandon us—mutual defense or magkasangga all the way.



Of course the sentiment did not just arise spontaneously in our minds, though it has taken on a self-perpetuating ferocity there; it was cultivated. Not least by the mythology of “I shall return,” which resonates with walang iwanan. And not least, too, by the mythology of Bataan and Corregidor, with its images of Filipinos and Americans fighting side by side to the last man, even though most of the Americans made off in ships in the night with Manuel Quezon and Sergio OsmeƱa in tow, and the Filipinos ended up making the Long March.

Unfortunately for us, the sentiment is completely one-way. As seen in the cruel fate our veterans have suffered in the hands of their presumed comrades. Obama’s nonvisit to the Philippines is by no means surprising. At the very least, why should he bother with a people that can be counted upon to be there all the time, however shabbily they are treated, they may sulk for a while or indulge in tampo, but they’ll get over it fast? At the very most, why should he bother with a country that doesn’t really matter in Asian affairs, the current focus of America’s attention, which matters only as a repository, or suppository, of US bases in their various guises?

Which brings me to P-Noy’s disagreement with Asean.



On the face of it, it seems a very principled stand in the face of provocation by Cambodia. P-Noy took issue with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen when Sen announced that Asean had agreed not to “internationalize” its territorial disputes with China and would instead confine negotiations between the bloc and China. No such agreement had been reached, P-Noy expostulated, and he himself would continue to speak out on a global stage on it. “The Asean route is not the only route for us,” he declared.

That is all very well, but what exactly do we mean when we say we will continue to internationalize the dispute and speak on a global stage? If we mean that we will bring it to the attention of the United Nations and to the international adjudication bodies, then we are well within our rights. If we mean that we are going to make our beef known to, and appeal to the sense of justice of, the countries in wider Asia, Europe, and the other continents, then we are well within our senses. If we mean that we will continue to try to conscript America into our cause, specifically by getting it to speak loudly and unequivocally on our behalf, then we are well on our way to perdition.

The last in fact was what Sen was referring to when he said Asean had agreed not to internationalize the territorial dispute. It was a reference to our attempts to drag the United States into the fray. Inside looking out, or from our perspective, it’s Cambodia that looks like the odd man out, showing exceptionally slavish devotion and submission to its master, China. Outside looking in, or from the perspective of our Southeast Asian neighbors, it’s we who look like the bearded fool of the world, showing exceptionally embarrassing devotion and submission to our not-so-former colonial master, America.

(Cambodian leader Hun Sen)




(The logo of ASEAN)





(Flag of China at a parade in Beijing)




What route apart from the Asean, the one group that speaks for our immediate neighborhood, the one organization that binds our part of the world, the one bloc several of whose members have a territorial dispute with China, do we have? Surely we can continue to press our viewpoint within Asean? Surely we can try to get the rest of Asean on our side? Surely we can stand in solidarity with Asean and present a united front against China?

I don’t know how effective that would be. I don’t know how far it will dissuade China from its territorial ambitions. But I do know it is better than magsumbong kay Sam, which will produce nothing and only cost us more—not least in territory for US servicemen to run around. I do know it will dissuade our neighbors from continuing to think of us as a nation that never gained independence, that remains wrapped and trapped in the mental cocoon of being “sandal sa pader.” I do know it will help to get our neighbors to treat us a little more seriously.

I do know it will help to make our foreign policy less foreign—to us.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

USS Gridley (DDG-101) arriving in Manila Bay on Nov. 19, 2012, it's named after a navy captain involved in the 1898 Battle of Manila Bay, read his interesting and sad story  


(Image of Capt. Gridley sourced from etc.usf.edu)  


  



(Photo below of the modern-day USS Gridley)


        


This interesting story is recounted by the website http://www.spanamwar.com/Mbaygridley.htm  


"Below is Capt. Charles Gridley's letter to his mother following the 1898 Battle of Manila Bay. The note is interesting for several reasons."  


"First, it is obvious that Gridley is in poor health. He mentions that he is under the awning, aft, and his writing ink is "not handy." His stateroom could have been no more than thirty feet away. The trip to get ink may have been too taxing on him. Within a month, he would be dead."  


"Secondly, it was Gridley's report to Dewey that the OLYMPIA was low on ammunition that caused Dewey to break off the battle and head towards the center of the bay. To avoid having the Spanish understand why he did this, Dewey had the other vessels in the squadron that they were beaking for breakfast. Gridley's report was found to be in error and the lull in the action was truly not needed. In this letter, however, Gridley simply notes that the ships 'hauled off for breakfast' either attempting to perpetuate this myth which was widely reported on in the U.S., or he was not told the real reason for Dewey breaking off the battle."  


The letter:  


"My Dear Mother:  


Excuse pencil, but I am writing on the deck aft, under the awning, and ink is not handy.  Well, we have won a splendid victory over the Spaniards.  We left Hong Kong on April 25, Mirs Bay, April 27, and arrived off Manila Bay at midnight on April 30.  We steamed in with our lights all out, and by daylight we were off Manila, where we found the Spanish fleet, or rather, at Cavite, seven miles from Manila. We attacked them at once, the Olympia leading, and, being flagship, she was of course the principal target, but we (our fleet) were too much for them, and after fighting two and a half hours, hauled off for breakfast, giving them another hour of it afterward. We succeeded in burning, sinking and destroying their entire force.  They were also assisted by shore batteries.  Their loss was very heavy, one ship, the Castilla, losing 130 killed, including the captain.  


"And now as to ourselves.  We did not lose a man in our whole fleet, and had only six wounded, and none of them seriously.  It seems a miracle.  Everybody fought like heroes, as they are.  The Olympia was struck seven or eight times, but only slightly injured, hardly worth speaking of.  


