Home Blog Page 4700

Cavitex Braves beat San Miguel Beer, 21-19,  to win Leg 2 finals of PBA 3×3

CAVITEX pulled off a pulsating 21-19 victory over three-leg winner San Miguel Beer (SMB) in the Leg 2 finals to complete a long drive to PBA 3×3 success yesterday at the Robinsons Place Novaliches.

Former Gilas Pilipinas 3×3 mainstay Jorey Napoles, who joined the Braves from Limitless at the start of Season 2, banged in the winning floater to finish off rallying SMB and secure the franchise’s breakthrough title in the league.

Mr. Napoles finished with seven to back up Bong Galanza’s eight while Dominick Fajardo and Chester Saldua added four and two, respectively, as Cavitex cleared the last roadblock to glory.

The Braves, whose previous best finish was runner-up in Leg 2 of last season’s Third Conference, earned P100,000 for their first major achievement.

It was a tough road for Cavitex as it had to get past two podium finishers from last week on the way to the finale versus SMB.

The Emman Monfort-coached squad unleashed a 7-1 closing barrage to steal a 14-12 verdict over Leg 1 third-placer Platinum in the quarterfinals then leaned on Mr. Napoles’ buzzer-beating stab to stun Leg 1 runner-up Meralco in the semis, 17-16.

Beermen Ken Bono, Wendell Comboy, Jeff Manday and Fonso Gotladera, who reached the finals after beating Leg 1 winner TNT in the Last-4, 21-14, went home with the P50,000 second place purse.

TNT’s Almond Vosotros, Lervin Flores, Samboy de Leon and Ping Exciminiano consoled themselves with the bronze after a 20-17 win over fellow losing semifinalist Meralco. The Tropang Giga netted P30,000. — Olmin Leyba

Lakers sign Schroder

Not a few quarters found themselves raising their eyebrows in reaction to news that Dennis Schroder has inked a one-year deal with the Lakers. To recall, the guard was in purple and gold throughout the 2020-21 season, but evidently did not like the experience enough to reject a four-year pact worth a whopping $80 million. Considering his up-and-down campaign, the offer was tantamount to a validation of his value to the front office. Still, he spurned the contract extension in favor of free agency. The decision cost him dearly; after all was said and done, $5.9 million from the Celtics was all the market could bear. And even then, he couldn’t stick the landing; he was traded midstream to the Rockets, who then let him go.

Significantly, Shroder had been sending signals — both privately and publicly — regarding his return to the Lakers, and not because of a lack of suitors. If the grapevine is to be believed, he also had the Raptors and the Suns crowding his doorstep. No doubt, his relationship with head coach Darvin Ham dating back to his Hawks days was a factor. Perhaps he’s also bent on making amends with fans who often took him to task for his apparent lack of competitiveness; his latest Instagram post spoke of him “coming back to the biggest organization to make sh*t right!”

By all accounts, the Lakers are bent on showing all and sundry that their roster construction puts them closer to the hardware. Outwardly, Ham has been hitting all the right notes, insisting that there’s method to the madness. Never mind that there was already a logjam in the backcourt even before Schroder arrived as the prodigal son; Russell Westbrook, Lonnie Walker IV, Kendrick Nunn, Austin Reaves, and new acquisition Patrick Beverley already had spots. Which is why, all pronouncements to the contrary, conventional wisdom has the franchise making at least one big move to address the unevenness of the lineup.

To be sure, Westbrook has long acknowledged the writing on the wall. After all, he did let go of longtime agent Thad Foucher ostensibly to secure a new home for himself. And he’s not stupid; he knows what signing noted rival Beverley and fellow point guard Schroder mean — less exposure, at the very least. Meanwhile, the Lakers don’t look that much better from the outside looking in. Not a single one of their actions so far has been a game changer. And with due respect to general manager Rob Pelinka, the impression they’re engendering is that of a headless chicken, trying to do something — anything — in the hope that they’ll eventually luck out.

 

Anthony L. Cuaycong has been writing Courtside since BusinessWorld introduced a Sports section in 1994. He is a consultant on strategic planning, operations and Human Resources management, corporate communications, and business development.

Biden urges Putin not to use tactical nuclear arms in Ukraine

US PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN — WHITEHOUSE.GOV

WASHINGTON — US President Joseph R. Biden urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to not use tactical nuclear or chemical weapons in the wake of setbacks in Ukraine, in a CBS News interview to air on Sunday.

