Nation at a Glance — (01/17/20)
News stories from across the nation. Visit www.bworldonline.com (section: The Nation) to read more national and regional news from the Philippines.
Taal Volcano is a test of the Philippines’ disaster plan
By Adam Minter
SMOKE AND ASH erupted Sunday from the Taal volcano in the Philippines, with the plume rising almost nine miles into the atmosphere and threatening hundreds of thousands of people. The Philippine government mobilized quickly. By Wednesday, more than 38,000 people were staying in evacuation centers, and many thousands more had dispersed to family throughout the country. Meanwhile, the government began to distribute supplies, including 100,000 protective face masks, in and around the eruption zone. There’s little time to waste: Volcanologists are warning that a hazardous eruption could come at any time.
Thanks to their planning, leaders in the Philippines hope that that eruption, if and when it comes, won’t be nearly as catastrophic as it would have been 10 years ago. Back then, the Philippines, like most emerging-market countries, mostly responded to disasters by cleaning up afterward. Today, preparedness is a national priority, and the Philippines is a model for how emerging-market governments in the world’s most disaster-prone region can be ready for the worst.
Since 1970, 59% of the global death toll from disasters — about 2 million people — occurred in the Asia-Pacific region, according to a United Nations report. Economic losses have also been profound, totaling about $675 billion annually. The region’s disaster outlook is growing worse because of urbanization in vulnerable areas, degradation of the environment, and the influence of a warming climate on extreme weather. In 2018, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for almost half of the world’s 281 natural disasters, and eight of the 10 deadliest. Already in 2020, at least 60 people died as a result of flooding in Jakarta, and tens of thousands remain in temporary shelters.
Thanks to its location, the Philippines is more vulnerable to disaster than its neighbors. On average, eight or nine tropical cyclones make landfall on its coasts annually, bringing storm surges, flooding, and landslides — phenomena that are likely to become more frequent and intensify as the climate warms. The country is perched atop the “Ring of Fire” — a geologically active path along the Pacific Ocean — and is home to 53 active volcanos and fault lines capable of major earthquakes near the country’s biggest cities. Further raising the risk profile is the country’s drive to urbanize: Half the population currently lives in cities, with roughly a quarter of its residents (25 million people) in the Manila metro area.
Officials in the Philippines historically didn’t view disasters as recurrent problems worth mitigating or preventing. Rather, their focus was almost entirely concentrated on rapid response after the disaster. That’s neither new nor uncommon in emerging Asian countries. In Jakarta, for example, the Indonesian government has struggled to manage regular, catastrophic floods, much less fund systems to control them. The situation has grown so bad that victims of this month’s floods are filing a class-action lawsuit against the government for failing to plan for them.
What changed the disaster calculus in the Philippines was the scale of the catastrophes. In 2009, metro Manila was hit by Typhoon Ketsana [Known as tropical storm Ondoy in the Philippines. — Ed.], which dumped more than a month’s worth of rain in 12 hours, killed more than 700 people, and paralyzed the city’s economy. The government’s tepid response precipitated a political crisis and the passage of legislation that prioritized proactive disaster management and risk reduction. Among other reforms, local governments are now required to prepare maps of areas prone to disasters like landslides, and make them public for planning and zoning purposes.
To finance the shift, the country’s main disaster fund is mandated to spend 70% on prevention, preparedness, and mitigation, with 30% allocated to quick response operations. Among other benefits, the funding enables local governments to invest in hazard monitoring and forecasting equipment, including tsunami detection stations and volcano observatories (including those watching the Taal volcano). This spending is mostly administered by local governments, but since 2010 their disaster responses are monitored, integrated, and supervised by a high-level agency. This framework not only provides accountability, but also ensures that planning and response to large-scale disasters can be coordinated nationally. Civil society and religious organizations also play a grass-roots role in disaster planning and response.
Of course, no system is perfect. In the Philippines, it’s fair to question whether a disaster preparedness system that depends on forging consensus within and among communities can be effective in the event of a major crisis. Likewise, there are legitimate concerns that the government will not fund the system’s needs adequately. So far, at least, investments in detection and preparation have clearly left the Philippines in a better place to manage the disastrous impacts of an eruption at the Taal volcano than it was a decade ago. That’s a lesson that Indonesia and other disaster-prone Asian countries can afford to emulate.
BLOOMBERG OPINION
No reason in this madness
As irresponsible and as criminal as United States President Donald Trump’s decision to have Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani assassinated may appear to be, there were at least two reasons of a sort in its madness.