"Stickney, New York Herald correspondent, and a former naval officer, was on board by permission of the department and acted during the battle as Dewey's secretary.  His account in the Herald will be full and complete, so you had better get it.  His reports will go in the same mail as this.  


"We have cut the cable and can only communicate via Hong Kong. The McCulloch will go over in a day or two, carrying Commodore Dewey's dispatches and this mail and bringing our mail I hope. -- I am truly thankful to our Heavenly Father for His protection during our battle, and shall give Him daily thanks.  Manila, of course, we have blockaded.  We can't take the city, as we have no troops to hold it.  


"Give my love to all and accept a large share for yourself.  


"Your loving son,  


CHARLEY."


Bibliography:
Stickney, Joseph L., Admiral Dewey at Manila. (Chicago: Imperial Publishing Co., 1899) 58, 61.
US naval ship arriving tomorrow Nov. 19 on "routine port call"

Seriously: What connection of USS Gridley ship, 1898 Battle of Manila Bay & Bugs Bunny cartoon?


My Comments:

I believe the U.S. government statement that these naval ship visits to Manila and other Asian ports are truly "routine port calls" to sailors and other navy personnel their much-needed rest and recreation as well as for naval exercises.

It is also my analysis that President Barack Obama's announced strategic policy shift called the so-called "pivot" is also essentially a military move, which seeks to bolster American military presence and strategic influence in the world's most economically vibrant region of Asia.

Hopefully, USA shall continue to act as a stabilizing force in Asia, and not unnecessarily or mistakenly provoke any misunderstandings with other powers in the region. USA military presence can and should be a stabilizing force in Asia, nothing more.

USA just needs to communicate more with other Asian powers to allay any misunderstandings. In fact, China, the East Asian dragon economies and ASEAN have in the past decades flourished economically due partly to the stability ensured by USA military presence in Asia as long as there is mutual respect, mutual trust and nonstop open communications with all powers.

Ideally, I believe the ASEAN region should in the long-term be a nuclear-free, neutral and demilitarized region focused mainly on economic prosperity---not a battleground for rival superpowers.







Thanks to USA diplomats for sending me this news:

USS Gridley to Arrive in Manila Bay

Manila, November 18, 2012 --- USS Gridley (DDG-101), an Arleigh-Burke Class Destroyer, will arrive in Manila Bay on Monday for a routine port call which the United States embassy described said "highlights the strong historic, community, and military connections between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines." 

The USA Embassy added: "This visit will allow the ship to replenish supplies as well as give the crew an opportunity for rest and relaxation."

The USS Gridley DDG-101 is part of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and is homeported in San Diego, California. 


Interestingly for the Philippines is this tidbit of history---The naval ship is named for Captain Charles Gridley, Commander of the USS Olympia who was famously told by Admiral George Dewey to “fire when you ready, Gridley” in the historic Battle of Manila Bay during the Spanish-American War.

That "Battle of Manila Bay" episode in history started America's role as new colonial power, colonizing the Philippines and subduing the Philippine revolutionaries fighting for independence then under the leadership of President Emilio Aguinaldo.

The Philippine revolutionaries were already winning their war of independence against three centuries of Spanish colonial rule, when the then rising USA intervened militarily, conquered the Philippines and subsequently suppressed Filipino rebels still fighting for self-rule in the Philippine-American War.

In fairness to the United States, it was American colonial occupation which helped transformed a formerly backward, agricultural Spanish colony into Asia's second wealthiest economy next only to Japan in less than half a century of American rule. It was under the Americans that the Philippines had Asia's best public schools, pioneer stock exchange, modern mining and other industries. A lot of ultra-nationalists may be morally right in criticizing America's suppression of Philippine independence, but it cannot be denied that USA colonial rule had modernized the Philippine economy to its golden years.

(Capt. Charles "Steve" Gridley)





This a view of Capt. Gridley, Cmdr. Lamberton (Gridley's eventual replacement) and Lt. Rees, aboard USS OLYMPIA

According to the USA Embassy, no media availability is planned during USS Gridley’s short visit to Manila Bay.

By the way, another tidbit of information---Charles Gridley is best remembered as the Captain of the USS Olympia, made famous when  Admiral George Dewey chose Gridley's USS Olympia as his flagship in the Battle of Manila Bay  and Dewey gave the famous order, "You may fire when you are ready, Gridley."  

For kids and the youth, remember this similar line from the various Looney Tunes cartoon shows with this same line was regularly shouted  by Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck?





Obama correct in supporting Israel vs. Hamas

My Comments:

Finally, USA led by newly-reelected President Barack Obama has publicly expressed support for Israel in its fight for survival now against hundreds of rockets from Hamas in Gaza. War shouldn't target civilians.

I believe all peoples of the world should support the nation of Israel. In the same manner, hopefully Obama, the West and other countries should decisively move for negotiating a long-term peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Let me make it clear that I am for support of the Palestinian people to have their own independent state, but one led by good leaders who shall accept peaceful co-existence with the Jewish state of Israel and not supporting terrorism. We should also support the Palestinian people.

There should be lasting and just peace in the Middle East.

 

Obama Says U.S. ‘Fully Supportive’ of Israel Defense Rights

President Barack Obama said the U.S. will continue to support Israel in its battle against Palestinian missiles, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the country was ready to broaden its Gaza operation.

“We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself from missiles landing on people’s homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians, and we will continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself,” Obama said at a press conference in Bangkok, where he began a three-nation trip that will include the first visit by a sitting U.S. president to Myanmar.

“There’s no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens,” Obama said.
Obama’s comments in Bangkok came hours after Netanyahu told his cabinet that the Israeli military is prepared for a “significant expansion of its operations” in Gaza. “We are exacting a heavy price from Hamas,” he said.

