Duterte’s Immigration Agreement with China: Subversion by Numbers

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 7, No. 6, June 2018 

By Demetrius Cox

A PLA Air Force (PLAAF) military transport plane (IL-76) in Davao City on 8 June 2018. Source: Philippine Plane Spotters Group (PPSG).

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

On June 9, 2018 the Philippine Star published an article titled “More than 3 million Chinese allowed entry into Philippines since 2016 — Immigration data”.

In what may become one of the most remarkable subversions in recent history, the article describes how the immigration floodgates have been thrown open by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.  With a current national population of 103 million, Duterte has allowed a 3% direct population increase (3+ million) of Chinese immigrants to the Republic of the Philippines in less than three years, which is enough to keep most demographers up at night.  And there is no end in sight.

In Communist China’s long game, this is a very important development. The PRC is effectively colonizing a democratic neighbor and treaty ally of their chief rival, the United States, while driving a strategic wedge deep into the heart of the Western Pacific – without firing a single shot.

China’s illegal construction and militarization of five man-made island fortresses in the South China Sea has elicited outrage.  But the PRC is laughing at the world.  As  reports of a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) IL-76 landing at Davao City on June 8 suggests, China is in the process of buying and colonizing a 7,000 island unsinkable aircraft carrier, while creating a brilliant encirclement and containment strategy to directly threaten every regional neighbor and rival.

Apparently President Duterte never made a study of Communist China’s invasion of Tibet (1950), or PRC forays into Socialist infiltration of Malaysia (Malayan Emergencies, 1948-1960; 1968-1989) and Indonesia (PKI, 1914-1966), where China attempted to directly subvert two key southeast Asian nations by mass immigration, while agitating, fomenting, and arming communist militias there.

There is no sunny future here for the Philippines’ weak democracy – and China will see to it.  Short of an Indonesian-style purge, those Chinese immigrants are in the Philippines to stay, and are being joined by thousands more each day.  In rapid succession, we are likely to see at least a political resurgence of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and other Socialist advocacy groups – including the Catholic Church – which has a history of supporting the CPP.  Even though Duterte allegedly hates the CPP with a passion, China knows he won’t be around to protest later – or even now – to provide a modicum of Counterintelligence pushback against Chinese Intelligence Services currently operating in the completely unrestrained and target-rich environment created by the president himself.  Given the unfortunate history of corruption and poverty in the Philippines, Duterte’s eagerness to court Chinese investment and tourism will likely see greed triumph over freedom and democracy.  This could be met with mass Filipino unrest, once the populace more fully understands what their crooked leaders have done to them, but even that is in doubt if China succeeds in making a few more Filipinos “rich”.

Hello, Manila, anybody home?

Hello??

你好?

Demetrius Cox is a retired Naval Officer, active researcher, analyst, commentator, and consultant.  He has lived and worked in the Indo-Pacific region for over three decades, and specializes in science, energy, defense, and policy matters. JPR Status: Opinion.

After China’s Naval Modernization, It Seeks to Rewrite International Law and Exclude the U.S. from the South China Sea

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 6, No. 2, February 2018

By James E. Fanell (Capt., USN, Ret.)

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) Ministry of Defense representative reportedly stated at this week’s Munich Security Conference that the PRC now interprets the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as stating that naval forces are forbidden to operate in a coastal state’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) without said state’s prior permission.

This raises the question of why Beijing has now come to this “enlightened” position? Where was the PRC since 1949 as US Navy warships peacefully sailed the waters of the South China Sea over the past 70 years? Or where was the PRC from 1972 to 1982 as China participated in the American-led effort to craft and ratify UNCLOS? More importantly, why did Beijing not complain of US Navy operations in the South China Sea in 1996 when the PRC ratified UNCLOS?

Why is the PRC now making this an issue? I think the answer is very easy to understand. After nearly 20 years of the most robust naval modernization since WW II, the PRC now believes they have a big enough and capable enough Navy and Maritime Law Enforcement force to back up their sovereignty claims to the entirety of the South China Sea.