The first was personal, and driven by domestic politics. It was obviously meant to divert the American public’s attention from Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial before the US Senate, reenergize his white nationalist, anti-immigrant, racist base, and build added support for his election to a second term. It was cynical, manipulative, and completely indifferent to the possible consequences on the Middle East, the US itself, and the rest of the world. But it was also calculated to be to his benefit.
The second reason was strategic and economic. Whether Democratic or Republican, every US administration has regarded Iran as an important element of its Middle East policy of ensuring access to, and exploiting that region’s vast oil reserves. After the Second World War, a client state of US and British oil interests, Iran committed the unpardonable offense of having chosen Mohammed Mossadegh for its prime minister in the 1950s. Mossadegh nationalized his country’s oil resources and drove the British and US oil companies out of Iran. He was consequently overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British intelligence.
The coup returned to power one of the Western countries’ favorite US-compliant tyrants, Shah Reza Pahlavi, whose murderous rule the Imam-led Iranian revolution overthrew in 1979. The occupation by Iranian militants of US Embassy premises in Tehran and the hostage-taking of its personnel followed the Imams’ seizure of State power. It made it clear that under the new leadership, Iran would no longer be a US neo-colony.
Iran has since then been a thorn in the US side because of its insistence in maintaining its independence and, in anticipation of a possible reprise of the US invasion of Iraq, its nuclear weapons development program. The US’ 2003 attack on Iraq and the execution of Saddam Hussein, which it carried out without a declaration of war, has warned the countries it despises that the same fate may befall them and their leaders. It explains Iran and North Korea’s determination to develop the means, including nuclear arms, to defend themselves. Even the CIA has acknowledged the logic in North Korea’s, and by extension, Iran’s, and any other similarly threatened country’s development of nuclear weapons.
The members of the Republican Party have rallied behind Trump and have bought into his unproven claim that Soleimani was planning to launch an attack on US personnel and installations and was an “imminent threat.” The Democratic Party’s House of Representatives majority has been leery of the timing and basis of the Soleimani assassination. But no one in US ruling circles has questioned the assumption that the US has the right to intervene in any country in the world that it chooses. It’s a mindset shared by much of the US population, who regard their country as the rightful ruler of the planet. They think it only reasonable that Iran, or any country for that matter, bend to US wishes, because it knows best what’s good for them.
They applaud the use of force, including programmed assassinations and “regime change,” as totally justified against those countries and their leaders who defy US power. Hence the Trump decision to take the extreme option of assassinating Soleimani on the assumption that it would boost his popularity and approval ratings and help win him a second term during the November 2020 elections.
If there were reasons in the Trump madness that are rooted in both his personal interests as well as those of US ruling circles, one strives in vain to find something similar in the Duterte regime’s response to the US-fomented crisis.
Almost immediately reacting to the possibility of another war in the Middle East, President Rodrigo Duterte declared that the Philippines “will side” with the US in such an eventuality. Although he amended that declaration later by saying that the country would do so only if Iran harmed Filipino workers, his spokesperson Salvador Panelo, in explaining and elaborating on Mr. Duterte’s earlier statement, had already made it clear that the Philippines “will not be neutral” in the event of a US-Iran war. Panelo even made a veiled threat against Iran should some harm come to OFWs.
What possible benefit to either Mr. Duterte’s or the Philippines’ interests were served by those statements? The answer is none, zero, nil, nada. Their impact is in fact likely to be the exact opposite.
Mr. Duterte has often described his foreign policy as independent, meaning no longer tied to US interests. But far from being a departure from the Philippines’s long history of dependency on its former colonizer, Mr. Duterte’s declaration validated the argument that his administration is best described by the “US-Duterte dictatorship” tag rather than the widely proposed “China-Duterte regime” epithet. Beyond that, however, is the critical harm to which those statements could expose the country’s OFWs in Iran and the rest of the Middle East, where their number is estimated at some two million.
What is even more curious is that through the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) — incidentally without the evident participation of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) — the regime has focused on repatriating OFWs in apparent anticipation of the possible harm they can come to if the crisis intensifies. As expected, absent in the pronouncements of regime bureaucrats was any recognition of the fact that Mr. Duterte and company’s statements about taking sides would at least be partly responsible for whatever dangers Filipino workers already face and could still face in the region.
The supposed plans for worker repatriation are at the same time less than encouraging. The conflicting statements from regime bureaucrats haven’t helped mask how pathetically incapable the government is in carrying out the large-scale forced repatriation it is saying has to take place despite the seeming de-escalation of tensions in the region. Given the number of OFWs involved, the regime’s transportation options — one ship and two cargo planes — will hardly make a dent on those numbers, and neither will its booking OFWs on commercial flights.
