Deception and containment

 

 

“The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. Lines of navigation from our ports to the Orient and Australia; from the Isthmian Canal to Asia; from all Oriental ports to Australia, converge at and separate from the Philippines. They are a self-supporting, dividend-paying fleet, permanently anchored at a spot selected by the strategy of Providence commanding the Pacific. And the Pacific is the ocean of commerce of the future. Most future wars will be conflicts for commerce. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. And, with the Philippines, that power is and will forever be the American Republic.”

—U.S. Senator Alfred J. Beveridge, January 9, 1901

Map of Asia Pacific

 

America officially denies that the latest military agreement with the Philippines, inelegantly called the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), aims to contain the rise of China as a superpower. U.S. President Barack Obama made this clear when asked if the U.S. military will defend the Philippines should territorial disputes with China escalate.

 

Obama said, “Our goal is not to counter China; our goal is not to contain China. Our goal is to make sure that international rules and norms are respected, and that includes the area of maritime disputes.”

 

Before the end of his duty, former U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, Harry Thomas, Jr., made a similar declaration a year ago. “We’re here (in the Philippines) with JSOTF-P, our joint special operations task force, temporarily to eliminate terrorism, not to stage bases. We don’t want a conflict with China,” Thomas said.

 

This is the official line (or lie) by the U.S. government. The truth, however, is obvious and cannot be cloaked by any more pronouncements to the contrary by U.S. officials. There is no denying that it’s all about containing China. The U.S. rebalance of its military forces or pivot to Asia is clearly aimed toward containment of the second largest economy of the world to prevent its ascent to the level of America’s superpower. India might as well be an additional target of U.S. containment since it has recently displaced Japan as the third largest economy in the world, and it could well be another spectre looming with its nuclear capability.

 

American deception is so patently repugnant. Yet, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III and the rest of his officialdom and high-ranking generals are all too willing to turn a blind eye and swallow EDCA hook, line and sinker.

The Philippines and the Unites States sign 10-year defence agreement (Tribune cartoon).  Click link http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-philippines-to-sign-10-year-defense-agreement-amid-rising-tensions/2014/04/27/a04436c0-cddf-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html to read newsreport.

In the short term, EDCA will probably provide the much-needed buffer to China’s aggressiveness and bullying in the South China Sea. But this is a short-sighted objective. Over the long term, the country’s defence and military capability would just be as diminished as it was when the U.S. operated military bases in the country from 1947 to 1992. The Philippine military never modernized on account of the U.S. bases or their use by American troops for forward deployment during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and whether this will be achieved under EDCA is also unlikely.

 

Containment was articulated by American diplomat George F. Kennan at the start of the Cold War as a means of preventing the spread of communism around the world, particularly in response to the expansion of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, China, Korea, Africa and Vietnam. It spurred the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a mutual defence pact between the United States and its European allies. The U.S. similarly entered into mutual defence treaties with Japan, Korea and the Philippines. The same containment strategy is now being put in motion by the U.S. and its European allies against Russian expansion in the Ukraine after Crimea voted to join the Russian federation.

 

Communism did not spread the way it was predicted by the advocates of containment, i.e., through Moscow and beyond. Communist movements in other countries were largely inspired by internal civil wars and nationalist struggles for self-determination. When the Soviet Union was disbanded in the 1990s, the Cold War fizzled out making the United States the last and only superpower standing.

 

The United States lost its military bases in the Philippines in 1992, coincidentally during the end of the Cold War. American troops returned in 1998 under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to combat a new war: the war on terror. Communist rebels and separatist insurgents in the Philippines had been blacklisted by the U.S. State Department as terrorist organizations, especially Abu Sayaff who were operating in Jolo and Basilan in the south. The VFA gave the Americans legal cover to join the government’s drive against the insurgents and joint military exercises on a perpetual rotation basis. The military exercises have enabled the U.S. troops to become more prepared and better trained as they learned from the more experienced Filipino soldiers who have been fighting jungle and guerilla warfare for over 45 years.

 

But as early as 2001, military strategists in the U.S. government have already been itching to re-establish the bases in the Philippines. They needed to create a more permanent base for the forward deployment of troops to counter the surging Chinese economy and expansion of its military capability. China needed to be contained, not the spread of its communist ideology, but its sphere of influence in Asia. Communism is no longer the main enemy of containment as it was during the Cold War, but the hegemonic rise of economically powerful countries like China and India, and to some extent, Russia, even with its not-so-strong economy which the U.S. and NATO can effectively harass with sanctions.

