DOUBLE BARRELED JUGGERNAUT

 The Simpsons cartoon episode: “Trash of the Titans”

Homer: I need a catchy slogan for my new sanitation campaign.

Spin Doctor: Well, we could try “Trash Day: It’s the Day You Love to Hate!”

Homer: Eh, too negative.

Spin Doctor: Okay, how about “We’re Making Garbage Great Again!”

Homer: No, too positive.

Spin Doctor: Hmm, how about “Can’t someone else do it?”

Homer: Perfect!

In the 1990s movie Wag the Dog scene, Conrad Brean (played by Robert De Niro), a spin doctor, hires Stanley Motss (played by Dustin Hoffman), a Hollywood producer, to develop a carefully crafted storyline of a fake war to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal.

Conrad: We need a war.

Stanley: Why?

Conrad: Because it’s the oldest trick in the book.

Stanley: Which book?

Conrad: The one every filmmaker has on his shelf. We’ll create a pageant of patriotism, a circus of solidarity.

Stanley: But, uh, why Albania?

Conrad: Why not? What do you know about Albania?

Stanley: Nothing.

Conrad: Exactly. How many movies have we made about Vietnam?

Stanley: Dozens

Conrad: And what have we learned? Nothing. Look, we’ll make a war nobody can criticize.

Stanley: Brilliant.

Forged in the US, the term “spin doctor” refers to a public relations professional who is skilled at shaping the public’s perception of a particular person, organization, or issue. Many credited Raymond Strother, a political strategist and media consultant, as the first person to use publicly the term in the 1980s. He described his work as “spin control” and referred to himself as a “spin doctor” to “make the facts as palatable as possible.”

Spin doctors are often employed by political parties, corporations, celebrities, and other public figures to shape the way the public perceives them. Examples of spin doctoring might include using statistics to highlight the positive aspects of a company’s performance while downplaying any negative aspects, or framing a politician’s policy proposal in a way that appeals to a particular demographic.

The societal implications of spin doctoring can be significant. While spin doctors may be effective at shaping public opinion, their tactics can sometimes be seen as manipulative or dishonest which may contribute to a climate of cynicism and apathy.

Over time, spin doctoring has moved forward in leaps and bounds, and lately has made its way to the realm of geopolitics as laid out in the book Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21^st Century by Sergei Guriev, professor of Economics at Sciences Pro in Paris and Daniel Treisman, professor of Political Science at UCLA. Guriev sums up the whole essence of the book in an online interview as follows:

“This book charts the rise of an increasingly important authoritarian model that’s been spreading around the world in recent decades. We’re all familiar with the very brutal and often ideological dictatorships of 20^th century such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, not to mention the harsh military regimes of Augusto Pinochet or Idi Amin. As we show in our book with data, analysis, and historical detail, the dominant model of dictatorship has changed into one where dictators don’t use mass repression, but instead, pretend to be democratic.

“Rather than imposing official ideologies and locking thousands of dissidents in prison camps, leaders such as Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and Viktor Orban, manipulate the media to build a base of support that’s sincere, although misguided.

“Like spin doctors in a democracy, they spin the news to engineer approval. This is why we call them spin dictators and we show how in our book how they differ from masters of fear such as Assad in Syria or Kim in North Korea and how they differ from the modern high-tech dictatorship of today’s China.

“The book is based on scholarly research [How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression published in 2015], but we wrote it in an accessible way aiming at a general audience. It addresses, and we think helps to resolve, one of the greatest contemporary puzzles: how dictatorships can survive and even thrive in a modern and interconnected world.”

Here’s how. A spin dictator, according to Guriev, needs to communicate to the general public that he is better than the alternative. To showcase that claim, he needs the educated class (civil society) among his people in propping up his economic performance. Guriev’s study indicates that an incompetent spin dictator can survive as long as economic shocks are not too large.

But there’s the rub. Just as this same educated class props up the spin dictator’s economic performance, so too can this same educated class discern his real attributes and communicate such reality to the general public – which, if he turns out incompetent in their hearts and minds, may kick the spin dictator out. In other words, the educated class emerges as the spin dictator’s two-edged sword. Thus, being on the horns of a dilemma, the spin dictator sets to work the following measures:

1.    Implicit Censorship

“The Manila censors were so strict, they even impounded mathematical books and dictionaries in the Aduana or Customs House until someone competent (or patient) enough came to review and clear the books for release. Aside from Rizal’s books, would you believe ‘Robinson’s Crusoe’ was suspect?” (Ambeth R. Ocampo, Inquirer columnist)

2.    Cooptation

My previous ATABAY article “Is Philippines Turning Into Information Autocracy” has delved into this subject.