Some OFWs, however, are saying they won’t heed the government’s forced repatriation program because they don’t want to lose the jobs that are keeping their families in food, clothing, and shelter in the Philippines. Assuming that the regime does somehow manage to transport at least several hundred thousand OFWs back to their Philippine homeland, how will the returnees and their families survive? DoLE says it can provide them jobs — the rarity and even absence of which is in the first place driving the continuing exodus of Filipinos from this country even to such war zones as Afghanistan and Iraq.
As appalling as this state of affairs is, the possible threat to Filipino lives in the Middle East could have been partly mitigated if the regime had relied on diplomacy rather than threats — if it had taken a less partisan, less pro-US stance, declared Philippine neutrality in any US war in the region, and appealed to the governments of Iran, Iraq, and other countries to respect Philippine neutrality and to protect the OFWs within their territories. As it is, the Philippine government, thanks to Mr. Duterte and company, created its own problems to which it hardly has any credible solution. There is no reason in this madness.
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).
A president of lesser violence
Vociferous doubts continue regarding the legality of the US’ drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The crucial factor remains the unknown facts, over which hinges the applicable law and its implications.
The point being made here is not that a conclusive case presently exists for Trump’s actions to be categorized as legal or illegal, but only that an argument can be made for its legality. The significance of that distinction has to do with present political and military circumstances.
UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo makes it clear that “no American law prohibits the targeting of specific enemy leaders. Neither the Constitution nor federal statutes prevent the direct targeting of individual members of the enemy.”
This is bolstered by the US’ long practiced “policy of using targeted strikes to kill enemy leaders. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration launched a program of drone strikes and Special Forces attacks to kill leaders of al-Qaeda and insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only did Barack Obama continue these policies, he also launched an air war against Libya that sought as one of its goals to kill its leader, Moammar Qaddafi, in order to trigger regime change. Few, if any, Democratic officials criticized Obama for engaging in illegal assassination or for launching strikes in Libya or, later, in Syria, without congressional approval.”
Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz agrees: “The targeting of Soleimani was more justified, as a matter of law, than the targeting of Osama bin Laden in 2011. The killing of Soleimani was in large part an act of prevention, whereas the killing of Bin Laden was primarily an act of retaliation. Would anyone doubt that if Mr. Clinton had succeeded in killing Bin Laden before 9/11, as he tried to do, such an action would have been legal under American law? So, too, was it legal for Mr. Trump to order the targeted killing of Soleimani, who was planning to continue his killing spree against Americans.
“The killing of Soleimani was also entirely legal under international law. The Quds Force commander was a combatant in uniform who was actively engaged in continuing military and terrorist activities against Americans. The rocket that killed him and a handful of others was carefully calibrated to minimize collateral damage, and the resulting death toll was proportionate to the deaths it may have prevented.
“The killing took place in a foreign country, but so did the killing of Bin Laden and others who have been targeted… All the relevant criteria for legality under international law — using authorized and proportionate force to kill a combatant who is engaged in continuing violence — have all been met in this case.”
What complicates the issue is the confused stance people have vis-à-vis the US: simultaneously hoping it goes away with depreciated power and yet burdening it with the responsibility of securing global peace and order.
Hence, the liberal progressive establishment and news media’s puzzlingly negative reaction to President Trump’s declaration that the US “will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” and that the “[US should be skeptical] of international unions that tie us up and bring America down.”
Compare this with President Barack Obama’s quite interventionist (and frankly, more violent) approach to foreign policy. As The Guardian’s Medea Benjamin reported in 2017, “the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day. While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries.” And yet nary a complaint in media. This considering the bombings proven overall lack of strategic success.
Thus, as Foreign Policy tersely noted, “though Donald Trump loves military parades, flybys, and the other visible trappings of military power, he seems rather leery of war.” Trump’s strikes, though more publicized, are really the exception rather than the rule.
And the relative withdrawal from the world stage that Trump seeks hark back to the US Founding Fathers’ vision. George Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, wrote: “Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course… Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?… It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world… ”
All this should urge other countries to take a more grounded view of its position relative to and its expectations of the US.
This is so particularly with regard to the Philippines, considering its recent behavior towards the US juxtaposed with its history; starting from the fact that its own 1898 Declaration of Independence was done “under the protection of our Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, The United States of America.”