 

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, a steady stream of American troops has been arriving in the Philippines for regular and recurring military exercises. The Philippine government has allowed the U.S. to fly over the country’s air space, use its airfields and ports and travel on its sea lanes.

 

In November 2002, the U.S. and the Philippines entered into a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) allowing the U.S. to store and pre-position equipment in the country, construct structures and be provided with the full range of logistics and operational services it requires. Some American troops in rotation have also based themselves indefinitely in Southern Mindanao. In 2006, the U.S. and the Philippines signed another agreement establishing a Security Engagement Board (SEB), thus expanding the role of U.S. troops in the country. Then in 2007, a Status of Visiting Forces Agreement (SOVFA), giving similar legal privileges given to U.S. troops by the VFA, was signed with another U.S. ally, Australia, which in the past few years has also begun to be involved in military operations in the Philippines.

 

Between 2002 and 2006, the U.S. had been providing an average of $54 million per year in military aid to the Philippine government, up from $1.6 million annually in the period after the closure of the bases and before the signing of the VFA. Incrementally but steadily, the United States has been re-establishing the presence of its troops in the country and reinforcing its relationship with the Philippines.

 

US guided missile cruiser leads destroyers during military exercise in the Pacific
Ocean (AFP Photo/Toshifumi Kitamura)

In “At the Door of All the East: The Philippines in United States Military Strategy,” a report prepared for Focus on the Global South, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute (CUSRI) by Herbert Docena in November 2007, the author argued that the VFA and subsequent agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines were not adopted for the singular purpose of fighting the war on terror. According to the report, the re-establishment of American troops on Philippine soil has always been a component of the larger U.S. strategy to preserve its permanent global superiority by preventing the rise of rivals like China and maintain itself as the world’s sole superpower.

 

Docena further wrote that in order “to deter and defeat potential enemies or rivals anywhere in the world,” the United States must have the capacity “to operate across the globe through its worldwide network of forward-deployed troops, bases, and access agreements.”

 

The report also argued that of all the potential rivals of the U.S., “China poses the greatest threat and must therefore be contained before it becomes even more powerful. To make this threat credible, the U.S. is attempting to enlist countries around China to take its side and to encircle China with bases and troops.”

 

The report concluded, “Because of its strategic location, the Philippines is among the countries in which the U.S. wants to establish bases, secure access agreements, and station troops. But apart from the Philippines, the U.S. also wants the same in other countries in the region. The problem is that these other countries on whom it is relying for support do not necessarily want to go against China and are not necessarily willing to give the U.S. what it needs. Because of its favorable disposition towards the U.S. compared to other countries, the Philippines becomes even more critical to U.S. military strategy in the region and in the world.”

 

Seven years after the publication of the report, the United States and the Philippines signed EDCA during the state visit of U.S. President Obama last April 28, 2014, formalizing what has already been effectively allowed on the ground for several years— unimpeded access by American troops to military bases in the Philippines. Both the U.S. and Philippine government officials are running on deception mode when they insist that EDCA would promote the mutual obligations of the two countries as envisaged in the Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT) signed in 1951. MDT was of Cold War vintage, and EDCA is a newer containment strategy.

 

On the pretext of “enhanced defense cooperation,” EDCA guarantees U.S. military basing in the Philippines that is even more comprehensive than the 1947 Military Bases Agreement. The United States will be able to “preposition and store” military equipment, supplies, and materiel at AFP bases and other territories. Under U.S. operational control, American troops can use airfields, ports, public roads, and community areas; as well as construct infrastructures and other facilities in so-called “agreed locations.”

 

Why President Aquino would not involve the Philippine Senate in the adoption of EDCA is obvious for two reasons. First, Aquino fears he could not muster the same majority in the Senate that would approve EDCA that he had when Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached. And second, Aquino is simply acting true to form as the best Amboy in the Far East.

 

Since the Senate cannot force President Aquino to submit EDCA to the Senate for review and approval, the only option is for the Philippine Supreme Court to step in and render its interpretation. But given that Aquino has already stacked up the Supreme Court with his appointees, its decision is a foregone conclusion.

