cfgaussian

This is hugely important and no-one is paying attention.

Philippines President Marcos Jr. just signed 2 new bills (the "Maritime Zones Act" and the "Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act"), backed by the U.S. State Department (via a press release by the infamous Matthew Miller: https://www.state.gov/on-the-philippines-maritime-zones-act/), that claim to implement "international law" but actually are a direct violation of international law in that they attempt to legitimize expansionist claims at the expense of virtually all its neighbors.

Let me explain

First, some context.

The Philippines exist as an independent country since 1946 when they gained their independence from the United States. They had never existed as a country before.

The establishment of the Philippines was officialized by the Treaty of Manilla.

Crucially, the Treaty of Manilla also defined Filipino territory as based on the earlier Treaty of Paris, when Spain ceded the Philippines to the US at the end of the Spanish-American War of 1898.

You can see these boundaries as defined in the treaty of Paris illustrated here As you can clearly see, these boundaries exclude all the contentious spots that are in dispute today: it excludes the Spratly Islands in their entirety (where the famous Second Thomas Shoal is located) and it excludes the Scarborough Shoal which is right outside the border.

So since when have the Philippines started to claim these features as part of its territory?

It basically started in 1972 when the Philippines government invented a new municipality called "Kalayaan" (which means "freedom") that comprises a very large portion of the Spratlys.

This new expansionism wasn't welcome in the region given that China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia all claim the Spratly islands either as a whole or in part...

Crucially, at the time, the US and the West in general did NOT recognize the legitimacy of the Philippines' claim over "Kalayaan", treating the Spratly islands as a disputed area (which it is).

For proof, see this fascinating memo from NSA Brent Scowcroft to President Ford, where the US explicitly states that "as disputed areas, the Spratlys and the Reed Bank can be defined as territory to which the [mutual defense] treaty would not apply."

https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1804052947690754255

Or see this recent 2020 "note verbale" to the UN by Britain, France and Germany in which they write they “take no position” over the “disputed territorial sovereignty to naturally formed land features [...] in the South China Sea” (https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mys_12_12_2019/2020_09_16_DEU_NV_UN_001.pdf)

Long context, sorry, but this is important, because these 2 new bills signed by Marcos Jr. completely change this status quo.

Let's look at what these new bills actually do, because it's quite clever - and extremely concerning.

The Maritime Zones Act (legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata…) does something unprecedented: it declares that "The high-tide features covered by the Kalayaan Island Group in the West Philippine Sea shall have a territorial sea of twelve (12) nautical miles."

This might sound technical, but it's actually a major legal maneuver, because under UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), only sovereign territory can generate territorial seas (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm)

So by declaring territorial seas around these features, the Philippines is essentially claiming sovereignty through the back door.

And here's where it gets really interesting: UNCLOS explicitly does NOT deal with sovereignty disputes.

The famous 2016 UNCLOS arbitration tribunal specifically states this (https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/479-introduction-to-international-comparative-law-fall-2016/resources/14.1-in-the-matter-of-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-philippines-v-china-excerpts/):

"This Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal."

Did you see what the Philippines did there? Marcos said his new laws were made for the purpose of "aligning our domestic laws with international law, specifically UNCLOS" (pna.gov.ph/articles/1237378) and indeed the Maritime Zones Act references UNCLOS no less than 26 times!

BUT...

But it actually makes a very cynical mockery of UNCLOS, using it - a convention that explicitly doesn't deal with sovereignty - to actually claim sovereignty over disputed territories.

And it gets worse with the second bill, the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act (https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/4404440513!.pdf).

This act allows the Philippines to designate and control sea lanes through what it now claims as its "archipelagic waters" - which conveniently include these disputed areas.

Think about what this means: first you claim sovereignty through the Maritime Zones Act, then you regulate navigation through "your" waters with the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act.

It's a two-step process to establish de facto control over disputed territories.

Let's look at the actual situation in the Spratlys today to understand why this is so problematic:

• Vietnam currently occupies 21 islets and reefs
• the Philippines itself occupies 10
• Malaysia has 7
• China also has 7
• The ROC holds the largest island in the archipelago

Instead of working through these complex overlapping claims via multilateral negotiations, these new bills try to bypass the whole process by simply declaring these disputed areas as Philippine territory through domestic law, then regulating access to them as if they were uncontested Philippine waters.