(USA President Obama and Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu at the Oval Office, White House, Washington, D.C., USA. This March 5, 2012 photograph is sourced from  news.yahoo.com)



Israel deployed tanks near the border, threatening the first ground invasion of Gaza since the attack in December 2008 that killed more than 1,100 Palestinians. Israel says its military goal is to make Palestinians stop firing the hundreds of rockets from the Hamas-controlled territory that have killed three Israelis.
The U.S., Israel and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist group.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan today called on Israel and Palestinians to enter a cease-fire within 24 hours.

‘Preferred’ Solution

Obama said that his message to Erdogan, as well as Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi, was that it would be “preferred” if Israel could deter missiles from landing in its territory without ramping up military activity in Gaza. “That’s not just preferable to the people of Gaza, that’s also preferable to Israelis,” he said.

“We are going to have to see what kind of progress we can make in the next 24, 36, 48 hours,” Obama said.

Obama made clear that a lasting peace would only be achieved when both Israelis and Palestinians worked toward a two-state solution.

The conflict threatens a region still unbalanced after a wave of popular uprisings last year, including one in Israel’s neighbor Syria that has turned into a civil war.

Yesterday’s comment by Mursi, that there were indications an agreement to halt the violence may be reached, were undermined by air-raid sirens and loud booms over Tel Aviv today. Two rockets were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. A rocket landed in Jerusalem on Nov. 16, the first such attack in decades.

Casualties Mount

Israeli air assaults yesterday killed 15 Palestinians, lifting the toll since Nov. 14 to 45, including 13 civilians and an 11-month-old child, Ashraf al-Qedra of the Gaza health ministry said.

A rocket hit the sea south of Tel Aviv on Nov. 15 and another landed near Jerusalem the following day, the first such attack in decades.

Israeli forces fired artillery shells early today in the Golan Heights after gunfire from Syria hit an army vehicle, Agence France-Presse reported, citing an Israeli military spokeswoman. The firing on the Israeli vehicle didn’t cause any injuries, AFP cited the spokeswoman as saying.

Israeli missiles struck a Hamas media center in central Gaza early today, Al Arabiya television reported.
The U.S., Israel and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

“If we are serious about wanting to resolve this situation,” Obama said. “It starts with no more missiles fired into Israel’s territory.”

Saturday, November 17, 2012

British author Dr. Martin Jacques lecture on Nov. 19 (Monday) at 1 pm at the Intercontinental Hotel Manila in Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Metro Manila, The Philippines. Topic: The Rise of China as Superpower and how the World should adjust to this phenomenon (Note: Please read Philippine Star columnist Billy Esposo's piece on Dr. Martin Jacques below after this news)

The Philippine Star newspaper is one of the sponsors of this lecture, so it must be good! Join & tell others.


            British economist, Cambridge University graduate and scholar Dr. Martin Jacques, author of the global bestselling book “When China Rules the World”.

Dr, Martin Jacques is a columnist for Britain’s The Times, The Sunday Times, The Guardian and New Statesman. He is visiting fellow at London School of Economics Asia Research Center, visiting professopr at Japan’s Aichi University, at China’s Renmin University and a visiting fellow at the Asia Research Institute of the National University of Singapore (NUS).


Martin Jacques will deliver a lecture with the same title and on how the rest of the world should adjust to this new phenomenon of a rising China. His lecture will be on November 19, Monday, starting at 1 pm at the Hotel Intercontinental in Ayala Avenue, Makati City.

Among the reactors in the lecture will be Filipino experts on China like the Emmy award-winning journalist Chito Santa Romana.

The Philippine Star is one of the sponsors of this lecture.

National Bookstore and Powerbooks will also sell Dr. Martin Jacques’ bestselling book, and there shall be an autograph-signing session at Hotel Intercontinental on November 19.

For inquiries about the lecture, text or call 09175373051.  






Below is a column by Billy Esposo of the Philippine Star about this British author and scholar:

China to overtake the US sooner than you think

AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR, By William M. Esposo
 
Martin Jacques, the author of the book “When China Rules the World”  is also an economist and columnist of the Guardian and New Statesman.

He recently spoke before a TED Salon in London (link: http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_jacques_understanding_the_rise_of_china.html  about how China  is going to overtake the US sooner than most people think.

What Martin Jacques had outlined in his lecture is of great importance to us Filipinos who are caught in the big geopolitical power game between the US and China. Per Acting Foreign Affairs Secretary, Albert del Rosario, we will continue our “sole strategic partnership” with the US.

Jacques narrated that even before the Western Financial Crisis Goldman Sachs had already projected that the Chinese economy will soon surpass that of the US and that in 2050 the Chinese economy will be double the size of that of the US.

Citing BNP Paribas projections, Jacques stated that the post-crisis date when China overtakes the US is now 2020. “China is going to change the world in two fundamental respects. First of all, it’s a huge developing country with a population of 1.3 billion people, which has been growing for over 30 years at around 10 percent a year,” Jacques said. He added: “Never before in the modern era has the largest economy in the world been that of a developing country, rather than a developed country. Secondly, for the first time in the modern era, the dominant country in the world — which I think is what China will become — will be not from the West and from very, very different civilizational roots.”

Jacques cited the “widespread assumption in the West that, as countries modernize, they also Westernize.” He said: “This is an illusion. It’s an assumption that modernity is a product simply of competition, markets and technology. It is not; it is also shaped equally by history and culture. China is not like the West, and it will not become like the West.”

To understand China, Jacques suggests that we should not apply conventional approaches and Western yardsticks. He offered three building blocks for understanding China.