Ukraine’s military drove back Russian forces in a lightning rout in the northeast of the country this week, putting Mr. Putin under pressure from nationalists at home to regain the initiative.

Mr. Putin has warned that Moscow would respond more forcefully if its troops were put under further pressure, raising concerns that he could at some point use unconventional means like small nuclear or chemical weapons.

Asked by a 60 Minutes reporter what he would say to Mr. Putin if he was considering using such weapons, Mr. Biden said: “Don’t. Don’t. Don’t. It would change the face of war unlike anything since World War Two,” in a clip of the interview released by CBS on Saturday.

Mr. Biden said the US response would be “consequential,” but declined to give detail. Russia “would become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been,” Mr. Biden said. “Depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur.”

Russian government officials have dismissed Western suggestions that Moscow would use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but it remains a worry for some in the West.

In a speech announcing the invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, Mr. Putin gave a veiled but unmistakable warning that if the West intervened in what he has called a “special military operation” he could use nuclear weapons in response.

“No matter who tries to stand in our way or … create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history,” he said, according to a Kremlin translation.

Other choices for Mr. Putin could involve mobilizing Russia’s reserves, who number around 2 million men, and pressuring Europe to strong-arm Ukraine into a truce with Russia, by freezing the region this winter by banning all energy exports. — Reuters

Australia says it won’t impose ban on Russian tourists as part of sanctions

REUTERS

SYDNEY — Australia will not ban Russian tourists from entering the country as part of sanctions on Russia over the war in Ukraine, Defense Minister Richard Marles said on Sunday.

Since the start of the conflict, Australia has sanctioned hundreds of Russian individuals and entities, including most of Russia’s banking sector and all organizations responsible for the country’s sovereign debt.

It has also supplied defense equipment and humanitarian supplies to Ukraine, while outlawing exports of alumina and aluminum ores, including bauxite, to Russia.

Asked if Australia would also ban Russian tourists, Mr. Marles said sanctions were aimed at Russia’s government, “not the Russian people themselves.”

“This is not something we are considering at the moment,” he told ABC television.

Mr. Marles refused to be drawn on whether Australia would provide more Bushmasters and other protected vehicles to Ukraine after a recent request from the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia.

“We will be looking at how we can provide that ongoing support,” Mr. Marles said, calling Australia “one of the largest non-NATO military support of Ukraine”.

Australia in July pledged 60 Bushmasters and 28 M113AS4 Armored Vehicles to Ukraine as part of more than A$385 million in military assistance.

Also on Sunday, Mr. Marles said Australia’s deal with the United States and Britain to build nuclear-powered submarines under an alliance dubbed AUKUS remained “on track”.

Australia in June reached a 555-million-euro settlement with French military shipyard Naval Group over its 2021 scrapping of a multi-billion-dollar conventional submarine deal in favor of nuclear-powered subs via AUKUS.

“We are confident we will be able to make an announcement about which submarine in the first part of next year,” Mr. Marles said, adding that it was important not to view the submarine acquisition process as “some kind of competition between the United States and the United Kingdom”.

“Both countries are working very closely with us to help us acquire this capability,” he said. — Reuters

‘Dearest grannie,’ we miss you — Queen Elizabeth’s grandchildren

JOE GIDDENS/ POOL VIA REUTERS

LONDON — Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie issued a tribute to their “dearest grannie” on Saturday, saying how much they missed the late Queen Elizabeth and had thought she would be around forever.

“We’ve not been able to put much into words since you left us all,” said the two princesses, the daughters of Prince Andrew, the queen’s second son and Duke of York.

“There have been tears and laughter, silences and chatter, hugs and loneliness, and a collective loss for you, our beloved queen and our beloved grannie.”

Beatrice, 34, and Eugenie, 32, will join their cousins later on Saturday for a vigil by the coffin of Elizabeth at Westminster Hall where the body of the late monarch is now lying in state.

Eugenie was seen wiping away tears when she appeared in the days immediately after her grandmother’s death when members of the family read tributes outside Balmoral Castle where Elizabeth died on Sept. 8 aged 96.

“We, like many, thought you’d be here forever. And we all miss you terribly,” the sisters said in a statement.