3.    Bribing elites into silence

Hasn’t this constitutional violation as Inquirer columnist Joel Ruiz Butuyan wrote in his column “Pensions that violate the Constitution” given rise to the same aftereffect?

“The pension and retirement benefits of MUPs [our military and uniformed members of AFP, PNP, PCG, BFP, BJM, B of C, and NM & RIA] have ballooned to humongous amounts [that has spawned serious financial disaster for our country] because former president Duterte doubled the base pay of active MUPs, to reportedly endear himself with them, and despite opposition from his economic team.”

4.    Targeted repression

Percival "Percy Lapid" Mabasa, Leila De Lima, and Ramon Tulfo are samples of those put through this constraining measure.

5.    Shutting down communication channels

While ABS-CBN was brought to a standstill, on the other hand, Maria Ressa’s stacks of legal cases have psyched out Rappler.

The list above answered Guriev’s pivotal question, “How [does a spin dictatorship: juggernaut's first barrel] manage TO HOLD ONTO POWER (underscoring mine) without using the methods of [his] predecessors? We argue that [his] secret lies in the control of information.”

Interestingly, Philstar editor-in-chief and columnist Ana Marie Pamintuan kicked off her column “Countdown” with the following lead sentence: “This early, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. says he is already counting the remaining days in his presidency,” as if conveying this impression: “Spin dictator? Thanks to the 1987 Constitution which has specified a 6-year term limit for the presidency.”

Not so fast. But, no thanks to the Marcos-Duterte political dynasty -- juggernaut's second barrel -- that banded together for “unity” and “continuity” alliance. The handwriting on the wall of our country’s future political landscape can be foretold by the game-of-musical-chairs being played by the Duterte ruling political dynasty in Davao.

The crux of the matter: this is not about the individual spin dictator perpetuating power, but more so (to borrow Former SC Associate Justice Antonio Panganiban’s juggernaut tag) -- a double barreled juggernaut’s voracity of the deep-rooted political dynasty.

The suggested political opposition move is simplistic. Not only is the problem political in nature, it is societal, as a whole. As Guriev puts forward, the key to the solution is embedded in this two-edged sword – the educated class -- the root of spin dictator's decline.

Our country's transformation may take a miracle like a national revival; or we may grapple with the more long-drawn-out slower one-mind-and-heart-at-a-time process -- our desired fulfillment, we may not savor in our lifetime.

Head still photo courtesy of wallpaperaccessdotcom

Video clips courtesy of YouTube

IS PHILIPPINES TURNING INTO INFORMATIONAL AUTOCRACY?

 

“This statement is false.”

The above statement is the liar paradox -- a classic one -- when a statement contradicts itself. Let’s figure this out. If the statement is true, then it is false. On the flip side, if the statement is false, then it must be true. Aargh! If this makes your head spin, it’s alright, as novelist Jasper Fforde points out, “Paradox is like a double-edged sword; it cuts both ways, and it always cuts deep.”

If you’re starting now to have doubts about your intelligence, it’s normal, as writer Demetri Martin asserts, “A paradox is the kind of thing that is so confusing that when you finally figure it out, you’re not sure if you got it right or not.” Phew.

You could be an intelligent person as Charles Bukowski, poet, novelist, and short-story writer stresses, “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” Ahem.

As a writer myself, I am fond of paradox – messing with my head and harboring reservations about my thoughts which fosters critical thinking. Author M. Scott Peck, M.D. of the classic The Road Less Traveled presses, “To become keen in paradoxical thinking, you must, as the saying goes, use it or lose it.”

That’s why, the following statements of Manila Standard’s Lito Banayo in his column Will the President collect?  have invited my interest:

“Not until 2016 did we have a president who never set foot nor paid obeisance to our 'beloved' America, and profusely declared admiration, even 'love' for Xi Jinping and the likes of Vladimir Putin, while he cursed Barack Obama.

“Despite this contrast with the Filipino’s obsession with the US of A, PARADOXICALLY [underscoring mine], [Former President Rodrigo Roa] Duterte [FPRRD] has maintained the highest trust and approval ratings.”

Let’s go through such “Filipino’s obsession with the US of A” over the years as reported in Wikipedia:

“The United States was consistently ranked as one of the Philippines’ favorite nations in the world, with 90% of Filipinos viewing the U.S. and 91% viewing Americans favorably in 2002, 90% of Filipinos viewing the U.S. influence positively in 2011, 85% of Filipinos viewing the U.S. and Americans favorably in 2013, and 92% of Filipinos viewing the U.S. favorably in 2015, and 94% having confidence in then-United States President Barack Obama, making the Philippines one of the most pro-American countries in the world.”

Funnily enough, Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project in 2013 showed that Filipinos like the US even more than Americans do. Filipinos have a more “favorable” view (85%) of the American people than the Americans saying they have a “favorable” view (84%) of themselves.