Civilization and not nation State

Jacques asserted that China is not really a nation State. Jacques said: “what gives China its sense of being China, what gives the Chinese the sense of what it is to be Chinese, comes not from the last hundred years, not from the nation state period, which is what happened in the West, but from the period, if you like, of the civilization State.”

He amplified: “I’m thinking here, for example, of customs like ancestral worship, of a very distinctive notion of the State, likewise, a very distinctive notion of the family, social relationships like guanxi, Confucian values and so on. These are all things that come from the period of the civilization State. In other words, China, unlike the Western states and most countries in the world, is shaped by its sense of civilization, its existence as a civilization State, rather than as a nation State.”

Jacques cited two profound implications of being a civilization State, rather than a nation State, as follows: “The first is that the most important political value for the Chinese is unity,” the maintenance of Chinese civilization. He recalled how Europe had fragmented after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire and had remained divided ever since. “China, over the same time period, went in exactly the opposite direction, very painfully holding this huge civilization State together,” He added.

The second implication that Jacques cited was that China will naturally evolve into a single civilization with many systems, with Hong Kong as a good example.

Different conception of race

For his second building block, Jacques said: “The Chinese have a very, very different conception of race to most other countries. Do you know, of the 1.3 billion Chinese, over 90 percent of them think they belong to the same race, the Han. Now this is completely different from the other world’s most populous countries. India, the United States, Indonesia, Brazil — all of them are multiracial. The Chinese don’t feel like that. China is only multiracial really at the margins.” He added: “A history of at least 2,000 years, a history of conquest, occupation, absorption, assimilation and so on, led to the process by which, over time, this notion of the Han emerged — of course, nurtured by a growing and very powerful sense of cultural identity.

Jacques cited a down side of this conception of race — “They really believe in their own superiority, and they are disrespectful of those who are not.” He mentioned the Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs and the Tibetans.
The State is a patriarch

Jacques cited the Chinese State as his third building block — highlighting how State and society are viewed differently in China compared to the West. He said: “Now we in the West overwhelmingly seem to think — in these days at least — that the authority and legitimacy of the state is a function of democracy. The problem with this proposition is that the Chinese State enjoys more legitimacy and more authority amongst the Chinese than is true with any Western State.”

Per Jacques, the State in China “enjoys a very special significance as the representative, the embodiment and the guardian of Chinese civilization, of the civilization State. This is as close as China gets to a kind of spiritual role.” He added: “for 1,000 years, the power of the Chinese State has not been challenged. It’s had no serious rivals.” Jacques noted that the Chinese views the State as “the head of the family, the patriarch of the family.”

Cautioning the West about their arrogance and ignorance, Jacques explained that East Asia is where a third of the world’s population lives and it is the largest economic region in the world. He added that: “people from East Asia, are far more knowledgeable about the West than the West is about East Asia.

Jacques added: “What is happening is that, very rapidly in historical terms, the world is being driven and shaped, not by the old developed countries, but by the developing world. We’ve seen this in terms of the G20 — usurping very rapidly the position of the G7, or the G8.”

He warns of two consequences. The first is that the West is rapidly losing its influence in the world. The second is “that the world will inevitably, as a consequence, become increasingly unfamiliar to us, because it’ll be shaped by cultures and experiences and histories that we are not really familiar with, or conversant with.”

“For 200 years, the world was essentially governed by a fragment of the human population. That’s what Europe and North America represented. The arrival of countries like China and India — between them 38 percent of the world’s population — and others like Indonesia and Brazil and so on, represent the most important single act of democratization in the last 200 years. Civilizations and cultures, which had been ignored, which had no voice, which were not listened to, which were not known about, will have a different sort of representation in this world. As humanists, we must welcome, surely, this transformation. And we will have to learn about these civilizations,” Jacques said.

We are indeed entering the China century. The big question that must be posed is this — why is our foreign policy still glued to a sole strategic partnership with the US?
*      *      *
Philippine Senator Tito Sotto stokes controversy again, Pep.ph report said "Sotto implies former U.S. President John F. Kennedy was a plagiarist"

My Comments:

Granted for the sake of argument, that the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy had allegedly committed plagiarism, does that purported wrong act justify or exonerate the plagiarism error of our Philippine Senator Tito Sotto? Of course not! That is called "muddling the issue".

I suggest we do not drag other people like the late much-admired President Kennedy into this domestic controversy we have here in the Philippines.

Let me make it clear, I have nothing personal against Senator Tito Sotto.

Yes, I disagree with Senator Tito Sotto and his ally Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile for their petty wishy-washy stand on plagiarism, for their unfair obstructing of the open debate and voting for the pro-women, pro-family planning Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, but I still respect them as human beings and their right to their wrong opinions.

(This image below sourced from sowhatsnews.wordpress.com)



 (This image below is of the Time magazine cover on then U.S.A. President John F. Kennedy)



Here is the Tagalog vernacular news report from Pep.ph which prompted me to comment above:
Senator Tito Sotto implies former U.S. President John F. Kennedy was a plagiarist


Rommel R. Llanes
Pep.ph website                     Nov. 17, 2012


Nagpadala ng text message si Senador Vicente "Tito" Sotto III (main photo) na naglalaman ng link, kunsaan sinasabing diumano'y nangopya rin sa kanyang speech ang yumaong dating U.S. President na si John F. Kennedy (inset).
Photo: Noel B. Orsal (Sotto), Wikimedia.org (Kennedy)















Sa tingin ni Senador Vicente "Tito" Sotto III ay nakakita siya ng pambawi sa kanyang mga kritiko.
Nagpadala ng isang text message ang 64-year-old Senate Majority Leader at Eat Bulaga! host sa isang local broadsheet na naglalaman ng link sa isang website.

Ang link ay nakadirekta sa isang istoryang gawa ng www.dailymail.co.uk writer na si Daniel Bates, tungkol sa mga rebelasyon ng librong Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, na sinulat ni Chris Matthews.

