Thursday, November 12, 2009


From the report, Clinton Arrives in Manila.
American aid officials have defended the agreement, saying it allows US troops to quickly respond to calamities.

But demonstrators said no amount of humanitarian work by the US military justifies their continued stay in the country.

"The visit of Mrs. Clinton in the Philippines will be a mere publicity stunt, and the entire promise of the Obama administration -- that it is going around the world for a renewed multilateralism, and for the opening up of the United States towards greater involvement in the world -- will be all for a sham," said Terry Ridon, secretary-general of the League of Filipino Students.

Please translate. All I read was, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

This is the same problem I have with people who claim to be animal lovers but continue to eat meat; or if they are vegetarian, continue to wear leather. I believe the Joker phrased it as, "misguided sense of righteousness."

I'm sure Typhoon Ondoy victims appreciated the help by anyone -- whether by fellow Filipinos, many of whom continue to destroy the environment; by the Japanese government, who still refuse to properly compensate, much less acknowledge comfort women; or by the US, whose sins are apparently so huge that "no amount of humanitarian work" may justify its errors.

I hope these militants are as perfect as they expect The System to be.

8 * :

teridon said...

oooh. a formulaic response to a continuously unanswered proposition.

your simple-mindedness missed the point as to the proper actors in genuine humanitarian efforts, and the proper objects and cause of such endeavors.

you better read up on stuff before you do your blah-blah retort.

Jason said...

thanks for proving my point: now that's a formulaic response, pompous with no real substance ü in other words, bleh.

teridon said...

well, had you not been pompous in describing your mobilization, you would've deserved a better response.

Jason said...

mobilization? wherever that came from? lol.

well thank you for your admittance that your responses have been no good. unlike you, i've made my point in my entry (you've had what, two chances? try laying off shift+F7 ü)

teridon said...


our mobilization, i meant.

and had you really been reading on political movements, the word mobilization has been used, and is the proper term to describe mass actions, that's why in UP, rallies are called "mobs". but since i guess you aren't from there, you wouldn't really know.

shift+f7 my *ss. we write better than your blog posts, much of which you merely link.

anyway, on with your substantiation request -

1. The State Department has released a statement that the key towards rapid disaster relief efforts of the US has been the Visiting Forces Agreement.

2. However, the VFA cannot be dangled over the heads of Filipinos for such efforts, as the VFA is essentially a military treaty, with no mention of humanitarian efforts. Thus, any humanitarian efforts shall all be merely incidental in the conduct of the VFA.

3. Moreover, no treaty need be passed, military or otherwise, if states wish to send humanitarian relief in the event of disasters in other states, as such is a responsibility under international law, in view of the UN Charter, and customary international law, in pursuit of the comity of nations. Thus, if the US is truly sincere in sending aid, the VFA should not be used as a justification for such.

3. Also, the VFA has been proven to be an unequal treaty, as shown in the treatment of soldiers-in-detention in the case of Daniel Smith and the Subic Rape case. Instead of being detained in the Philippine detention facilities, he had a grand time in the US Embassy.

4. Most importantly, the VFA is in complete violation of national sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Constitution, which prohibits the stay of foreign troops, the existence of foreign military bases, facilities and equipment. At present, no less than US Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed the permanent presence of US troops in the Philippines, with indefinite tours-of-duty in Southern Philippines, notwithstanding the establishment of permanent military facilities in Zamboanga, albeit temporary and collapsible.

5. Also, US forces are also engaged in combat operations, which is also in complete violation of the Constitution, by engaging in intelligence and reconnaissance activities - all of which are incidental to the conduct of direct combat operations.

All of these serve as the basis of the anti-VFA mobilizations during the Clinton visit. While we do not reject any form of aid, whether from the US or other states, our situation should never be exploited to legitimize a very much discredited treaty, not only by activists ,but even by members of the Supreme Court, and the Senate of the Philippines.

And in her three-day visit, such is what the US Embassy did, link disaster relief to justify the continuation of the VFA.

Thus, in the ultimate analysis, the issue during Clinton's visit is the demand for the abrogation of the VFA, and no other. Not disaster relief, which could be done without the VFA.

So before you spite our mobilizations, you better read up on stuff before you do your blah-blah rant.

Jason said...

ah, there you go: finally, substance! ill read this and reply when i've the time.

Please dont bring up your um,ass on my blog. Judging on your face photo alone, im sure it aint pretty ü

teridon said...

well, had you not been referring to us as mere 'blah', i wouldn't have even bothered.

and yes, i might never be as pretty as you.

i hope you do read it, whenever it is that you might have time.

nonetheless, i've been checking some of your posts, ill have to reverse myself on prejudging your blog. my apologies on that.

twas a good post on martial law, and yes, you've a great taste on fashion.

Jason said...

my apologies too for causing any hurt.

in the interest of fairness, i do plan to post your outlined rebuttal for others to read.


Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...