“You were our matriarch, our guide, our loving hand on our backs leading us through this world. You taught us so much and we will cherish those lessons and memories forever. For now dear grannie, all we want to say is thank you.”

The two royals concluded their message by saying the tributes that had flooded in from across the world as it mourned her would have made their grandmother smile.

“We’re so happy you’re back with grandpa,” they said, a reference to Elizabeth’s late husband Prince Philip, who died last year.

“Goodbye dear grannie, it has been the honor of our lives to have been your granddaughters and we’re so very proud of you. We know that dear Uncle Charles, the king, will continue to lead in your example as he too has dedicated his life to service.” — Reuters

Wanted crypto developer Do Kwon is currently not in Singapore, police say

JÖRG HUSEMANN DA PIXABAY

SINGAPORE — Singapore Police Force said on Saturday the wanted crypto developer Do Kwon, who is accused of fraud by investors following the collapse of his cryptocurrencies Luna and TerraUSD, is currently not in the city-state.

Mr. Kwon, the primary developer of the two cryptocurrencies whose spectacular collapse in May roiled crypto markets around the world, was also the founder of blockchain platform Terraform Labs, which has been accused of fraud by investors in the wake of the collapse.

Last week, a spokesperson for South Korean prosecutors said arrest warrants had been issued for six people, including Do Kwon, and that they were residing in Singapore.

The arrest order came after months of investigation and amid public outrage in South Korea over the collapse. Globally, investors in the two coins lost an estimated $42 billion, according to blockchain analytics firm Elliptic.

A statement from the Singapore police late on Saturday also said they would assist the South Korean police within the ambit of its domestic legislation and international obligations. — Reuters

Haiti unrest worsens misery as residents suffer water shortage

PORT AU PRINCE — Thousands in Haiti faced water shortages after days of protest virtually halted distribution, eyewitnesses said on Saturday, as an approaching storm caused more worry in the reeling country.

Many residents of Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince have been forced to shelter at home this week as gunfire broke out and burning tires blocked streets during protests of fuel price hikes and crime.

That slowed or halted companies that typically deliver water in the city where daily highs have been hitting 34 degrees centigrade (93 degrees Fahrenheit).

Many took advantage of an expected half day truce to rush to distribution centers to stockpile a few days’ supply of water and cooking gas, which has also run short in many places.

Fears about the approach of tropical storm Fiona also fueled the rush to get water. Forecasters said the storm’s heaviest rains were more likely to hit the Dominican Republic on the east of Hispaniola island.

Jean-Denis Sévère, a resident of Fort National, said many had to travel miles to fill buckets and bottles, then lug them back home.

“I live in Fort National, since there are blockades in the country, we came here to buy water. If it was not for these places, we would die from thirst,” he said.

The country’s latest unrest came as inflation surged to its highest in a decade and gang violence has left hundreds dead and thousands displaced, with much of Haiti’s territory beyond government reach.

Richardson Adrien, a Port-au-Prince resident, told Reuters the lack of potable water was just the latest headache. Residents in recent months have also struggled to find fuel, leaving some unable to work.

Finding clear water “is a problem. We look for it everywhere and we can’t find it. We put Clorox in the water to be able to drink it, you can’t find water,” he said.

The Haitian government did not immediately respond to a request for comment. — Reuters

Martial law and the stories we tell

ORIGINAL PHOTO BY DANIEL BERNARD-UNSPLASH

This year, on the 50th anniversary of martial law’s proclamation, the days leading up to the 21st of September have me feeling a new, more palpable grief and anger.

In past years, Sept. 21 was a day to reflect on these difficult questions: Are we doomed to repeat our mistakes? Are we at risk of being taken advantage of by another authoritarian regime? More recently, after the Marcos burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, the question became: Have we resigned ourselves to sweeping the Marcos regime’s atrocities under the rug in the interest of “moving forward”?

Back then, a good number of people still believed that there was still space to fight disinformation and that we could dismiss the idea of the Marcoses’ return to power as absurd.

But today, the 31 million votes won by President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. in this year’s election have given us an answer to our questions: Yes, we have failed to resist the attempts to undermine our collective memory. People have been forced to “fight against their own memory and unknow what they clearly knew” (a term used by Charles Pierce in a 2016 piece on David Remnick’s Lenin’s Tomb).