Sinabi ni Bates na ayon kay Matthews, diumano’y ninakaw ni dating-U.S. President John F. Kennedy ang kanyang pamosong linyang “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” mula sa headmaster ng paaralang pinanggalingan nito.

Ang orihinal daw na nagsabi ng linyang ito ay ang headmaster ng Choate School sa Connecticut, U.S.A., na si George St. John.

Kabilang din sa mga sinasabing ibinubunyag sa libro ni Matthews ay ang mga sagot sa questionnaire na ipinadala sa ilang dating kaklase sa Choate School ni JFK (inisyal ni President John F. Kennedy), nung maging presidente na ng U.S. ang pamosong Irish-American politician.

Isang dating kaklase raw ni JFK ang nagsulat na “I boil every time I read or hear the Ask not… exhortation as being original with Jack.”

“Jack” ang palayaw ni John F. Kennedy.

“Time and time again we all heard [the headmaster] say that to the whole Choate family,” sabi pa raw ng isang source ng libro.

Ang pamoso, ngunit pinagdududahan na ngayong linya ni Kennedy, ay bahagi ng kanyang pamosong January 20, 1961, inaugural speech, na ibinigay sa Capitol Hill sa Washington, DC, nang mailuklok siyang ika-35 presidente ng Estados Unidos.

SOTTO’S INTENTION. Ayon sa local broadsheet na pinadalhan ni Senador Sotto ng link sa kanyang text message, hindi mahirap mahulaan kung bakit nagpadala ng ganung text message ang senador.

Sa kasalukuyan kasi’y kabi-kabilang batikos ang ipinupukol dito dahil sa isyung plagiarism.

Matatandaang nagsimula ang isyung ito laban sa kanya nang magkaroon ng plagiarism complaints mula sa U.S.-based bloggers na sina Peter C. Engelman, Janice Formichella, at Sarah Couture Pope.

Ito ay kaugnay sa walang-paalam na pagkopya at paggamit ng senador ng ilang bahagi ng kanilang blogs sa kanyang mga privilege speeches sa Senado, laban sa pinagdedebatehang pagpasa ng Reproductive Health Bill.

Laban si Sotto sa RH Bill.

Noong Nobyembre 9 naman ay pinaratangan ng Robert F. Kennedy Center Justice and Human Rights president na si Kerry Kennedy ng plagiarism si Senador Sotto.

Si Kerry ay anak ng yumaong U.S. senator na si Robert F. Kennedy, na kapatid naman ni dating-U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

Noong una’y hindi pinansin ni Senador Sotto ang reklamong ito at sinabi pa niya sa kanyang November-12 interview sa ilang press, na hindi siya hihingi ng tawad.

“E, baka imbento lang iyan ng mga aficionado doon, ng mga professional manipulator sa Internet,” sabi pa ng senador.

Ngunit kinabukasan, Nobyembre 13, humingi rin ng tawad sa pamilya ni U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy si Senator Sotto sa pamamagitan ng isang speech sa Senado.

Inilagay nito sa kanyang speech: “Copying, imitation, is the highest form of flattery.

“If it upsets the Kennedy family, then I am sorry, but then that's not my intention.”

Ngunit nung araw ring iyon ay naghain naman ng 22-page ethics complaint ang 37 katao laban sa kanya.
Isinampa ang reklamo sa Senate Ethics and Privileges Committee na pinamumunuan ni Senate Minority Leader Allan Peter Cayetano.

Karamihan sa 37 katao ay kinabibilangan ng mga guro at bloggers na nagrereklamo sa plagiarized speeches ng senador.

Ang argumento nila ay nilabag ni Senador Sotto ang Intellectual Property Code of Philippines o RA 8293 at ang mismong ethics rules ng Senado.
8 reasons why we should all support Israel in Gaza crisis now, also support peace for Palestinians too.



Why?

1. Israel is a stabilizing force in the Middle East, it sincerely seeks long-term peace and respects the co-existence of all races and religions in harmony.

2. Israel is a catalyst for economic development and free enterprise ideals in the Middle East. Israel supports anti-poverty efforts. One of the root causes of Palestinian discontent is poverty, let us support Israel and help the whole region win the war against poverty and other social problems.

3. Israel is a vibrant political democracy, despite being practically in a state of war and constantly under siege.

4. Israel is a vanguard nation in the global war against terrorism and extremism.

5. In the present crisis, evidences show that Hamas forces in Gaza have been shooting hundreds of rockets into Israel indiscriminately and attacking civilians, therefore the military acts of Israel are for self-defense.

6. I believe the vast majority of Palestinian people want peace, an independent nation and economic security, not constant warfare caused by extremist or militant elements or terrorists. Let us support Israel in its longstanding and unending quest for peaceful co-existence with Palestinians.

7. For Christians worldwide, God said in the Bible that we shall be blessed if we support the Jewish people.

8. Last but not the least, let us support long-term peaceful settlement of the problems between Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East, by promoting mutual trust and respect, tolerance for all religious faiths.

Please share your opinions below in the comments section? Share this blog post to other people too?




The news report below is from Newsmax:

Santorum: Obama Must Support Israel on Gaza



Thursday, 15 Nov 2012 09:21 PM
By Todd Beamon and Paul Scicchitano


The United States should support Israel in any assault against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged on Thursday in an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV.

“We should support our ally in its ability to defend itself. Israel is defending itself against repeated attacks,” Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator and chairman of Patriot Voices, told Newsmax at Restoration Weekend 2012 in Palm Beach, Fla. “There have over 850 rockets fired this year.