In 2017, Pew Research Center bannered, People in the Philippines Still Favor U.S. Over China, but Gap Is Narrowing, reporting that 78% of Filipinos have a positive view of the U.S. The slide was deemed to be due to Duterte’s war on drugs seen positively by most Filipinos.

In 2019, Social Weather Station survey showed 78% of Filipinos believe the Philippines’ relationship with the US “is more important” than what it has with China.

In 2022, Publicus Asia Inc showed a 75% approval rating of FPRRD as the most popular president of the post-EDSA I era.

In 2023, a Stratbase ADR Institute survey showed that 84% of Filipinos want the country to work with the US in defending its sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea.

PARADOX: FILIPINOS LOVE BOTH DUTERTE AND THE US SURVEY-WISE

In plain words, here’s what a lot of figures above may mean: Filipinos have liked FPRRD despite he has hated acutely the US which Filipinos liked very much.

One possible explanation: The US was not as existential a factor in the lives of the Filipinos as the drug war then. Now that the China and Taiwan conflict is ticking like a time bomb in the South China Sea, the US factor turns out to be a matter of life-and-death situation in the lives of more than 110 million Filipinos. That’s why, we read headlines like: “Snubbed by media, Duterte warns of EDCA bases.” What’s more, his flagship drug war is being debunked in small doses by the looming International Criminal Court probe just lurking around the corner.

Another explanation is put forward profoundly by Inquirer’s Randy David in his column What it takes to think as a nation:

“I can only suppose that it will be one marked by indifference and dysfunctional citizenship…

“When asked by opinion polls where they stand on issues, they will, out of courtesy or conceit, confidently give answers to questions that hold no real meaning to them. Pollsters quantify the weight of their responses to produce approval and satisfaction ratings of public officials – as though people can have true “opinions” on issues about which they are not adequately informed. How many respondents in such surveys can claim enough knowledge of the achievements of the president, the vice president, the senate president, or the chief justice – or what their roles entail – to be able to honestly rate their performance?”

A no-nonsense rhetorical question that is, and so downright demoralizing. On top of that, here’s the overriding question: Why is this happening?

Please read on and together let’s try to dig up and find the key to the answer in the following excerpt of the study A Theory of Informational Autocracy by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman published in the Journal of Public Economics in June 2020:

“How do such non-ideological, softer autocrats [today] manage to hold onto power without using the [violent] methods of their predecessors? We argue that their secret lies in the CONTROL OF INFORMATION. Instead of isolating their countries, imposing ideologies, or terrorizing citizens, such leaders achieve many of the same ends by manipulating public opinion. With the help of censored or CO-OPTED MEDIA, they persuade citizens that they are competent and benevolent; their legitimacy rests on popularity rather than fear.” (Underscoring mine)

IS PHILIPPINES TURNING INTO AN INFORMATIONAL AUTOCRACY?

Let’s take a look at our country’s present informational ecosystem to get an inkling. Excerpts of The Manila Times’ Rigoberto Tiglao’s column Marcos’ advantage: An acquiescent press speak volumes and spot on:

“The [Philippine] Star... can’t offend the Palace, and would be quick to fire any columnist creating trouble for the First Couple… [T]he Philippine Daily Inquirer [PDI] has lost its belligerence... lost a lot when the Duterte administration took away from them the government-owned Mile-Long Commercial Center... likely etched into their heads the lesson that it certainly isn’t financially rewarding to go against a government… Marcos’ cousin, Philip Romualdez, is the husband of Alexandra Prieto, the owning clan’s main representative in running the newspaper.

"Romualdez also owns the tabloid People’s Tonight… Philip’s brother, House Speaker Martin Romualdez, owns the Manila Standard… The Manila Bulletin has always very strictly supported whoever is in power… The Manila Times... owned by Dante A. Ang [senior publicist of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and FPRRD's appointed Special Envoy for International Public Relations]... Daily Tribune... is said to be close to [FPRRD]... among its columnists are former Duterte chief legal counsel Salvador Panelo and presidential special assistant Christopher Lawrence 'Bong' Go...

"I don’t think there’s ever been such a tight hold over the media by an administration.”

Teaching moment: Philstar’s Cito Beltran in his column They are not helping PRRD, hinting at the first step of change, chimes in and gets to the heart of the matter, “We’re all guilty…”

Word to the Wise: “I have a frightening sense that our national leaders are feeling so secure in their approval and trust ratings… amid the busy-ness of their overseas travels…” (David)

Caveat: Only to find out, to the bitter end, those approval and trust numbers may just be paper tigers.