 

EDCA has been conceived in immaculate deception.

 

The Philippine government, from President Aquino to his military and foreign policy advisers, has willingly allowed to be duped by their American counterpart in rebalancing U.S. strategy in Asia to pursue its principal objective of containing the rise of China. This is why the Senate has been kept in the dark. And for a gratuitous show of American military muscle on the South China Sea that could intimidate China to rethink its military strategy, the Philippines paid the ultimate price. It gave up its sovereignty to the Americans, all for free.

Basically slave labour

 

 

Oftentimes, news coming from the establishment is not really as encouraging as they sound or as good as they intend to be.

 

Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander recently announced that Canada has issued more than 47,000 visitor visas to Filipino visitors in 2013, an increase of 57 percent since 2006 and a record high for the Philippines. But what the total number of visitors doesn’t indicate is that it is the Philippines’ latest contribution to modern-day slavery in Canada.

 

Since 2006, the number of temporary foreign workers in Canada has ballooned to over half a million workers toiling in jobs where they are paid wages lower than the legal minimum, where working conditions are below labour standards, and where there is little or no opportunity to transition to permanent residency and citizenship. Who would have thought that working overseas, especially in Canada, wasn’t a better alternative to staying home?
 

McDonald's Canada has announced putting its temporary foreign worker program
on hold. McDonald’s got bad publicity recently over allegations in Edmonton that
it was charging temporary foreign workers too much for rent. Media reports also
revealed that local Canadian workers at three Victoria, B.C. locations were denied
shifts in favour of workers hired under the TFW program. Photo by Associated Press.

There is now widespread criticism that Canada’s temporary foreign workers program is either not working or is being abused contrary to its original purpose. Under the program, employers are allowed to bring foreign workers for a specified duration to fill in labour shortages. These workers are bound to their employers and may not quit for any reason or seek other employment. Essentially, the temporary foreign workers program is a stop-gap measure to address labour shortages but its current use has morphed into something businesses have exploited as a quick fix for the sake of profit.

 

As early as 2011 I started posting blogs that were highly critical of Canada’s temporary workers program and the government’s new limit of four years for visas granted to these temporary visitors, denying them the opportunity of permanent residence. Those were views drawn out from my own experience as a lawyer working with immigrants and refugees. In 1992 when the Live-in-Caregiver Program was introduced, also by nature a temporary or contractual work arrangement except for the path to citizenship for successful participants and for which Filipino nannies have been improperly stereotyped as the program’s main market, the government’s temporary foreign workers program has already elicited disapproval from policy and human rights advocates and labour unions as a thinly disguised version of indentured servitude.

 

Everyone would recall that historic indentured slavery started out as temporary slavery for white people. Wealthy individuals and businesses paid for the passage of persons in Britain or Europe who wanted to immigrate to the colonies at that time. In return, they had to work for their sponsor as payment for their passage for a set number of years. Since the indentured servant could not leave or quit, the practice was a little better than slavery. In some ways, it was even worse because their employers would sometimes work them to death.

 

Indentured servants were exploited as cheap labour and were severely maltreated, a highly abusive situation being replicated in the plight of today’s forced migration of temporary foreign workers in Canada.

 

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has reported that foreign workers from Belize have accused McDonald’s Canada in Alberta and British Columbia of treating them like slaves by effectively forcing them to live in a shared apartment. McDonald’s would then deduct almost half the workers’ take-home pay as rent. Records showed that the workers made $11 an hour working at various McDonald’s locations and the company took $289 from their pay for rent, bi-weekly. The workers were left with a take-home pay each of roughly $350 for the same pay period.

 

Also just recently, the Alberta Federation of Labour claimed 65 oil-sand contractors were laid off and replaced by low-paid workers from Croatia. There were also prior complaints from Chinese workers who were brought in by a British Columbia coal mine, Royal Bank technical staffers laid off in an apparent outsourcing movement, and more than one fast-food restaurant has been accused of replacing staff with lower-paid foreign workers.

 

A Tim Horton’s franchise in Fernie, British Columbia, has also been accused by two Filipino workers who alleged that the store owner cheated them out of overtime pay by driving them to the bank to cash their paycheques and then taking a cut. In Kelowna, an 18-year-old high school student said she saw her hours at a local Dairy Queen franchise cut dramatically shortly after foreign workers arrived from the Philippines. Workers in British Columbia, ranging from seasoned professionals to teenage fast-food employees, are complaining about being dumped in favour of non-residents.