“Imagine if Mexico was lobbing rockets into El Paso and Tucson. We would be outraged. We would immediately tell them to either stop or we are going to go into there and clear out those areas that are beyond government control – and do it for them. That is exactly what is going on in Israel.”

Earlier on Thursday, Palestinians battered Israel with more than 200 rockets in the heaviest fighting in four years, killing three people as Israel pressed a punishing campaign of airstrikes on militant targets across the Gaza Strip.

Three rockets targeted Tel Aviv, setting off air-raid sirens in bold attacks that led Israel to signal that a ground operation was imminent. At least 12 trucks were seen transporting tanks and armored personnel carriers, and a number of buses carrying soldiers arrived.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he had authorized the army to call up as many as 30,000 additional reservists for possible action.

Fifteen Palestinians also have been killed in two days of shelling.

Israel and Hamas have largely observed an informal truce for the past four years. But in recent weeks, the calm unraveled in a bout of rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza and retaliatory Israeli airstrikes.

“The Palestinian Hamas, in Gaza, and in the West Bank, they are very, very clear that they do not believe in Israel’s right to exist,” Santorum told Newsmax on Thursday. “They have never recognized their right to exist. They are doing everything they can to create tensions, knowing that the vast majority of the world is going to support the Palestinian cause, as they do in the United Nations.

“This is a test of whether this president, because America has been alone in the world in supporting Israel – post-election – is willing to stand up for Israel,” he added. “I am hopeful that the President will pass that test, but certainly if you look at his record over the past four years, he has been the weakest friend to Israel than Israel has ever had in the White House.”

Story continues below the video:






Friday, November 16, 2012

According to a BBC report, consuming chocolate causes a more intense and longer emotional buzz than kissing. Agree or not? Why?




Miley Cyrus passionately kissing with actor Liam Hemsworth. The kiss was a scene from Miley’s upcoming movie ‘The Last Song’.


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Topless Tampa Agent Topples Two Top Generals in USA

My Comments:

I just read this opinion column in Bloomberg (below all the photos which follow this comment), based on the now unravelling sex scandal involving the chief of America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with this ex-general's lady biographer, plus other similar news.

These unfortunate events should teach all valuable lessons about the importance of marital fidelity, of being extra careful with SMS texting or emails, of not mixing national security with risky lifestyle risks, etc.

Read and share your own comments or opinions?

(Below are images of General David Petraeus and his biographer & alleged mistress Paula Broadwell)










Below is the opinion column, the title is the same title used for this blog post:
Topless Tampa Agent
Illustration by Paul Windle

The David Petraeus affair has to be a dream you wake up from. It can’t be true.

Surely the FBI agent at the heart of the investigation couldn’t have been sending shirtless photos to Jill Kelley, the damsel in distress and wealthy socialite in Tampa, Florida, who was allegedly being harassed by Paula Broadwell. Broadwell, of course, is the former mistress and Petraeus biographer who wins the prize for the least clothing worn in an interview with Jon Stewart, who asked her the most pressing question raised by her book about the former Army general and Central Intelligence Agency director: “Is he awesome, or incredibly awesome?”

About Margaret Carlson

Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist appearing on Wednesdays. A former White House correspondent for TIME, she was also TIME's first woman columnist. She appeared on CNN's "Capital Gang" for 15 years.

More about Margaret Carlson
Then another general fell. As federal agents were carrying a computer out of Broadwell’s house in North Carolina, the Pentagon announced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating four-star Marine General John Allen, who took over in Afghanistan after Petraeus went to the CIA. Allen is said to have sent thousands of pages of e-mails to Kelley, whose complaint about Broadwell got this whole story going.

All of which raises an important question about national security: What’s in the water at the Pentagon, stupid juice? It’s only a matter of time before the headline atop this column comes true.

It’s hard not to follow all this and resist thinking, “I’m dumb, but I’m not that dumb.” Each character is so predictable this story could go straight to HBO. In Broadwell, Petraeus met his match in mixing love and career -- he’d married the daughter of the superintendent at West Point -- but failed to realize she was attracted as much to the four stars on his shoulder as to his sense of humor and love of long walks on the beach.

Intensive Research

The two stars collided at a large apres-lecture dinner at Harvard when she asked for some time to ask a few questions, as she was a “researcher.” (So that’s what they call it nowadays.) He even gave her his card (and here I thought I was the only one with his personal e-mail address!). She posed her questions, sometimes while running six-minute miles with him, and thus was the biography “All In” produced.

Those around Petraeus saw how blinded he was, questioning how much access she had. There was a war going on, after all. He listened to some criticism, once telling her to put away the revealing outfits when in Afghanistan. But his door stayed open.

With Petraeus’s resignation, it’s time to rethink why personal stupidity that doesn’t affect someone’s job should automatically result in resignation. In matters romantic, we can all be stupid. Once the FBI saw that it had uncovered an extramarital affair, not an affair of state, the agency should have reined in that rogue topless agent and called it a day. But it didn’t, and when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper learned of Petraeus’s behavior, he told him he would have to resign -- and eventually the president accepted.

There was no crime or breach of national security. The rules regarding personal behavior at the CIA are more lenient than those in the military. The antiquated fear that someone with a sexual secret can be blackmailed is operative only if Clapper and others make it so. If having an affair isn’t enough to get someone fired, then it probably isn’t enough to be used as blackmail.

Petraeus rightly didn’t think he would have to resign until last week. The Petraeus family was picture-perfect just last month at his daughter’s wedding. He must have known then that all hell was about to break loose -- the investigation was well- along -- but he probably thought he would keep his job.

Which raises another question: Why is there a different standard of private conduct for public servants than, say, for the reporters who cover them, or the lobbyists hoping they’ll approve the weapons system they’re selling? (On second thought, maybe the standards are the same, as illustrated by the resignation last week of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s incoming chief executive officer over a “close and personal relationship” with a subordinate. At least he got $3.5 million to soften the blow.)