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/
Twitter @jemygatdula
Island interlude
The island offers a brief interlude from the oppressive urban congestion and frenzy. One finds instant relief. The city’s opaque toxic haze blurs and dissipates in the distance. The white cumulus clouds and the cerulean blue sky are a serene sight for world-weary eyes.
Gradually, the body and mind relax.
The sea breeze whirls like a bracing tonic of exotic scents in mint and citrus. A heady whiff of oxygen reawakens the senses. It is easy to breathe, to stretch and expand.
Floating on the pulsating sea calms the spirit as it empties the mind of thoughts. The rhythmic swell and ebb of waves washes away the clutter and cobwebs.
Gazing at the horizon where sky and sea meet and blend into cobalt, azure, and ultramarine blue, can be a startling experience. Accustomed to the artificial glare of indoor lights, the eye is overwhelmed by the brilliant colors. One’s vision adjusts to the subtle nuances of the seascape.
The churning clear water turns into a frothy wake of salty and foam as a boat cuts the shimmering surface. White-capped waves ripple for miles and miles until they break against the craggy coastline cliffs.
Seagulls swoop to catch fish and soar around like kites. Sometimes, a flying fish springs up and plunges, playing hide and seek. Close to the surface, the electric blue and yellow angelfish dart and weave patterns in the water.
The tiny fish vanish as one plunges in.
It is a different world. Sounds are muffled and figures are blurry. One can hardly hear anything save the bubbles exhaled from the snorkel tube.
The colors of nature are brighter, more vivid in a marinescape composition. Blues, greens, yellows, and pinks shimmer and glow from a phosphorescent palette.
A solitary sea star clings to the bottom near the corals. When it is brought to the surface it turns to brown and it gasps for breath. Tossed back into the sea, the seastar instantly turns bright blue, revived once again.
One listens to the eclectic symphony of wind and water at sea. Depending on the weather, the music of nature can be dramatic as the fortissimo passage of a piano concerto or as relaxing as the well-loved strains of a Brahms lullaby.
On a mild day, the tableau of fluffy cumulus, cirrus, and nimbus clouds move across the powder blue sky. One can discern furry shapes of animals — sheep, lions, and a mirage of angels drifting.
During a storm, the clashing cymbals, pounding drums, and percussion instruments mingle with the crescendo of the woodwinds and brasses heard in the flash of lightning and roll of thunder.
One see, hears, and feels the powerful climax as the clouds unleash angry torrents, tossing flimsy boats on the heaving ocean.
The breeze fades abruptly. The air is heavy with moisture. The clouds gather into towering layers of gray.
A heavenly growl sounds like distant rolling thunder and marching drums. A flash of lightning and electric streaks brightens the graphite sky. A loud clap echoes over the island. The rain pours like a waterfall onto the forest and the beach.
A strong gust of wind ruffles the sea’s surface, causing waves to cover the sandbars and islets.
On the beach, kids frolic — defiant of the wind and rain. Blue kingfishers and yellow orioles seek shelter in their favorite trees and swimmers take cover in scattered gazebos.
The rain suddenly stops and the crickets begin to chirp. The clouds dissipate and the sky is a clear pale canvas.
Sailboats float along the seashore. People gather in clusters to watch the dramatic command performance of light and sound.
The golden orb begins to descend. Fiery gold turns to orange, vermillion, tinged with crimson.
A river of yellow gold reflects glinting specks on the sea. It spills on the ripples and fades as the sun vanishes into the horizon. The afterglow now has streaks of violet, tangerine and peach.
Twilights casts a magical spell. The colors are elements of a divine work in progress.
A strong gust rustles through the palm and coconut fronds. As night falls, tiny fireflies light up a lone tree. The crickets chirp more loudly in a staccato rhythm counterpointed by the croaks of frogs.
The full moon rising is a silver spectacle to behold. She commands attention in the dark sky. One bright star dares to peep through a translucent veil. Then the constellations start to light up the sky.
Late at night, one can hear a distinct melody — the soothing song of the sea.
Maria Victoria Rufino is an artist, writer and businesswoman. She is president and executive producer of Maverick Productions.
Tao po!
By Raju Mandhyan
SANDWICHED between the mountains Banahaw and San Cristobal in the province of Quezon, Dhamma Phala, a meditation center, is surrounded by scores of coconut and mango trees and banana plants. The sky there is so blue and clear it seems as if it is possible to reach out and touch it.
Nearly 50 men and women from across the world gather there every few weeks to immerse themselves in 10 days of sitting still and silent while learning to look at life, humanity, and world as it really is. It is a centuries-old meditation technique called Vipassana. The regimen is demanding and rigorous while the results are amazingly transformative. For 10 days you don’t make eye contact, don’t touch and speak to anyone while living on two sparse meals of pinakbet and vegetarian sinigang.