The Marcoses asked us for a “second chance,” admitted that Marcos Jr. sought the Presidency to clear his family name, and the great majority of the Philippines supported him, essentially pardoning the Marcoses for past crimes.

How did we get here? How did we allow lies to distort our understanding of the past? And how can we get people to value the truth in this world of lies? How do we get people to remember?

An offshoot, I think, of my experience of losing my father at a young age is my obsession with my memory and fear of forgetting. When the people we love are no longer with us, we need to do the difficult work of keeping their memory alive. But time passes and without a conscious effort to remember, we sometimes find ourselves grasping for details about our loved ones that we used to know so well.

The same goes for our collective memory as a nation. If we don’t make an effort to tell the stories of those who came before us, we are bound to eventually forget them. Information now comes to us at lightning speed in the form of one-minute TikToks, and the sheer amount of media to consume slowly makes us more prone to unknowing things we already know. The social media managers behind the Marcos campaign know this, which is why they used this short form content to distort the narrative in their favor.

Some stories are more convincing and harder to forget, however — those told to you by people you already trust. Marcos propaganda is pushed mainly by community influencers who already have their own established spheres of influence. It is much easier to believe stories, no matter how false they may be, when they come from someone they have a relationship with.

In my freshman year of college, I was tasked to write a profile on someone who lived through martial law. I interviewed a family friend who was jailed for two years during martial law for his work as an activist. He casually described how he was tortured, and I couldn’t believe him when he said it “wasn’t too bad.” The quote that still rings in my head from that afternoon was when he told me what he learned from his time as an activist: “Most people don’t find a cause they’re willing to give up everything for; I was lucky that I found mine.”

That family friend was one of the first people I thought of on the evening of May 9 when election returns started trickling in and Bongbong Marcos quickly became presumptive president. I couldn’t imagine how he and the rest of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation, many of whom were activists during martial law, felt upon seeing another Marcos winning by a landslide. Many of these activists were the best and the brightest of their generation who chose to dedicate their lives to the struggle for change, and yet suffered in ways still unimaginable to me.

I couldn’t fathom how it might feel for their darkest experiences to be invalidated and brushed off as chismis (gossip), when many of them lost loved ones, and parts of themselves, in the fight for freedom. I couldn’t stop thinking of the martial law activists I know who fought with all that they could to educate people on the truth about martial law.

The Marcos victory has merely empowered its disinformation machinery. The antidote for forgetting is constantly telling and repeating good truthful stories, no matter how long it takes.

 

Pia Rodrigo is Action for Economic Reforms’ strategic communication officer.

P57.43/$: Where do we go from this record low?

KENNY ELIASON-UNSPLASH

On Sept. 15, 2022, the peso-dollar exchange rate reached a milestone at P57.43/$, a record low in our history. While worrying to many, this presents a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is how to respond moving forward so that the adversity it has sown is turned into the seed of a better, more resilient future harvest. History has object lessons here.

In 2012, to keep the peso-dollar exchange rate from going below P40/$ due to heavy portfolio inflows thanks to the aggressive quantitative easing by the US Federal Reserve Board, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), then under Governor Amando Tetangco, Jr., waged a scorched-earth war against further peso appreciation. It switched to becoming a determined buyer of dollars, which resulted in the BSP’s Gross International Reserve (GIR) climbing to unprecedented heights (~$80-billion, at that time a record). The BSP effectively borrowed pesos from the public and the banks through the Special Deposit Account (SDA) where billions of banking sector resources were parked to soak up on hefty risk-free interest rate. This exceptionally high interest rate is contractionary and meant little lending to the private investing public and a consequent slowdown of the economy. The BSP could also have just printed pesos or reduced the banking reserve requirement which, however, would have risked inflation exceeding its self-imposed ceiling.

It was the correct policy move then since a further drop to P35/$ would have decimated the Manufacturing sector already emaciated by almost a decade-long appreciation of the peso from its low in 2004. But this determined defense of the peso sat uncomfortably with the BSP’s self-imposed inflation targeting, with the market being the ultimate arbiter of the exchange rate. The headline inflation target was between 3-5% in 2012-2024 (Tetangco, 2012, Inflation Report Q2 2012). The actual headline inflation was 3.3% in November 2013. There was no call for appreciation resistance from the inflation front! The BSP’s action, though correct, revealed a quirk in its inflation targeting commitment — it will go to war to defend a notional line of resistance on the exchange rate level.