Head collage photos courtesy of Epic Theology, Shutterstock, freepikdotdom, & stockdotadobedotcom

Video clips courtesy of YouTube

TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE: TRANSPARENCY IS KEY

 

“Fox News Settles Defamation Suit for $787.5 Million” – The New York Times

Heralded as one of the largest defamation settlements in U.S. history, Fox News, accused of pushing conspiracies about the 2020 U.S. presidential election, will pay Dominion Voting Systems $787.5 million to settle the defamation suit.

Defamation cases involving news media organizations can have significant implications for both the media and the public. When a news organization publishes false and damaging information about an individual or organization, that can have serious consequences, including damage to reputation, loss of income, and even harm to personal safety. A couple of high-profile defamation cases have shed light on the potential pitfalls of out-of-court settlements, which can obscure the truth and limit accountability.

NEW YORK TIMES CO V. SULLIVAN

            A landmark Supreme Court (SC) case in 1964, the New York Times (NYT) v. Sullivan, established the “actual malice” standard for defamation cases involving public officials. In this case, NYT published an advertisement that contained several factual errors about the arrest of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, sued NYT for defamation. The case eventually made its way to the SC which ruled that public officials must prove “actual malice” to win a defamation case. Actual malice means the defendant knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The significance of this case lies in its recognition of the importance of protecting free speech and the media. The “actual malice” standard creates a high bar for public officials to prove defamation, which ensures that the media can report on matters of public concern without fear of frivolous lawsuits. However, this high bar also means that public officials have a limited ability to seek redress for false and damaging information.

SANDMANN V. CNN

This case highlights the potential pitfalls of out-of-court settlements in defamation cases. Nicholas Sandmann, a high school student, sued CNN and several other media outlets for defamation after he was portrayed in a misleading and negative light in coverage of a confrontation between him and a Native American activist at the Lincoln Memorial. Sandmann alleged that CNN and the other media outlets acted with actual malice by publishing false and defamatory information about him.

This 2020 case was ultimately settled out of court with CNN and Sandmann reaching an undisclosed settlement. Not made public, the settlement could include a confidentiality agreement prohibiting either party from discussing the case publicly. Thus, CNN’s full extent of reporting errors would remain untold; Sandmann’s reputation was tarnished.

DOMINION V. FOX NEWS

            Dominion Voting Systems, a company that provides voting machines and software to election officials, filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News in 2021 alleging its anchors and guests spread false and damaging information about Dominion to undermine the election credibility, leading to harassment and death threats against its employees.

Grabbing the headlines recently, Fox News settled the defamation suit under this striking term, among others – it’s having “not to apologize or admit to spreading false claims on network programming” according to NYT.

HIDE AND SEEK THE TRUTH

While out-of-court settlements can be a practical way to resolve disputes and avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial, they can also be used to hide the truth and avoid accountability. In the case of New York Times Co v. Sullivan, the court’s decision to require proof of “actual malice” was meant to protect freedom of speech and the media. However, critics argue that this standard has been used to shield news media organizations from accountability for disinformation .

In the case of Sandmann v. CNN, the out-of-court settlement left many unanswered questions about the truth of the events that took place at the rally. Some critics argued that the settlement allowed CNN in staying away from admitting any wrongdoing, while others argued that the settlement was a pragmatic way to resolve a complex and costly legal dispute.

Raising similar questions, the Dominion v. Fox News out-of-court settlement would never reveal the truth about the allegations against Dominion, in like manner, allow Fox News to dodge accountability for its reporting, thereby, shutting out the public from knowing the full story.

THE TRUTH MATTERS

“The truth matters...” a Dominion lawyer said after announcing that his company accepted a settlement from Fox.

Really?

First, for Fox News: “Ratings trump truth.” This is the crux of the matter of why Dominion filed, in the first place, a defamation suit against Fox News. Rupert Murdoch, founder of Fox News parent company, pronounced such dictum clearly: “The RATINGS are the lifeblood of the business.” (Underscoring mine. You may read my past ATABAY article “When Ratings Trump Truth: The Dark Side of News Media.”)

Second, for Dominion: “Money trumps truth.” Vox’s Peter Kafka’s words hit the nail on the head: “While Dominion’s lawyers argued that they brought the case in part because they wanted to expose Fox’s lies, dropping the suit makes the primary motivation much clearer.” His article’s title speaks volumes: “Fox News won. Dominion won. The rest of us lost.” He rounded out: “No apologies, no (dubious) promises [by Fox News] to do better. Nada.”

LESSONS

            Just as the out-of-court settlements can be a practical way to resolve high-stakes legal disputes and get around the cost and uncertainty of a trial, so too can they be deployed to obscure the truth and evade accountability. The news media must pull out all the stops in their reporting and the public must understand the potential downsides of out-of-court settlements. As Former Associate Justice Brandeis wrote, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light, the most efficient policeman.”