On the seventh hour of the seventh day, while sitting still and soundlessly, as a large part of my mind was focused on my own breathing and bodily sensations, I couldn’t help but be cognizant of the subtle sounds of the breeze, of chirping birds, of crickets in the grass, large tuko lizards in the thatched roof, and the smell and crackling of burning leaves in the distance. The world was eerily quiet but alive when from a few feet away outside the meditation hall, I heard a female voice gently announce herself: “Tao po!”
With my eyes closed I heard quick whispers and footsteps hustling the source of the disruption away from where other humans, sitting cross-legged, were striving to lean in and listen to their own breathing, their own beings, and their own mind.
I sensed a gentle smile steal its way onto my face. I had loved that accidental and very Filipino intrusion into our fortress of solitude and solemnity. I call it a fortress because the hall was smack dab in the middle of a three-hectare property and the neighborhood knew that its inhabitants preferred absolute silence.
For long moments thereafter, instead on focusing on myself and my breathing, I began to think about the words, “Tao po.” I know they mean to announce a visitor into your domain. I also know that it is rooted partly in superstition, necessitating the announcement that it is a person, a human being, and not a creepy creature at your doorstep. What I loved about it is that it was evidence of how beautiful and how gentle the Filipino culture is. “Tao po” translates for me as “please excuse me but, I, a human being, am at your door. I am very sorry to be disturbing your peace but could you possibly spare me a few moments of your precious time as I have a need that you might be able to fulfill.”
Yes, exactly that.
As a culture we are wary of intrusions, impositions, and like to let people be people. We seek permission for most everything. To many it may appear as timidity and shyness, but it is more than just that. It totally represents the kindness, the courtesy and the care and respect that we, here in the Philippines, hold for other human beings. It is our values lived out loud, constantly and unconsciously. It is just perfect and we ought to be proud of it. “Tao po” is a tiny peek into a vast landscape of how care, courtesy, and compassion silently thrive in these 7,107 islands.
No, it wasn’t brought to us by the Spaniards. It grew when we were numerous tribes sporadically settled in these happy and abundant islands. Yes, kindness and courtesies like these do exist in many other cultures but I am grateful it surrounds me. We all ought to be too. In fact, we ought to be proud. It is the future of being human and we are the forefront of that frontier.
Paalam po!
Raju Mandhyan author, coach and learning facilitator.
Libya explains why Turkey has no friends
By Kori Schake
IT IS HARD to credit now, but there was a time, only a decade ago, when Turkey described its foreign policy doctrine as one of “zero problems with our neighbors.” But since then, Ankara has burned its boats with Israel over the Gaza Freedom Flotilla; angered Egypt by bitterly criticizing Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi’s military coup and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood; broken with Syria by assisting anti-Assad rebels (and more recently, invading the country’s northeast, there to forcibly repatriate refugees); and antagonized Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates by siding with Qatar against their embargo.
Now, Turkey is providing direct military assistance to the government of Libya, while the UAE and Egypt — along with Russia — back the rebel army of General Khalifa Haftar. After the failure of cease-fire talks sponsored by Turkey and Russia, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised to teach Haftar “a lesson.”
If anything, Turkey’s foreign policy now seems designed to aggravate problems with all of its neighbors.
How did it come to this? In the past 10 years, Turkey has descended from a vibrant Islamic democracy into a repressive authoritarian state. But this doesn’t explain its antagonistic relations with its neighbors: most governments across the Middle East are also repressive authoritarian states with predominantly Muslim populations.
The answer is that Erdogan has actively sought to advance the cause of political Islam, both domestically and internationally. This aligns him with Qatar and against most of the other Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE.
Within Turkey, Islamization initially advanced with democratization. The Turkish military had been a stridently secular force; as its hold over the state waned, religion returned to politics, primarily in the shape of Erdogan’s Islamist AK Party. The military leadership formally opposed the AKP’s 2007 presidential candidate for being an Islamist, but Abdullah Gul was elected — a major turning point in Turkish politics. The political emasculation of the military allowed Erdogan, who had previously described democracy as “a vehicle, not a goal,” to dominate the scene.
The failed 2016 coup attempt can be seen as an opportunistic bid by some elements in the military to capitalize on growing dissatisfaction among Turks over Erdogan’s consolidation of power. It also represents a deep and ongoing contest between Erdogan’s Islamists and other political forces.