This was China's first reaction to the new bill (https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/wjbxw/202411/t20241108_11523786.html) stating that it "seriously violates UNCLOS and substantially impairs the integrity and authority of UNCLOS" (true) and "seriously violates the DOC", the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea which is the multilateral negotiations between the SCS claimants that aims to find a solution to the disputes.

Frankly none of this would be a huge deal - just another unilateral move by crazy Marcos - if he didn't have U.S. official backing, a complete reversal from their historical position.

The same United States that, ironically, hasn't even ratified UNCLOS itself!

We've gone - as we saw earlier - from the U.S. explicitly stating these areas weren't covered by their mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, to now effectively endorsing expansionist claims that affect not just China, but also the ROC (Taiwan) and multiple ASEAN states.

In usual Matthew Miller Orwellian fashion, which we've seen on display wrt Gaza, he writes: "the US values Philippine leadership in upholding international law".

When as demonstrated earlier the acts are obviously an egregious and cynical violation of international law.

The question of course is whether it now means that the Spratlys - or "Kalayaan" - are now covered by the US-Philippines mutual defense treaty and whether this new set of legislation and the US's backing of it sets up the legal framework for this.

The US ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, recently gave a first sign of the change in the US position, stating that "all the rest of the world understands that and recognises that this is sovereign Filipino territory" (https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1773938209380307072) with reference to the Second Thomas Shoal and the Scarborough Shoal - a statement that is demonstrably false given that Britain, France and Germany's 2020 note verbale explicitly states they "take no position" on sovereignty claims in the area.

This fits into a broader and deeply concerning pattern we see in U.S. conduct generally - whether in Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, or now the South China Sea - where the U.S. systematically undermines diplomatic solutions in favor of escalation and confrontation.

In summary, we have the Philippines transforming relatively recent territorial claims into domestic law, not only bypassing international legal processes but actually misusing them.

They're cynically citing UNCLOS to do exactly what UNCLOS says it can't do: claim territory.

And more worryingly, the U.S. backing of these claims could set up a legal framework to extend defense commitments to disputed territories - creating the conditions for yet another potential military confrontation when it's the last thing the world needs right now...

The rise of Trump and Trumpism cannot be fully explained without first recognizing how, over the last two decades, American politics has been shaped by the rise of China.

Despite both parties preferring to deemphasize foreign policy in their campaigns, US foreign policy is the engine driving domestic policy. This is because modern US domestic politics is fundamentally a game of dividing up the plunder that foreign policy secures.

This plunder arrives in the form of persistent federal govt budget deficits which are maintained via the exorbitant privilege of the US dollar’s position as global reserve currency, an arrangement forced upon the rest of the globe in the ashes of the world wars of last century.

Since WW2, this unilateral global arrangement has been maintained through a mixture of brute force, monopoly control of global institutions, and a healthy dose of quid pro quo with its junior partners that comprise the western world.

In the same way that domestic politics is downstream of foreign policy, US elections are downstream of real disagreements amongst factions within the US bourgeoisie. The two political parties represent the diverging PR strategies by which empire is sold to the underclasses.

The increasing polarization of mainstream domestic politics can thus be attributed not to the rise of social media, “foreign interference”, or other facile explanations liberal pundits offer, but rather to a real divergence in imperial strategy given life by partisan jockeying.

Historically, the factions comprising this divide have been the domestic bourgeoisie+petit bourg. elements on one side and the financial/international bourg. on the other.

Until recently, the former was given political form by the GOP, the latter by the Dems.

But over the past year, the tech giants that account for a sizable portion of Dem party backing appeared to switch sides and coalesce their support behind Trump.

What caused this sudden shift?

In a word: China

For years, China represented both a massive labor and manu. hub for US outsourcing, and a massive consumer market for US-branded goods.

But recently–-accelerated by US tariffs and the pandemic–-Chinese-branded goods have begun out-competing those from the US.

As a result, Silicon Valley—which has historically seen their interests best served by Dem-led foreign policy—are now casting their lot with Trump and his more openly hostile stance toward China.

Musk’s open campaigning for Trump really only makes sense in light of his (correct) anticipation that China’s domestic manufacturers will rapidly overtake Tesla as the worldwide leader in EVs.