People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) frigate formation sail during a live-fire drill on August 7, 2017. The live-fire drill took place in the Yellow Sea (aka Huangai Sea) and Bohai Sea. Credit: Pu Haiyang/VCG via Getty Images.

Continue reading

Boeing-Embraer Deal: Consequences for the Global Aircraft Industry

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 6, No. 2, February 2018

By Evodio Kaltenecker

Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company, initiated negotiations in December 2017 with Embraer, the world´s third-largest aircraft maker.  The Chicago-based US aerospace giant is pursuing a business agreement with the Brazilian jet maker in a global competition with Boeing´s European rival, Airbus.  The US and Brazilian companies have discussed the idea of a joint venture in which Boeing could take a stake of up to 90 percent in the Brazilian aircraft maker’s commercial business. That business unit will likely exclude sensitive military business to reduce Brazil´s concerns about sovereign defense capability. [1]

The KC-390. Source: Brazilian Government.

Continue reading

Nuclear Deterrence and Four Types of Force: Definitive, Coercive, Catalytic, and Expressive

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 2017

By Captain Robert C. Rubel USN (Ret)

North Korea’s drive to attain a nuclear warfare capability is currently on the front burner in the Pentagon, and is a driver of tensions in East Asia. This has precipitated plenty of dialogue in the national security community, including on the issue of extended deterrence, the policy of the US that threatens nuclear response if an ally is attacked with nuclear weapons. One input from a former colleague at the Naval War College was the final catalyst that got me tapping on the keys. First, he quoted one of his scholars as saying that the real question concerning nuclear weapons “… is whether strategic nuclear forces have any genuine relevance today in the context of deterrence and warfighting, or whether they’re troublesome legacy weapons of a bygone era.” In a subsequent email he said that he was “interested in deterrence stopping all wars, not just nuclear.” It may be that the general umbrella of nuclear deterrence did suppress some wars that might have otherwise taken place during the decades after 1945, but it is almost impossible to know. However, my colleague’s faith in the utility of the manifold uses of deterrence is not that distant from those who advocate tailored deterrence, which is a scaled or graduated deterrence structure that includes the option of preemptive strikes.[1] Tailored deterrence to some extent reflects the logic behind the DoD concept of flexible deterrent options (FDO), which are defined as “…a wide range of interrelated responses that begin with deterrent oriented actions carefully tailored to produce a desired effect.”[2] In my view, such policies would incur considerable risk, as they ascribe, in an a priori manner, effects on an opponent’s political decision making and strategic planning processes in lieu of any specific intelligence (frequently) and certainly without any historical track record, especially in the nuclear arena. In this short article I will discuss a different way to analyze deterrence and gain insight into the thought processes of my colleague.

File photo taken in October 2015 in Pyongyang is of a North Korean intermediate-range ballistic missile on display during a military parade. Photo by Kyodo News via Getty Images

Continue reading

The New Face of Russia’s Relations with Brazil

Defense Minister of Brazil, Celso Amorim, receives his counterpart from Russia, Sergei Shoigu, during bilateral meeting in Brasilia.

Defense Minister of Brazil, Celso Amorim (L), receives his counterpart from Russia, Sergei Shoigu, to bilateral meeting at the Defense Ministry in Brasilia, capital of Brazil, on October 16, 2013. Shoigu’s visit included an attempt to win a $4 billion deal to supply 18 fighter jets.

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 2, No. 5, May 2014.

By Matthew Michaelides

Abstract

Bilateral trade, high level personal communication, and military-technical relations between Russia and Brazil have all grown significantly over the past decade. Recent weapons sales to Brazil include a $150 million contract for MI-35 helicopters in 2009 and a 2012 deal for seven Ka-62 helicopters. Moreover, the Russian defense ministry has indicated its intention to increase Russian military capacity in Brazil and Latin America more broadly. This paper examines the causes for the increasing depth of Russian-Brazilian military-technical relations and concludes that informal patronage politics play an essential role in understanding Russian actions. A detailed analysis of contemporary Russian-Brazilian relations and existing theoretical perspectives is provided, as well as a thorough examination of recent Russian arms and equipment sales from the informal patronage politics perspective.

Continue reading