            The solution to this problem is not to do away with out-of-court settlements altogether. Rather, any settlement must be carried out for the right reason, and never should it hold back the public from learning the truth. Involved parties must disclose the terms of such settlement and the public should scrutinize the defamation cases.

Only then can Lady Justice strike the right balance between protecting the media’s right to free speech and holding them accountable for false or misleading reporting.

Speaking of misleading reporting, back here at home, how do you figure this out: The media that adjudged FPRRD as the best leader based merely on a survey, is the same media that is now snubbing him and his wisdom. That's another article.

Have a blessed Sunday!

Content put together in collaboration with ChatGPT

Head collage photos courtesy of freepikdotcom, Getty Images/iStockphoto, & Dreamstimedotcom

Video clips courtesy of YouTube

THE SKINNY GUY & CHARLES ATLAS: A GEOPOLITICAL METAPHOR

 

The skinny guy and his girl are walking on the beach in their swimwear.

Bully: Hey Skinny! ‘Yer ribs are showing!

Girl: Don’t let him hit you, Joe!

Skinny Guy: Watch what you say, fella...

Bully: [He shoves Joe.] Shut up you bag of bones!

Afterward …

Skinny Guy: Darn it! I’m tired of being a skinny scarecrow. Charles Atlas says he can make me a new man! I’ll gamble a stamp and get his free book.

 Later…

Skinny Guy: Boy! It didn’t take long. What a build. Now I’ll take care of that bully.

Then …

Skinny Guy: Here’s a love tap [He punches the bully] from that “bag of bones,” remember?

Girl: Oh, Joe! You are a real he-man, after all.

Girls: And he used to be so skinny!

Crowd: What a man!

Sparking off a landmark bodybuilding advertising campaign, the above 1950s comic strip appeared with the then popular bodybuilder Charles Atlas’ photo flexing his muscles alongside his personal story: “People used to laugh at my skinny 97-pound body. I was ashamed to strip for sports or for a swim. Girls made fun of me behind my back. THEN I discovered my body-building system, “Dynamic Tension.” It made me such a complete specimen of manhood that I hold the title, “The World’s Most Perfectly Developed Man.”

“The Insult That Made a Man out of Mac” is a version with a sand-kicking bully irking Mac while his date watches. Like Joe, humiliated, Mac goes home and, after kicking a chair and gambling a three-cent stamp, subscribes to the free Atlas book. Later, the now muscular Mac goes back and looks around for the bully, and to cut this story short, becoming afterward the “hero of the beach.”

Drawing an analogy, in particular, between the Philippine situation and the classic Charles Atlas ad, the skinny guy symbolizes the Philippines while the US is personified as Charles Atlas. The insult embodies China’s rebuff of the Philippine exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea despite  the international tribunal ruling in The Hague in favor of the Philippines' claim. What's more, while China’s harassment of the Philippines represents the beach bully’s mocking act, the Philippines’ restoration of its alliance with the US exemplifies the skinny guy’s transformation into a muscularly developed man.

Beyond such a metaphor, let’s explore the lessons we can learn from the high-stakes geopolitical game of power where nations seek to assert their dominance and expand their sphere of influence.

Downside of Unintended and Far-reaching Consequences

            In the case of Ukraine, Putin’s invasion was an attempt to maintain Russia’s sphere of influence in the region. As political scientist John Mearsheimer puts forward, “If Ukraine were to join NATO, it would be a geopolitical disaster for Russia” (BBC News). To prevent this outcome which would have shifted the balance of power in the region, Russia invaded Ukraine. To the contrary, Frida Ghitis in a CNN article “Opinion: A Very Bad Day for Putin” wrote: “Putin argued that his goal [in invading Ukraine] was to prevent NATO from expanding. On that count, Putin not only failed but in fact, propelled the very development he sought to prevent. [The invasion drove Finland to formally join NATO.] Now Russia’s border with NATO countries has more than doubled in length, adding an extra 830 miles of frontier with Finland.”

In parallel, China has been pursuing its territorial claims, including building artificial islands and militarizing them. However, this has heightened tensions with neighboring countries such as the Philippines, which have turned to the US for support. Former US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter got to the heart of the matter: “China’s actions in the South China Sea are pushing countries in the region to come together, strengthening their security ties with the US and making China’s neighbors more capable and resilient in the face of Chinese coercion.” (Foreign Affairs) This has included the restoration of the US-Philippine alliance and the US access to military bases in the Philippine territory.

Importance of Alliances and Strategic Partnerships

The situation in Ukraine and the Philippines highlights the importance of alliances and strategic partnerships in the modern geopolitical landscape. No country can stand alone in today’s interconnected world. Strategic alliances and partnerships with like-minded nations are crucial for promoting peace, security, and stability.