Thus, in just a few years, America’s tech giants have shifted from seeking to maintain China as a market and manufacturing hub, to finding themselves facing a formidable competitor. In this way, they are now in a similar position the US domestic bourg. faced decades prior.

With both major factions in US capital now under increasing threat of competition from the same source, capital is unified in backing the horse they believe has the winning strategy: open confrontation with China.

American liberals have largely failed to notice this sudden alignment of capital behind Trump because their lofty rhetoric serves only to obscure their own view of US imperial policy and are thus unable to understand the source of the apparent decay.

Liberals didn’t dislike Bush because he killed a million Iraqis, but because of the gaffs and embarrassment he brought to the office. He struck a blow at the heart of liberal identity, which is heavily tied to a perceived sense of respectability of US empire. Trump does the same.

But from the perspective of the rest of the world, the neoliberal era was the aberration.

Trump represents a return to an era of more honest US politics without the sneering veneer of respectability liberals value. An era of open hostility to secure naked self-interest.

Contrary to what frustrated liberal pundits will assert tomorrow, Americans as a whole aren't "dumb", which is often a lazy way of accusing groups of “voting against their own self-interest”. Trump voters are very aware of what they are getting with Trump.

Liberals may pull out their hair and point toward Trump’s unapologetic self-interest as proof of his unsuitability for the role.

But this self-interest is exactly what his voters ordered, and hope he will deliver.

It has been said that “liberalism is capitalism’s lying smile, fascism is capitalism’s honest fists”.

Americans have once again voted for the fists, and this time, it appears they have a majority of US capital behind them

An important reminder to us all by Caitlin Johnstone. Feel your feelings but don't let yourself be demoralized into inaction. I highly recommend that you read more of her articles if you find the time, she is really good.

First time i've stumbled onto this substack and i have to say this is a fairly comprehensive roundup of the latest news not just around the Ukraine conflict, though that is certainly the focus, but covering a lot of what's been happening in the world: conflict in the Middle East, US election clown show, BRICS summit, Moldova elections, etc. albeit once again from a conservative perspective (hence some cringe comments about "wokeness" halfway through the post, but they don't affect the piece much so i just ignore that sort of nonsense)

Only thing missing here is the latest news about the Georgia elections in which the Georgian Dream party apparently won an absolute majority, and in which of course, as was to be expected, the results are being outright denied by the "pro-western" (read: Washington and Brussels puppet) opposition. We're likely to see another attempt at a color revolution scenario very soon as this is their last chance to prevent a reconcilliation with Russia.

I'll try to find some good info/analysis to post on that but i can't guarantee it (i'd appreciate if someone has a good source to share). It usually takes a bit of time after an event like this for the dust to settle and we can understand more clearly what's actually going on without the heavy smokescreen of propaganda. Speaking of which, this "fog of war" is also the reason i haven't so far posted about the most recent Zionist attack on Iran, i'm not convinced that we have reliable enough information yet.

Unfortunately no English subtitles on this one but for German speakers this could be interesting, something to share with acquaintances who need to be deprogrammed out of mainstream media brainwashing re: Russia/China. I am so used to German political commentary being bottom of the barrel garbage that i was surprised to stumble onto this interview where for once a German program is presenting intelligent and realistic analysis.

From the video description:

"Stephan Ossenkopp is a freelance journalist and a proven expert on the BRICS alliance with a particular focus on China. He has already traveled to the country several times and, as deputy chairman of the Civil Rights Movement Solidarity (BüSo), advocates for stronger relations with China. On his blog “The Multipolar World” he regularly highlights the development of the BRICS alliance and the new member states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran, which have been strengthening the alliance since 2024.

In this interview we talk about the BRICS alliance as a growing counterpoint to the G7 and its role in a multipolar world order. We examine the question of how BRICS could change geopolitical and economic structures and to what extent the alliance can reorganize the global world order with its new financial and trade architecture."

I don't know much about this channel other than that the interviewer used to work for RT and has had a bunch of hit/smear pieces written about her by German media. Judging from the titles of some of the other videos on this channel it seems to be a mixed bag with some probably decent interviews, at least on the geopolitics and economics side, but also some that are almost certainly just reactionaries spewing culture war talking points.