 

These temporary foreign workers are spread all over Canada, and exploited because they are cheap and low maintenance. The western provinces have seen the largest influx. Of the 202,000 temporary foreign workers who entered Canada in 2012, British Columbia had 28,000 TFWs in 2012, with half of them working in Vancouver, doing everything from flipping burgers to performing manual labour.

 

All these recent incidents illustrate that Canada’s temporary foreign workers program is in fact not working as designed by policy-makers in Ottawa, and in many instances, the program is being abused by a number of Canadian companies. Instead of addressing legitimate labour shortages so companies could hire skilled workers when no appropriate Canadian applicants were available, the program has become a convenient tool for some business companies to abuse and exploit their workers.

NDP MLA Mable Elmore (centre) and Jane Ordinario of Migrante BC (right) host a
 panel  to advocate for the rights of temporary foreign workers and to speak out against
 anti-immigrant sentiment. Photograph by Jenelle Schneider (Vancouver Sun). Click
link http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/2450166399/
 to view "Foreign workers facing backlash."

While the program clearly benefits some Canadian businesses, it must also benefit the employees if the program were to stay as ethically legitimate. Arguably there is some merit if the purpose was to bring people from impoverished countries and allow them to work for some time, to enable them to save and return home with hard-earned cash. However, according to the CBC report, it looks like these workers will go home almost empty-handed.

 

Unlike the historic indentured servants who were promised freedom and citizenship if they survived their servitude, participants in Canada’s current temporary foreign workers program are not. When their employment is done, they must go back to their country of origin. They can re-apply to return to Canada only after four years have elapsed.

 

What is guaranteed by the Conservative majority in government is the perpetuation of its policy of privatizing immigration, i.e., allowing the private sector to dictate upon government who to allow to immigrate and for how long. The much-hyped Expression of Interest program borrowed from New Zealand and Australia, and dubbed by the feds as Express Entry, will be launched in 2015 and this is exactly what the private sector wants.

 

Two years ago, immigration applications received prior to 2008 were cancelled by the government, effectively wiping out 280,000 applications from the backlog. Today, Canada Immigration is blowing its own trumpet that Express Entry will lead to a faster and more flexible economic immigration system that will address Canada’s economic and labour market needs.

 

Starting May 1, 2014, the government will implement new caps for the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP), Federal Skilled Trades Program (FSTP) and Canadian Experience Class (CEC), which they believe will ensure a steady supply of skilled workers who are settling in Canada permanently and helping to supplement the Canadian workforce in areas where there are skills shortages. By the end of 2014, Canada Immigration expects this pool of candidates to be made available to employers who can screen and cherry pick the workers they would allow to immigrate.

 

Express Entry is essentially a government off-loading of public policy to private sector interests, which will allow employers to define Canadian immigration policy. The trend toward privatization has been started with the shift to temporary foreign workers, and now the focus is on the skilled and experienced categories of immigrants.

 

Granting that the involvement of employers can help reduce skill mismatches between local economic needs and immigration quotas set by Canada Immigration, there is a clear and present danger in allowing employers alone to determine the workers they are willing to admit because they are intuitively looking for average workers, not skilled labour. In other words, the Harper government’s modernization of the Canadian immigration process will simply continue its policy of bringing foreign workers for hotels, fast food outlets, janitorial services and factories – typical Canadian jobs, albeit low-paying, which ordinary Canadian citizens are not willing to do.

 

As I have written in an earlier blog on the subject last November 2012, “the reliance on temporary foreign workers who are selected by employers based on their own short-term interests is headed towards a very troubling path. It is a policy that augurs well for the normalization of migrant labour in Canada, but doesn’t bode well for diversity, appalling for the workplace, and could potentially turn immigration into a source of social tension.”

 

In “The End of Immigration,” a documentary that examines the temporary foreign workers program in Canada, labour rights advocate Yessy Byl explained: “We have a system that is inherently engendering exploitation – it’s just inevitable. We set up a group of people who are brought to Canada to work, so we’ve got basically slave labour, because [the temporary workers] can’t work legally somewhere else.”