This attitude echoes the Chinese central bank’s refusal to allow any but puny movements in the exchange rate in the first decades of this century. Because the ammunition for the defense of an undervalued currency is the domestic currency which it can easily print apart from some capital controls, this was easy.

Both the yuan case and the BSP 2012 cases revealed a line of resistance. The difference is where the line of resistance is drawn. The Chinese monetary authority’s line of resistance is drawn where a trade surplus becomes a permanent fixture of the Chinese economy; this means a manufacturing sector that outsells competitors at foreign outlets like Walmart or Sainsbury’s. The Philippine monetary authority’s line of resistance seems to be where the Philippine manufactures, or whatever is left of it, can barely hold their own in SM North or Robinson’s. And yet the line of resistance in the Philippines could have been drawn at P50/$; the Philippines peso-dollar exchange rate was already at P56.45/$ in October 2004. In other words, we already paid the inflationary price of the depreciation (inflation was 7.7% in 2005). It was a wasted crisis.

What the BSP did after 2004 was underwhelming if not out-rightly self-lacerating. Brandishing the well-worn excuse of a market-determined exchange rate, it allowed the peso to appreciate back to P40.67/$ by February 2013 from its 2004 low as portfolio investment flocked back when the US Federal Reserve walked back its quantitative easing. To the Chinese monetary authority, our excuse reads like surrendering to the US Federal Reserve Board and portfolio investors the prerogative of determining the domestic investment and poverty alleviation program! Investors in the Philippines and abroad, rightly seeing that 2004 peso/dollar level had no legs, rightly refused to shift investment towards tradables. Indeed, tradables suffered a hollowing out. Is it any wonder that the Philippines now imports everything?

What happened between 2004-2012 echoed the 41% interest rate on one year maturity treasury bill in 1984 (BSP’s Selected Domestic Interest Rates, http://www.bsp.gov.ph) and the central bank’s employment of JOBO bills with high interest rate to maintain a grossly misaligned peso value. The banks with ready cash became filthy rich while the Philippine economy shrunk and the Filipinos went hungry. No different from the use of high-interest SDAs to push the peso from P29.83/$ in September 1993 back to P23.87 in November 1994. That was when a group of then-young economists (Benjamin Diokno, Cayetano Paderanga, Emmanuel de Dios, Calixto Chikiamco, and this author) recommended that we devalue the peso to P35/$ to keep the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which had devalued the yuan 40%, from eating our lunch. This group was instead subjected to vicious attacks as “jukebox economists” (lackeys following International Monetary Fund-World Bank money). In truth, the recommendation went squarely against the IMF-WB. The latter was then bamboozling LDC central bankers into the “fear of fixing” with the gobbledygook of the impossible trinity favoring an open capital account and a flexible exchange rate. They, however, could not stampede PRC, and especially not Robert Mundell, co-author of the seminal paper on policy trilemma. He knew better and supported PRC’s heretical yuan policy. To the clamor by the private business for relief from killer high interest rates, the BSP responded with, “Let them borrow abroad!” The private sector, heeding the BSP advice, was thus led like lambs into the slaughter of the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis! And President Fidel Ramos’ highly touted tiger cub economy became the collateral damage!

WHAT WE COULD DO: FLEXRD
Now that we are at P57.43/$, we can do either of two things: repeat the mistakes of the past — surrender the fate of our investment and poverty-reduction programs to the US Federal Reserve and the global portfolio forces — that means the exchange rate will be pushed back to P48/$ or thereabouts, or we can seize the opportunity in this crisis to shift to an economic regime where we determine our own investment and poverty reduction future.

This we do by adopting a regime of a flexible exchange rate with a ratchet downward (FLEXRD) with the following features: (i) sway with an externally induced pressure for a depreciation (don’t waste precious forex reserve resisting such pressure which the BSP wisely did in early 2022), (ii) lean against an externally induced pressure for appreciation (as the BSP did in 2012, as Vietnam did in 2020, and as PRC still does), and, (iii) adopt (ii) when the wind reverses from a depreciation to appreciation pressure. This implies choosing a line of resistance that opens the door for a permanent trade surplus.