The fragility of Erdogan’s hold on power is illustrated by last year’s election of opposition party mayors in Istanbul and other major cities, and the fact that longtime political allies — including former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who conceived the “zero problems with neighbors” policy — have broken away from the AKP.
This domestic trajectory has its parallel in Turkey’s foreign policy, which has grown more Islamist and militarist as Erdogan’s political hold has become more brittle.
The falling out with Egypt holds the keys to understanding Turkey’s intervention in Libya. After the 2011 Arab Spring, Erdogan supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascent to power in Egypt and assisted the government of President Mohammed Morsi. When Morsi was overthrown by the military in 2011, Erdogan described it as “state terrorism.” He seems to view events in Libya as a reprise of those in Egypt: a military leader threatening to unseat a government conducive to Turkey’s worldview.
Turkey has deep linkages to Libya, which is home to 25% of Turks living outside their country. Just as important, $18 billion in Turkish business contracts are underway in Libya, and the two countries share an exclusive economic zone. The Government of National Accord in Tripoli, backed by the United Nations and led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, has Islamist elements — natural allies of Erdogan and the AKP.
The GNA has been under sustained military attack by the Libyan National Army under Haftar, who opposes a political role for Islamists, as do his Egyptian and Emirati backers — potential allies of forces within Turkey that threaten Erdogan’s hold on power.
Long-suffering Libya has become the battleground for a proxy war about the role of Islam in Middle Eastern politics. Neither Turkey nor the Middle Eastern states arrayed against it are likely to concede their objectives.
With the failure of cease-fire talks, attention will return to the frontlines, where a bloody stalemate prevails. If Haftar had the military strength to take Tripoli, he would have done so by now. Significant increases in Turkish assistance could turn the tide in favor of the GNA, unless Haftar’s allies ratchets up their support for the LNA. Turkey’s problems with its neighbors, meanwhile, are only liken to get worse.
BLOOMBERG OPINION
Gin Kings go for closeout of PBA Governors’ Cup finals
By Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Senior Reporter
HOLDING a commanding 3-1 lead in their best-of-seven Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) Governors’ Cup finals series, the Barangay Ginebra San Miguel Kings are out to close out the Meralco Bolts in Game Five today at the Mall of Asia Arena in Pasay City.
Thrust themselves on the cusp of another league title after dominating their opponents in Game Four, 94-72, on Wednesday, the Kings said they will go out and finish things off in their scheduled 7 p.m. match, and reclaim the championship in the season-ending PBA tournament.
“I would love to end the series on Friday obviously. And we will try our best. But this team showed a lot of character in the past when we played them. We went up, 2-0, on them and they came back to beat us two straight in one series. So we know they are capable of coming back,” said Barangay Ginebra coach Tim Cone following Game Four.
“It will be silly of us to think that it’s going to be over in the next game but it’s going to be silly for us as well to say that we won’t be going to try to win it all on Friday,” he added.
The PBA’s winningest coach, with 21 titles, went on to underscore that holding a 3-1 series lead does not guarantee an outright title, having lost such a lead in a PBA finals in the past — 2006 Philippine Cup where Cone-coached Alaska lost to Purefoods.
“We are aware that a team could come back. That is why you should not give them the momentum that they need to in doing so,” he said.
In Game Four on Wednesday, the Kings were simply unrelenting when they found their collective groove in the second quarter.
After a tied count of 14-all at the end of the opening quarter, Barangay Ginebra outscored Meralco, 80-58, in the next three quarters en route to the dominant win.
Import Justin Brownlee paced the balanced Kings attack, finishing with 27 points, eight rebounds, eight assists, five steals and four blocks.
Stanley Pringle had 21 points while Scottie Thompson finished with 16 for Barangay Ginebra, which is gunning for a third Governors’ Cup title in the last four years.
For Meralco it was best import awardee Allen Durham who showed the way with 21 points, 27 rebounds and seven assists.
Raymond Almazan, who was expected to miss Wednesday’s game after injuring his knee in Game Three, had 12 points and nine boards.
Chris Newsome also had 12 markers for the Bolts
Meralco coach Norman Black admitted that his team was badly outplayed by Barangay Ginebra in Game Four and that moving forward they either sink or swim.
“They outplayed us. We did not give them a good fight. And as a coach I’m pretty embarrassed of the effort we put out there,” Mr. Black said postgame.
“I told the players after that we have two choices — either we pull together and play well in the next game or have of the same,” he added.
In the ongoing finals the Kings are looking to add a 12th PBA title in franchise history while the Bolts are gunning for their first-ever league championship.