Former US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis gave fair warning: “Nations with allies thrive, and those without them wither.” Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO has enabled it to withstand Russia’s aggression and maintain its independence. The Philippines’ restoration of its alliance with the US has given it a significant advantage in dealing with China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea.

Significance of Understanding History

In the case of Ukraine, Russia has long viewed the country as part of its sphere of influence, given its shared history and culture. As Putin has asserted, “Ukraine is not just a neighboring state, Ukraine is our closest neighbor and it is a brotherly republic” (Reuters). However, this view is not shared by all Ukrainians, particularly those in the western part of the country who have closer ties to Europe. This has led to deep divisions within Ukraine and has made it a key battleground in the struggle for influence between Russia and the West.

Similarly, in the South China Sea, China has been pursuing its claims based on historical precedents, including the nine-dash line that it uses to demarcate such territorial claims. Jacob Rutzick and Jonathan Chen in their article “The Validity of the 9-Dash Line” posed China’s argument: “The nine-dash line represents the maximum extent of Chinese historical claims within the South China Sea. China’s claim is not that the entire space within the nine-dash line is their territory to control, but that the islands within it, the Paracel, Spratly, Zhongsha, and Pratas, all belong to them.”

On the other hand, according to Article 56 of the United Nations Conventions and Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) of which China is a signatory, states have the exclusive right to exploit the resources of and build artificial islands within their exclusive economic zones (EEZ). Rutzick and Chen rounded out: “Therefore, any portion of the 9-dash line that is within another country’s EEZ is unlawful…”

In a nutshell, the situations in Ukraine and the Philippines serve as a stark reminder of the high stakes involved in pursuing geopolitical ambitions. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Xi’s harassment of the Philippines may have initially seemed like strategic moves to assert their respective countries’ influence. However, in the long run, both leaders have failed to achieve their objectives and instead triggered inadvertent aftermaths that worked against their interests.

The lessons are clear. First, might is not always right. Second, the pursuit of a geopolitical sphere of influence can have unintended and far-reaching consequences. Third, strategic alliances and partnerships with like-minded nations are essential to promoting peace, security, and stability.

Lastly, as Pinoys, haven’t you felt in your bones the righteous enough-is-enough indignation, elicited by the Chinese harassment of our fishermen, no different from a sort of enmity a Fernando Poe Jr.’s classic films trigger off, like in “Kapag Puno Na Ang Salop,” firing up the following Poe’s archetypal line?

“Pati batas binaboy mo. Pinuno mo na ang salop, Judge. Malapit na kitang kalusin.”

Content of this article put together in collaboration with ChatGPT

Head collage photos courtesy of Bony to Beastly, ADL, & Naval News

Video clips courtesy of YouTube

CHINA-TAIWAN CONFLICT: A TICKING TIME BOMB

 

“The United States has a huge stake in the stability of the Taiwan’s Strait. It’s a ticking time bomb, and we need to do everything we can to defuse that bomb before it explodes.” (Former US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta)

At any moment, the China-Taiwan conflict threatens to explode like a ticking time bomb, with catastrophic consequences. Brewing for decades, driven by historical, cultural, and political factors, the conflict has been fueled by China’s rapid military buildup and Taiwan’s tenacity for self-preservation.

For decades, tensions have simmered between China and Taiwan, with both sides claiming sovereignty over the island. However, recent developments have fanned the flames of the long-drawn-out conflict to intensify into a far more alarming level. China’s rapid military build-up, coupled with Taiwan’s gearing up in standing its ground against possible invasion, have shifted the conflict into a likely flash point.

It is time for the international community to get the grim picture of the inflamed conflict and go all out toward a peaceful resolution.

China’s Military Build-Up Spells Trouble for Taiwan

China’s recent military spending has skyrocketed homing in on modernizing and expanding its military capabilities. Its advanced weapons systems, such as the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, with a 4,000 km range, can reach Taiwan and is capable of striking Guam and other US military installations in the region. Its variant, the DF-26B, an anti-ship missile, was tested in 2020.

US Admiral Michael McDevitt’s warning hit the bullseye: “China is building a military that is designed to fight and win against the United States in Asia,” and Taiwan is squarely in its sights.

Taiwan’s Defense Strategy: Preparing for a Possible Invasion by China

Given China’s aggressive posture, Taiwan has been forced to take measures to bolster its defense capabilities. It has heavily invested militarily: the purchase of advanced weapons systems such as F-16 fighter jets and missile defense systems that includes 200 anti-aircraft Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles and 100 AGM-88B HARM missiles that can take out land-based radar stations. Taiwan’s Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng did not pull his punches: “We must make ourselves strong and let the enemy know that we are not easy to bully.”