Historians Will and Ariel Durant observed in their monumental 11 volume opus (The Story of Civilization) that “History teaches but man never learns!” Fortunately, history is not destiny! Although our own policy history suggests our response will again reprise past mistakes, proving the Durants right again, the opportunity and the challenge before our economic authorities today is for once to prove the Durants wrong.

 

Raul V. Fabella is a retired professor of the UP School of Economics, a member of the National Academy of Science and Technology and an honorary professor of the Asian Institute of Management. He gets his dopamine fix from bicycling and tending flowers with wife Teena.

A string of pearls and a diamond necklace. The Cold war between China and India

VIEW of the Gateway of India — RENZO D SOUZA-UNSPLASH

China’s ambition to become the world’s economic and military superpower has railroaded the sovereignty of nations and caused tensions of war. This is true not only in the West Philippine Sea but also in the Indian Ocean.

China’s nine-dash line, the basis for its territorial grab of the West Philippine Sea, has been deemed inferior to the historical claim of the Philippines. No less than the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the United Nations has ruled on this. Yet, in defiance to the UN Tribunal’s decision, China pressed on it with its territorial grab.

Why is the West Philippine Sea so important to China? Dominion over disputed waters will allow China to control world trade as the seas serves as the nautical superhighway where two-thirds of world trade traverses. Freedom of navigation, passage and overflight will fall solely to China’s discretion. Additionally, China will become self-sufficient in fuel and food given the immense natural resources beneath the disputed waters.

The Indian Ocean serves the same purpose. The waters span the coasts of 28 countries including mighty adversaries such as India, Australia, and members of ASEAN. About 27.9% of the world’s natural gas reserves are found in the Indian Ocean. More importantly, the Indian Ocean is where 80% of global oil supply passes through.

Command over the Indian Ocean and the West Philippine Sea will give China unprecedented economic and military advantage over its adversaries.

There are three major choke points within the Indian Ocean — they are the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Malacca in the Malay Peninsula, and the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb in the Arabian Peninsula. There are other choke points, albeit less critical, namely, the Mozambique Channel, Suez Canal, and the Sunda and Lombok Straits. Choking any of these straits can bring the flow of oil and global trade to a standstill. This is why it is important for China to control the Indian Ocean.

Enter the Belt & Road Initiative. Presented under the guise of official development assistance, the Belt & Road Initiative is, in reality, a debt trap meant to give China control over vital infrastructure installations in the Indian Ocean and other strategic areas.

How does it work? China lures weak nations into acquiring massive loans for the development of infrastructure. It then imposes stiff terms designed to cause these nations to default. Interest rates could reach 4% per annum as compared to 1% from development lenders such as the ADB. Chinese debt duration usually spans 10 to 15 years whereas it is typically 30 years with others. All construction suppliers, labor, and engineers are sourced from China causing the funds to flow back to the mainland, not the host country. In the event that a debtor country defaults, China takes over the asset and treats it like its sovereign property. At present, China has already assumed control of Pakistan’s Gwadar Port, Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, and is moving closer towards controlling the Kyaukpyu Port in Myanmar.

The Gwadar Port in Pakistan gives the Chinese easy access to the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal. Its naval base in Djibouti gives it access to the Bab el-Mandeb Port. The Port of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania gives it access to the Mozambique Channel.

Each of the Chinese-controlled ports and/or military installations in the Indian Ocean constitutes a nugget in its “string of pearls strategy.” Together, they form a lethal necklace that hangs around India’s neck, another emerging military and economic superpower. China has surrounded India with its deadly string of pearls which it could tighten anytime should India challenge its dominance.

While India has no self-serving ambition for world domination, it must still protect its interests. China’s String of Pearls Strategy has caused tension between the two superpowers. Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar admitted that the relationship between the two is “not normal and that a cold war exists.”

So, just as China has hung a string of pearls around India’s neck, so has India hung a Diamond Necklace around China.

Since becoming prime minister of India in 2014, Narendra Modi has established multiple alliances with like-minded countries towards military cooperation.

Among these alliances is the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), a strategic alliance between India, the US, Japan, and Australia. The QUAD works to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific region and a rule-based maritime order in the East China Sea and West Philippine Sea.

India was granted military access to the Port of Duqm in Oman, situated between China’s Gwadar Port and the Djibouti Military Base.

