The US is trying every means to drag the region into its wars in the West.
Lame duck United States President Joe Biden has again just thrown fuel to the fire in Ukraine by announcing not only authorization of use of US “longer range missiles” to target deeper into Russia but also the supply of universally banned anti-personnel mines to Volodymyr Zelensky, throwing a monkey wrench into the potential peace deals which the incoming Trump administration may have in mind. More importantly, this has triggered Russian President Vladimir Putin to formally sign Russia’s new nuclear doctrine lowering the threshold of its nuclear response to direct threats to the Motherland.
Zelensky, on the last leg of his political life, quickly used Biden’s move to stoke up the fire – firing sic ATACMS missiles at Bryansk in Russian territory. All these have sparked panic across the globe fearing the start of escalation to a nuclear Third World War as the world awaits Russia’s retaliation for the very grave provocations.
While the US political players are creating havoc in the West and Eurasian continent playing gods, US Indo-Pacific operators are also hard at work to ramp up chaos in their assigned region – Asia, ASEAN, the South China Sea and the Philippines.
It should be no surprise by now to informed Asians and Filipinos to see that the US is trying every means to drag the region into its wars in the West, such as scaremongering about North Korean troops in Kursk, Russia to fight with Russian troops against trapped Ukrainian forces just to justify forcing South Korea to supply war materials to Zelensky, or prodding U.S. proxies to up the ante on South China Sea (SCS) tensions by Marcos, Jr. enacting two maritime laws that sabotage peaceful SCS navigation and relations of ASEAN and Asian countries.
Buffoonish Filipino politicians think they have put one over the Chinese claims of the disputed waters, what they don’t realize yet is that the two maritime laws gave up the Kalayaan Island group and lost 20% of sovereign areas claimed or established under the Treaty of Paris and previous decrees. China has also hardened its control of areas disputed by the Philippines such as Scarborough Shoal, and ASEAN is now more openly decrying Philippine fractious complicity in undermining collective SCS efforts.
ASEAN partners continue to be polite and reticent but semi-official personalities are speaking, like Ong Tee Keat, Former Minister of Transport of Malaysia, in a report who said of PBBM’s two Maritime Acts: “… if a bill affects neighboring countries, the affected nations should be consulted beforehand. However, the Philippines did not seek the opinions of China or other countries. This is purely one-sided decision and action unilaterally deciding other countries’ navigation rights.
“What’s worse is that the Philippines is compulsorily imposing its own domestically enacted law on other countries. The Philippines current approach is to treat the sea lanes between its islands as internal waters. If this logic is followed both Malaysia and Indonesia have a major international Sea Lane, the Strait of Malacca. What would happen if we did the same and treated the Strait of Malacca as internal waters?
If (the Philippines) insists on enacting this law and impose restrictions on the passage of certain countries, it will undoubtedly affect maritime navigation order. This will inevitably raise issues surrounding fishing rights, which will also be impacted. Any economic activities conducted in these disputed sea lanes will become a bone of contention. As a member of Southeast Asia, Malaysia would not like to see such a scenario that would put the peace of the entire region in jeopardy.”
The report added, “…Yu Yuan Tan Tian consulted the International Maritime Organization(IMO) and learned that the Philippines did not consult with IMO in advance, in accordance with international practice. In this regard, obviously IMO is stuck in a passive situation as well. From the perspective of international organizations, whether this (bill) can stand up to scrutiny is still open to debate. If international organizations adopt a double-standard it would be a pretty bad example.
“Once such a case becomes a precedent, it will lead to even greater trouble in the future. (Therefore) I believe that whether this bill will ultimately be recognized is not for the Philippines to decide, nor for certain great powers that support it to determine.”