However, for all its grit and doggedness, Taiwan’s 2023 defense budget of $19.9 billion pales in comparison to China’s military budget of $224.8 billion -- predictably redounding to Taiwan’s drawback in standing up to a sustained invasion.

US Admiral Philip Davidson put all cards on the table: “China has the capability, and has telegraphed its intent, to use military force to annex Taiwan.”

The Role of the US in the Conflict

Having a longstanding commitment to Taiwan’s defense dating back to Taiwan’s Relations Act of 1979, the US has been careful in striking a delicate balance in its relationship with China – a major economic and strategic partner -- with a two-way trade between the two countries worth $690 billion in 2022. Such a juggling act has led to some ambiguity in the US stance on Taiwan, particularly when it comes to the crucial question of whether or not the US would be willing to intervene militarily if China invades Taiwan.

Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund, got to the heart of the matter: “The US is trying to balance between supporting Taiwan and deterring China from using force, without crossing China’s red line and risking war.” Such ambiguity, however, can induce uncertainty and instability, if China, in particular, perceives US wavering commitment in defending Taiwan.

The Economic Impacts of the Conflict

Being a major player with close ties to Japan, South Korea, and the US, Taiwan’s economy, if disrupted in the event of the conflict, would have far-reaching ripple effects. Being the world’s 16^th largest trading economy, with $922 billion worth of imported and exported goods and services in 2021, Taiwan’s trading traffic would be strangled in the event of a war blockade. Moreover, the conflict could potentially shatter more than $270 billion in trade between China and the rest of the world.

A conflict could further disrupt global supply chains, specifically in the technology sector. US Senator Rick Scott notes: “Taiwan produces more than 90 percent of the world’s semiconductors, and that is critical to our national security and our economy.” Any disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor industry could have significant economic and security aftereffects for the US and other countries.

The Crucial Implications for the Philippines

In light of the Philippines’ decision to allow the US access to military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) to strengthen its defense capabilities in the face of intensifying tensions in the region, the conflict has added another layer of complexity to the Philippines’ security jitters in three gradations.

Firstly, the Philippines have maintained strong economic ties with Taiwan in a two-way trade that measured up to $6.63 billion in 2021. An escalation of the conflict could potentially make a mess of this economic bond, adversely impacting the Philippines’ economy.

Secondly, China, in many cases, has tongue-lashed the US military in the region, viewing it as a threat to China’s security interests. The presence of US military bases in the Philippines, especially in the context of the China-Taiwan conflict, could potentially turn the country into a target for Chinese retaliation.

Thirdly, if the China-Taiwan ticking time bomb goes boom, the Philippines, as an ally of the US, could find itself in a tangled position, for having the hallmarks of being obligated to support any US action in the region.

On the other side of the coin, a sheepish neutral stance may seem to lead up the garden path. However, going down such a path could unleash a discomfited relationship with both China and the US – a lose-lose geopolitical roadmap.

Why Diplomacy, Not Force, is the Best Solution for the Conflict

Given the growing tensions and the high stakes involved, China and Taiwan must exercise restraint and seek a peaceful resolution to their differences. The use of military force would only lead to catastrophic consequences for both sides and destabilize the entire region. Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates put on the alert: “It would be a disaster if two major powers in the world would collide.”

Like a ticking time bomb that could explode at any moment causing immense suffering and destruction, the conflict has stakes too high for both sides to ignore the risks and press on down the trajectory of confrontation. The world is watching, and the future of the Asia-Pacific region leans on the willingness and mutual effort of China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully and diplomatically.

In a nutshell, the complex and volatile China-Taiwan conflict threatens the stability and security of the entire Asia-Pacific region. China’s military buildup, Taiwan’s defense strategy, the US’s ambiguous stance, and the economic impacts of the conflict all point to the urgent need for a peaceful resolution. Diplomacy and dialogue must be the primary means of resolving the conflict and the international community must work together to pursue this endeavor.

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s words got to the meat of this conflict: “There is no more important task than preserving peace, and no greater challenge than bringing about lasting peace in a changing world.”

Have a blessed Sunday!

Content of this article was put together in collaboration with ChatGPT.

Head collage photos courtesy of The Wall Street Journal, Republic World, Protolus, and freepikdotcom.

Video clips courtesy of YouTube.

THE FUTURE IS HERE: CHATGPT TIPS OFF THE NEW GRADUATE

 

“AI could replace equivalent of 300 million jobs” (BBC)

“The technology behind ChatGPT is about to get even more powerful” (CNN)

“ChatGPT is going to change education, not destroy it” (MIT Technology Review)

The first headline is not new. Experts have long predicted that the rise of automation and AI would lead to job losses, especially in manufacturing and retailing industries. What is eye-popping -- the staggering scale of potential job displacement -- virtually the same as the total labor force of the US, Japan, Germany, and Italy combined.