India was granted military access to the Changi Naval Base in Singapore. This gives it easy access to the Malacca, Lombok and Sunda Straits.

India was granted military access to the Sabang port in Indonesia, within striking distance of the Malacca Strait. The Malacca Strait is where 70% of China’s oil supply and 60% of trade pass through.

India was granted military access to the Cam Ranh Port in Vietnam.

India and Japan signed an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement. This allows the militaries of both nations to exchange supplies and services including the use of ports.

India has established close relations with Mongolia via the extension of a $500-million credit line. In exchange, India is assured of cooperation from Mongolia, a country situated north of China.

India was granted military access to the Chabahar Port in Iran.

Connect the countries to which India has military access and you will find a diamond necklace around mainland China.

China’s ambitions for economic and military dominance have put it in the crosshairs of peace-loving nations like India, the US, Japan, Australia, and the ASEAN who only want continued peace and prosperity on the planet. India is right, the only way to combat China’s escalating aggression is to form alliances with like-minded counties to defend our way of life.

 

Andrew J. Masigan is an economist

andrew_rs6@yahoo.com

Facebook@AndrewJ. Masigan

Twitter @aj_masigan

A weakened Putin is no use to Russia

A DEMONSTRATOR’S PLACARD against the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. — MARKUS SPISKE-UNSPLASH

AS UKRAINIAN troops probe Russian defenses along the entire front and only the Wagner Group mercenaries continue a small-scale offensive operation in the Donetsk region, the initiative in the Russo-Ukrainian war is firmly in the hands of the invaded, not the invader. While that can still change, perhaps more than once, it’s a good moment to consider whether the man who got Russia into this mess retains any legitimacy — domestically or internationally. To put it even more bluntly, who, if anyone, still needs a weak Vladimir Putin?

Putin’s claim to power has evolved over his nearly 22 years atop the Kremlin. In 2000, he was President Boris Yeltsin’s chosen successor, then the president elected in a vote that, while not problem-free, reflected the will of Russian voters. By the end of the first eight years of his rule, he was the architect of a corruption-plagued, but broadly beneficial economic upsurge; because Russians credited him for that, they cared little about the erosion of electoral democracy as he consolidated power. After the intermission of Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency, he briefly struggled to find a new source of legitimacy until he seized on the annexation of Crimea, an event so inspiring to a large majority of Russians that even a harsh pension reform four years later didn’t appreciably dent his popularity.

Putin went into the COVID-19 pandemic riding an ebbing Crimea wave of support while relying increasingly on a swollen, well-fed security apparatus — a full-fledged dictator now, with elections a joke and all major issues, and lots of minor ones, requiring his personal intervention. The pandemic, when most visitors had to quarantine for weeks before being admitted to Putin’s presence, seems to have shrunk his trusted entourage to a handful of yes-men. The Kremlin’s erratic policies made Russia one of COVID’s biggest victims, and only the disease and increasing oppression kept Russians from looking up too much. By then, Putin’s legitimacy rested on the general impression of undefeated, unbeatable strength, backed up by a military success in Syria and the steamrolling of domestic opposition.

As in the tough streets of any big city, however, be it St. Petersburg or Sao Paolo, the reputation of a strongman as the head of a country needs constant reinforcing by further feats of strength. For his next one, Putin chose Ukraine again, launching what he clearly thought would be a blitzkrieg ending with the swift fall of Kyiv and the annexation of a large swathe of Ukrainian territory. Even though the outcome of the war is far from decided, this show of force has failed spectacularly. Russia has revealed itself to be vulnerable militarily after years of bravado that deceived even the experts.

Russia’s weakness is not lost on foreign leaders, from once-cautious Western adversaries shipping increasingly deadly weaponry to Ukraine to neighbors like Azerbaijan’s leader Ilham Aliyev, who appears to see a new opportunity to improve his country’s position in Nagorno-Karabakh while Putin is bogged down in Ukraine. Putin may have hoped for more active support from China, but he’s not getting anything beyond discounted energy purchases; if he was winning, China would doubtless be more forthcoming.

The domestic audience, too, appears to be shedding its illusions of Russia’s greatness, no matter what one might say about the efficiency of Putin’s propaganda. His media mouthpieces Vladimir Solovyov and Margarita Simonyan no longer own the narrative. Even on state television, not to mention nationalist Telegram channels with hundreds of thousands of readers, Russia’s defeats are engendering much bitterness and hurt. The hard-core propagandists look lost, sometimes downright bizarre, with Simonyan retreating into sentimental memories and poetry and Solovyov appearing on the air with bruises and scratches on his face.