Puritanical Habits

Yes, government officials are stewards of the public trust in a way that private executives are not. Still, it’s not clear that the Puritan streak that persists in U.S. public life is serving the public interest.

Divorce rates in the military are higher than they’ve been in more than a decade. Multiple deployments are hard on everyone, from grunts to the brass. Are we willing to fire all these people if we find out about their infidelities?

Imagine the second term of President Bill Clinton had his terrible affair not consumed Congress and the rest of us. A few months ago, Petraeus watched as his friend Brett McGurk lost his chance to become ambassador to Iraq over an affair with a reporter. It didn’t matter that everyone -- from former President George W. Bush to the current president -- thought McGurk would be a great ambassador. He’d been exposed by e-mails to his then-girlfriend, now wife. Nothing unethical or criminal was found, yet they both lost their careers over it.

Once upon a time, it would have been hard to expose Petraeus. Love letters could be stashed away in a box. No more. Love may be fleeting, but e-mail is forever. We’ve now had this technology long enough to know that any time you click “Send,” your innermost thoughts may become known not just to the recipient but to your employer, the recipient’s employer, the FBI and the New York Times. Yet we keep tapping away, day and night, giving our ephemeral feelings technological permanence. It’s a worldwide addiction. We can’t stop ourselves.

The FBI can, however. What’s criminal here is that the agency kept investigating even after realizing what it had on its hands was a reckless affair -- and aren’t they all? -- not a threat to national security.

We’re not Saudi Arabia. We don’t stone adulterers. The punishment suffered privately is more than enough.

(Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Sad to hear my former college student last semester is now in the news for an unfortunate altercation or heated exchange with a female security guard at the Light Rail Transit (LRT) in Metro Manila, the Philippines.

I sincerely hope and pray that the guard and my ex-student will have peace. I read the news that my former student has apologized, and the female security guard has also apologized.

My wish & advice: Peace to all, less anger, smile always whatever the circumstances. We should try to keep our cool always, count to 20 or 100 before losing our temper, seek anger management.

Do share your opinions or suggestions in the Comments section below, or email me, or tweet @WilsonLeeFlores

November 15, 2012 update: TV5 today interviewed me about my ex-student last semester involved in Amalayer video controversy, one of their questions---"How is her English?" My reply: "In fairness, her English was grammatical, but I believe all of us will sound better and nicer if we're not angry." AGREE?

UPDATE! TV5 Interaksyon News Jove Francisco & Grace Lee interview Amalayer girl, please share your comments below this blog post? Thanks! http://www.interaksyon.com/article/48242/video--amalayer-girl-speaks-i-regret-my-actions-but-i-dont-think-i-deserve-all-this


(This image above from peaceread.org)



Here is a news report from GMA News:

Girl in viral #Amalayer video speaks up

November 14, 2012 10:02pm

(Updated 11:31 p.m., 14 November 2012)
A video of a passenger berating a guard at the Light Railway Transit (LRT) Santolan station went viral on Facebook Tuesday night, getting more than 68,000 shares and 17,000 comments.

The hashtag #AMALAYER, which came from the passenger's pronunciation of "I'm a liar," even trended on Twitter, both worldwide and in the Philippines.

In a video sent by YouScooper Gregory Paulo Llamoso, passenger Paula Jamie Salvosa was seen giving a female security guard a tongue-lashing. “I’m a liar? I’m a liar?” Salvosa yelled.

Reached by GMA News, Salvosa said she is willing to resolve the issue with the security guard, though it was the lady guard who raised her voice initially.



"Sabi n'ya sa 'kin, sumigaw, 'Miss, anong problema mo?' Sabi ko sa kanya, you are my problem!" she said.

Salvosa added that the guard, identified as Sharon Mae Casinas, grabbed her arm. "Sabi ko, bakit? You have no right to drag me! Nagagalit ako kasi she grabbed me!"

Salvosa said she would not have reacted that way if the guard had treated her well.

For her part, Casinas said she asked the woman to put her bag though the X-ray machine for proper inspection. However, Salvosa began raising her voice. Casinas, on the other hand, said she remained calm despite the humiliation.

"Nagkulong po [ako] sa kwarto sa sobrang kahihiyan," she added.

Meanwhile, Salvosa said she is a victim of cyberbullying. She also denied that she owns the Twitter account @paulaharlow, as she has already deactivated her Twitter and Facebook accounts.

"I want to be an example na may karapatan naman tayo. Cyberbullying ito," she said.



Side comments and facial expressions

In a news release, the Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) explained that Casinas was merely performing her duties as she requested Salvosa to put her bag through an x-ray machine. But the latter somehow missed the procedure and hurriedly tried to enter the station.

LRTA Officer-in-Charge Emerson L. Benitez said that their security personnel are instructed to strictly implement the “No inspection, No entry” policy. The rule ensures the safety and security of passengers.

Benitez admitted that this may inconvenience passengers. Therefore, security personnel have been instructed to “refrain from making side comments and facial expressions that may be offensive to our passengers.”

Also, all LRT security personnel have undergone a seminar on Quality Customer Service Delivery before their deployment and are given refresher courses semi-annually.

“Ms. Casinas displayed the right attitude expected of a security guard,” said the LRTA, “that is, to be courteous and tolerant in spite of the embarrassment.”

Regardless, Casinas apologized for whatever action that she had committed deemed offensive by Salvosa, said the LRTA news release. — BM/DVM, GMA News



Implement the death penalty in the Philippines again for heinous crimes like murder, etc!



So many crimes everyday in the news!

We need not only Tuwid na Daan (the straight path), but also Safe na Daan (safe path) please!