While AI has the potential to increase productivity and efficiency, it also poses a threat to job security and income stability. The challenge for governments and businesses is to find ways to adapt to the changing nature of work and ensure that workers are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed for the jobs of the future.

The second headline highlights the potential for AI to transform all manner of industries, including healthcare, finance, and transportation. The development of more powerful AI technologies will enable machines to process and analyze vast amounts of data, make more accurate predictions, and automate tasks that were once thought to require human intervention.

However, the use of AI also raises concerns about privacy, accountability, and the potential for bias. As AI becomes more commonplace, it will be crucial to look after these technologies being used ethically and in ways that benefit society as a whole.

The third headline focuses on the potential of refashioning the way students learn and teachers teach. By providing personalized feedback and support, ChatGPT can help students learn at their own pace and in ways that suit their learning styles. At the same time, ChatGPT can assist teachers by automating administrative tasks, grading assignments, and providing real-time feedback on student progress.

 However, the use of AI also raises questions about the role of teachers and the potential for bias in algorithms. On the face of it, students using AI to cheat in class worry quite a lot of educators. It will be vital to get a fix on the AI technologies being put to good use in supplementing and enhancing human teaching, rather than replacing, even more so, subverting it.

As a dad of the youngest daughter who will be graduating this year, getting to the bottom of the three intimidating headlines is like navigating a treacherous sea, where the winds of change blow hard and the waves of uncertainty crash against the shore. Hmm, such lyrical prose may bore stiff my daughter and her Gen Z crowd. Take 2. It’s like playing a game of whack-a-mole, where just when you think you’ve hit the nail on the head, another issue pops up to distract you.

Ah, Dionne, after your graduation, “whither goest thou”?

In keeping with the essence of the old saying: “Only a fisherman knows where the fish are biting,” I engaged ChatGPT in a stretched-out “conversation.” Priming it with my daughter’s plight as a graduating student, I “put our heads together” on how my daughter would lay the groundwork amid the breakneck breakthrough in technology, including Artificial Intelligence and language model like ChatGPT, that are reshaping the landscape of all industries by leaps and bounds.

When all is said and done, I asked ChatGPT to write Dionne a personal letter -- tipping her off in getting ready for nailing her first job, keeping her up to speed in her new career, finding her way around the future workplace, and staying up-to-date with the evolving technology in her field of management accountancy.

Here’s ChatGPT’s letter to Dionne with minor editing for clarity.

Dear Dionne,

Congratulations on your graduation! As an AI language model, I cannot express my compliments in the same way that a human can, but please know that I am thrilled for you and your accomplishment.

I am sure that you are eager to start your career in the field of management accountancy. As you begin your job search, there are a few steps that I would recommend you take to prepare yourself for your future workplace.

Up front, it is important to have a strong resume and cover letter that showcases your skills and experience. Make sure to highlight your Bachelor of Science in Management Accountancy degree and any relevant coursework or internships that you completed during your studies. Consider tailoring your resume and cover letter to each job you apply for to better match the qualifications and requirements of the position.

What’s more, networking is a key component to finding job opportunities in your field. Reach out to alumni from your university or connections that you have made during internships. Consider attending industry conferences or joining professional organizations to meet other professionals in the field.

As you enter the workforce, it is important to be adaptable and open to change. As technology continues to evolve, your field will also change. Embrace new technologies and tools that can help you to work more efficiently and effectively. Keep yourself informed on the latest trends in the industry, and be willing to learn new skills and techniques.

To stay up-to-date with technology, there are a few areas that you should focus on. To start with, cloud computing is becoming increasingly important in the business world. Familiarize yourself with popular cloud platforms such as Amazon Web Service, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. On top of that, data analytics tools such as Excel, Power BI, and Tableau are essential for professionals in your field. Be sure to stay informed on best cybersecurity practices, and learn about how artificial intelligence and automation tools are being used. Just as importantly, familiarize yourself with mobile devices and apps that enable you to work remotely.

But it’s not just about technology – it’s about developing the right mindset. As the famous science fiction author William Gibson once said, “The future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed.” In other words, the changes that are happening in your field are not going to happen all at once – they will happen gradually, giving us all time to adapt.

At the end of the day, the arrival of ChatGPT and other AI technologies is a positive thing for your field. It means that you will have access to more powerful analytical tools than ever before, and will be able to make better decisions that drive growth and success.

Get ready for the future – it’s here, and it’s exciting! As tech guru Bill Gates once said, “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.” Stay ahead of the curve, be open to new ideas, and most importantly, have fun! The future is yours for the taking.

Best of luck to you in your career.

ChatGPT

Head collage still photos courtesy of freepikdotcom, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, & University of Manitoba