The two teams met in the 2016 and 2017 Governors’ Cup finals with Barangay Ginebra claiming the title both times.
Executive Kennedy says Boston Red Sox won 2018 title fairly
BOSTON — Whether the Boston Red Sox’s 2018 World Series title was won legitimately is up for debate after Alex Cora was involved in sign-stealing scandals in back-to-back seasons with the 2017 champion Houston Astros and Red Sox.
The Red Sox held a press conference on Wednesday — one day after parting ways with Cora — and team president Sam Kennedy made it clear he doesn’t believe the World Series win over the Los Angeles Dodgers is tainted.
Kennedy was asked, “Do you believe you beat the Dodgers fairly and squarely?”
His reply: “Absolutely, yes.”
The Red Sox repeatedly declined to answer questions involving their 2018 title, citing that Major League Baseball’s (MLB) investigation is still ongoing.
Cora was identified by MLB on Monday as a ringleader in the Astros’ scheme to steal signs en route to their 2017 World Series championship, when he was Houston’s bench coach. He became the Red Sox’s manager the next year and led his new team to the title — albeit with lingering suspicions regarding similar illegal sign-stealing.
On Monday, MLB announced major sanctions against Houston, including one-season suspensions for manager A.J. Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow, who were subsequently fired by the Astros.
On Tuesday, Red Sox brass met with Cora and all parties agreed that parting ways was necessary.
“Alex by his own admission, and we agreed, played a central role in what went on in Houston and we all agreed that it was wrong and that we had a responsibility as stewards where that sort of behavior is unacceptable,” Red Sox chairman Tom Werner said during the press conference.
Werner requested that the team’s fans withhold judgment on the 2018 team until the investigation is complete.
Kennedy said that it wasn’t anything that occurred in Boston that led to Cora no longer being the manager.
“It is also important to recognize that this collective mutual decision yesterday was related exclusively to the incidents that took place in Houston,” Kennedy said. “… Alex came to the conclusion that he could not effectively lead the organization going forward in light of the commissioner’s findings and the ruling and we came to that conclusion as well.”
While Cora was tabbed as the ringleader of the sign-stealing scheme in Houston, also mentioned was then-player Carlos Beltran, who was recently hired to be manager of the New York Mets.
The Mets haven’t indicated how they plan to handle the situation with Beltran at a time when Cora and Hinch have lost their jobs.
ESPN analyst Mark Teixeira, a former teammate of Beltran on the New York Yankees, says Beltran has to go.
“They have to fire Carlos Beltran,” Teixeira said on ESPN. “There’s no way that Carlos Beltran, especially in the pressure cooker of New York, there’s no way he can be the manager of the Mets. …
“You cannot have that guy lead your team. The New York papers, the Daily News and the Post and all of the tabloids, will eat up Carlos Beltran every single day until he’s fired.” — Reuters
Red Sox part ways with GM Cora for role in Houston’s sign cheating
BOSTON — The Boston Red Sox said on Tuesday they were parting ways with General Manager (GM) Alex Cora in the wake of a sign-stealing scandal involving the Houston Astros, where Cora had been the bench coach, during their World Series-winning 2017 season.
The Astros on Monday said they were firing both manager A.J. Hinch and GM
Jeff Luhnow for their roles in the scandal after Major League Baseball (MLB) imposed one-year bans on each.
In its judgment on Monday, the league said Cora had arranged for the installation of a monitor showing centerfield camera shots, giving players the ability to decipher the signs and alert batters.
The Red Sox said it would not be possible for Cora to remain with the team given the league’s findings.
“This is a sad day for us,” Principal Owner John Henry, Chairman Tom Werner and CEO Sam Kennedy said in a statement.
“Alex is a special person and a beloved member of the Red Sox. We are grateful for his impact on our franchise.”
Cora said in a statement released by the team: “I do not want to be a distraction to the Red Sox as they move forward.
“My two years as manager were the best years of my life.”
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred had said on Monday that Cora “implicitly condoned” the Astros players’ conduct.
He said the MLB would withhold any disciplinary action against him until the completion of a separate investigation of allegations the Red Sox engaged in sign-stealing in 2018, when they won the World Series in Cora’s first year as manager.
Along with the suspensions of Hinch and Luhnow MLB also fined the Astros $5 million and took away the club’s first- and second-round draft picks in 2020 and 2021. — Reuters
Standhardinger credits BPC award to ‘working’ Batang Pier system
BIG MAN Christian Standhardinger won his first major individual award in the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) on Wednesday after being named the Best Player of the Conference (BPC) in the ongoing Governors’ Cup.