Putin himself, stubbornly maintaining a business-as-usual program of meetings of little relevance to the Ukrainian elephant in the room, looks like a denizen of “Pink Pony Planet,” as far-right commentator Igor Girkin (Strelkov) calls the distant realm of the Russian elite.

And what of Putin’s suppression machine, his vaunted FSB domestic intelligence and more than 300,000-strong Rosgvardia riot police? Despite its extensive network, the former failed to predict Ukraine’s stiff resistance. A large part of the latter was sent across the border, initially to police the conquered territories, but ending up in the meat grinder of trench warfare, something for which its personnel never trained. Whether they will return from the war with any respect for Putin is questionable; even the dictator’s faithful servant, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, whose fighting force in Ukraine is part of Rosgvardia, has doubted the campaign’s conduct, if not (yet) Putin’s leadership and goal-setting.

If a strong Putin was widely tolerated, often appeased, and, in Russia itself, feared and obeyed, what could be the basis of a weak Putin’s power? Certainly not sympathy: Russians aren’t known to respect weak leaders — witness the political fate of the last Soviet President, the late Mikhail Gorbachev, and many a Russian czar before him. A Ukraine-style popular revolution in Russia is unlikely, even if Western sanctions begin to bite in earnest: The new leaders needed for something like that will not emerge overnight from Russia’s thoroughly purged civil society. But you can at least expect popular indifference in the face of top-down change. Despite appearances, an unquestioning pro-Putin majority doesn’t exist, according to a recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — and the number of the dictator’s diehard backers won’t increase with more defeats.

Internationally, what might prop up Putin even if he loses the war is a fear that what comes after him may be far worse. The far right, inspired by the same ideals of imperial greatness as Putin himself, can be much more ruthless when it comes to its choice of means to that end. Someone of Strelkov’s ilk with a finger on the nuclear button is indeed a scary thought.

Domestically, though, Putin risks losing control as soon as the fear subsides. Military and police commanders, spies, even the timid oligarchs will be scheming — and likely already are, as a matter of contingency planning — to put forward a figure who could maintain their positions while pulling out of the Ukraine nosedive and offering a calming alternative to the rest of the world. The tightening of Putin’s close circle during the pandemic has, as an unintended consequence, shortened his reach and provided more opportunity for plots and intrigues behind his back.

None of this means, of course, that Putin is about to be toppled. Speculation concerning potential replacements is being dribbled into Telegram and foreign media mostly as a way to damage specific figures. For now, the dictator is still in control: All his years in power have earned him the benefit of the doubt among Russia’s powerful, a group moth-eaten by negative selection. He must, however, realize that if military defeats continue, retaining his clout will require surprising, even drastic moves. The world might yet be treated to a re-enactment of the tired cornered rat metaphor from Putin’s childhood — something to keep in mind but not to fear: All dictatorships end someday, and few go out in a blaze of glory.

BLOOMBERG OPINION

Manila Broadcasting Company to conduct annual stockholders’ meeting on Oct. 6

NOTICE OF 2022 ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS’ MEETING
October 6, 2022 | 3:00 pm | Zoom

AGENDA

  1. Call to order
  2. Certification of notice or quorum
  3. President’s report
  4. Approval of the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2021
  5. Approval and ratification of the acts of the Board of Directors and Officers of the Company from the date of last Stockholders’ Meeting up to October 6, 2022
  6. Election of directors and officers for 2022 to 2023
  7. Appointment of external auditors
  8. Other matters
  9. Adjournment

Visit our website for the registration guidelines:
https://manilabroadcasting.com.ph/

PSE Edge:
https://edge.pse.com.ph/companyDisclosures/form.do?cmpy_id=117

Email:
corp.sec@manilabroadcasting.com

 


Spotlight is BusinessWorld’s sponsored section that allows advertisers to amplify their brand and connect with BusinessWorld’s audience by enabling them to publish their stories directly on the BusinessWorld Web site. For more information, send an email to online@bworldonline.com.

Join us on Viber to get more updates from BusinessWorld: https://bit.ly/3hv6bLA.