The world's oldest constitutional democracy---USA---implements the death penalty. Southeast Asia's wealthiest, most crime-free, safe and orderly nation---Singapore---implements the death penalty too.

The death penalty is actually pro-life, because it protects and upholds the right to life of all peace-loving citizens of the world versus murderers and other criminals.

The death penalty is an effective deterrent to heinous crimes and social chaos.

The death penalty is just, democratic and also Biblical in upholding Christian principles.


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Support Reproductive Health (RH) Bill & Senator Pia Cayetano! Philippine Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile shoots down move to tackle RH bill.

My Comments:

I believe the RH Bill in the Philippines is pro-women, pro-poor, pro-life and supports the needs of Philippine socio-economic development.

Let us strongly support the RH Bill and the enlightened senators such as Pia Cayetano, Miriam Defensor Santiago and others who courageously champion this legislation for family planning in the Philippines.

(Photograph of the progressive and courageous Senator Pia Cayetano from misternow.deviantart.com)




(The controversial Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who is not supporting the much-needed RH Bill)



Here below is a disturbing news report today by GMA 7:

Enrile shoots down move by Pia Cayetano to tackle RH bill

November 13, 2012 4:29pm
 
— Kimberly Jane Tan/KBK, GMA News
A move to advance the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill in the Senate was immediately shot down — by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile himself — on Tuesday afternoon, further damping hopes on its immediate passage.
 
During the day's session, RH bill co-sponsor Sen. Pia Cayetano asked that the two-year-old bill be tackled for at least 30 minutes before they go on to other priority measures, like the sin tax bill and the proposed budget for 2013.
 
"I have stated before that I fully support the prioritization of the sin tax bill and the budget, but I would also like to put on record that the RH bill has been pending for almost two years and what I would like to request our colleagues is that we find time to also finish this measure," she told her colleagues on the floor.
 
The RH measure is in the period of amendments in the Senate, after which senators can vote to pass it on second reading.
 
But Cayetano said since there are only a few senators who will be seeking amendments, they would only need less than an hour to tackle the controversial measure.
 
The three senators who manifested their intention to seek amendments are Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente Sotto III, and Senator Ralph Recto.
 
Enrile, however, said Cayetano should not complain if a bill is not being tackled.
 
"I have also a bill here that has been pending for 10 years and I am waiting for it to be discussed in this chamber,” Enrile told Cayetano. “I never complained and I don't think there is anyone who can compel any senator to jump simply because they want him to jump."
 
"I'm ready to defend my position in any debate here so I hope that they will understand that I'm not ready yet to propose an amendment," he added.
 
But when Cayetano asked him when he will be ready, he said: "I do not know, madam senator, when I'm ready."
 
Upon hearing this, Cayetano said she is ready to do what it takes to pass the measure. "I think it is also my right as a sponsor to defend this bill, which a lot of people are waiting for," she said.
 
Enrile, however, said he was not afraid of what she may do.
 
"I'm ready for any remedy that the gentle lady would like to take if you want to put into a vote [or] that I be censured or be kicked out as Senate president or I be outvoted so be it," he said.
 
 
My Comments on Senator Tito Sotto's alleged plagiarism? I recommend that he apologize with sincerety and without any additional unnecessary side comments. Please set leadership by example, especially to the youth of the Philippines and the world. Don't think of real life as a hilarious farce like his old Iskul Bukol TV comedy show!

Share your personal comments down below in the Comments section? or tweet me at @WilsonLeeFlores

Here are opinions of people in Philippine entertainment industry, who seem more sensible than our politicians:


Mo Twister @djmotwister
tweeted this today:
Enrile said that Sotto's speech is protected by the Constitution. I wish I could use that excuse in a thesis paper defense.

Paolo Paraiso@PaoloParaiso tweeted this today
"Copying or imitation is the highest form of flattery but if it upsets the Kennedy family, well then I'm sorry..." - tito sotto ----wow....

Deo Angelo Valeroso@RaileyValeroso
That Tito Sotto speech is an insult to our intelligence and it hurts us as a nation to have arrogantly ignorant politicians.




What is the real truth about China & Japan dispute on Diaoyu or Senkaku Isles?

My Comments:

I have been asked regarding the controversy over the Diaoyu or Senkaku isles which have caused renewed conflicts between China, Taiwan on one side and Japan on the orther side.

I came across informations from the blog of Harvard and Oxford alumnus, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, and would like to share with you.

Nicholas Kristof laments the position of his country USA for apparently siding with Japan, when he said the preponderance of evidences point to China being correct in its sovereignty claim over the Diaoyu Islands.

Hopefully, both Asian countries can come to a peaceful settlement of this historic problem as soon as possible based on the historical truth, fairness and justice.




Here is the September 19, 2012 article by Nicholas Kristof and scholar Han-Yi Shaw :




The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands


Diaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).
Han-yi ShawDiaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).
I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute  between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose.

Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China:  the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position.

I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling.

The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war.

This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof

Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan's purchase of the islands could spark an "extremely grave crisis" between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.

Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.

The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.

Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”

My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.

Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.

“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.
Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.
Japan Diplomatic Records Office.Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.
“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.

After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.”

The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.

In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”

Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.

Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.

When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.
Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source:  Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.
Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source:  Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.
The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.

Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.

The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”

Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.

The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.

Update: The author would like to include an updated image of the Qing era documents that recorded, “Diaoyutai Island accommodates ten or more large ships”, as mentioned in his blog post.
Record of Missions to Taiwan Waters (1722), Gazetteer of Kavalan County (1852), and Pictorial Treatise of Taiwan Proper (1872).National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan.Record of Missions to Taiwan Waters (1722), Gazetteer of Kavalan County (1852), and Pictorial Treatise of Taiwan Proper (1872).
Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.