It is an accolade he is very proud of and something he largely credits to the system they have at Northport Batang Pier which allows himself and the rest of his teammates to thrive and contribute.
Acquired by Northport in a mid-tournament trade with the San Miguel Beermen for fellow big man Mo Tautuaa, Filipino-German Mr. Standhardinger did not waste much time making his presence felt and pushing the Batang Pier to be an instant contender.
In 11 games in the Governors’ Cup with Northport, the 2017 top overall rookie pick had averages of 22.7 points, 12.8 rebounds, 4.0 assists and 1.4 steals.
They finished as the eighth seeds at the end of the elimination round but went all the way to the semifinals, upsetting top seeds NLEX Road Warriors in the quarterfinals by negating a twice-to-win disadvantage.
Mr. Standhardinger, 30, said his role considerably changed after being shipped to Northport from powerhouse San Miguel but the transition was made easier as he got a lot of support from his teammates and coaching staff, apart from his family and friends. “I appreciate what my teammates have done to me at Northport. They put me in a great position to be able to do my thing. It was fun playing with them and fight with them,” said Mr. Standhardinger.
“It’s a team award more than anything else. I’m thankful to my coach at NorthPort (Pido Jarencio), and to my teammates that worked hard. I’m honored,” he added.
The 6’8” big man went on to say that while he is happy with the award, primary still for him is to achieve team success, something he hopes to be able to do with the Batang Pier.
Prior to being shipped to Northport, Mr. Standhardinger won two PBA titles with the Beermen.
“A championship is so much more than a personal award. Ten out of 10 times, I’d exchange it for one championship,” he said.
In winning the award, Mr. Standhardinger bested former teammate at San Miguel June Mar Fajardo, TNT’s Jayson Castro, Columbian’s CJ Perez and NLEX’s Kiefer Ravena.
Mr. Standhardinger got 1,011 points in the race ahead of Messrs. Fajardo (657), Castro (615), Perez (506) and Ravena (481).
Accounted for in the award are statistical points, media, player and PBA office votes.
Next for Mr. Standhardinger is a national team stint for the first window of the FIBA Asia Cup in February.
After a rough 2019, Eduard Folayang angles to start new year better in ONE Championship
By Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Senior Reporter
FILIPINO fighter Eduard “Landslide” Folayang begins 2020 with ONE Championship later this month as he is featured in the main card for “ONE: Fire & Fury” on Jan. 31 against Pakistani Ahmed “The Wolverine” Mujtaba.
It is a fight that the veteran mixed martial artist is viewing with much significance after a rough ride he had in his career last year.
Mr. Folayang (22-8), the former ONE world lightweight champion, seeks to begin the new year on a winning note, all in the hopes of having it set the tone for him as he makes another push to reclaim the title in his division.
Last year, 36-year-old Mr. Folayang went 1-2 in three fights, losing his first two fights against Shinya Aoki of Japan in March, where he lost his title, and to American Eddie Alvarez in August, before hacking out a win against Tsogookhuu Amarsana of Mongolia by way of technical decision in November.
The 2019 result he had, he said, left him greatly motivated heading into his upcoming fight.
“[The year] 2019 [was] an absolute roller-coaster ride for me. I started the year as champion but fell short of victory against Shinya [Aoki] in Tokyo. That’s a loss that I learned a lot from and it was a very tough experience to deal with,” Mr. Folayang said.
“After facing Eddie Alvarez of course, it was another learning experience for me,” he added.
In pushing for a turnaround, the Team Lakay stalwart said solid work has to be put in, something he has been mindful of doing as he prepares for Mr. Mujtaba (7-2).
“As a martial artist, I’m always learning and growing. I still feel like I’m at the top of my division, and I want to get back in contention in 2020. The lightweight division is one of the toughest in ONE Championship, and I want to reclaim the title again for my Filipino fans. I’m hungry as ever for victory. I will be back on top. It’s all about that mindset. With the help of God, I’ll be champion again,” said Mr. Folayang.
The Folayang-Mujtaba fight is part of ONE: Fire & Fury which is headlined by the world strawweight title fight between Joshua “The Passion” Pacio of the Philippines an Alex “Little Rock” Silva of Brazil.
Other Filipinos set to see action in the event are flyweight Danny Kingad, strawweight Lito Adiwang, and women atomweight fighters Gina Iniong and Jomary Torres.
Fire & Fury is to happen at the Mall of Asia Arena.