Duterte’s Strategy: ‘A Total Genius!’

In a post written by Romeo Poquiz ‘The Duterte Strategy’, he exposed how Duterte a master strategist.

The Duterte Strategy

Now it can be told. Many still don’t get it. Duterte is a masterful tactician and strategist – all others pale in comparison.

Opening Strategy
Remember the non-filing of his candidacy after the deadline and later substitution, where everybody was in suspense until he delivered the coup de grace? If Ruy Lopez has a classic chess opening strategy, Duterte does not only have an opening but also middlegame and endgame strategies – the Duterte Strategy.

Middlegame Strategy
No money, no machinery? Think again. He uses his weakness as his strength. He is not known outside Mindanao and he needs billions for media exposure. Result? He got it for free.

He pokes fun and sometimes ridicule, double-talks, uses sarcasm, hyperbole, pun and other figures of speech. Cursing is one of his weaknesses but why do people get more excited everytime he curses? He uses feints and subterfuges and lures and traps the enemy. Trillanes was a victim – largely due to his own viciousness, hubris and stupidity. Roxas, in a desperate move, joined in the fray. Both of them – CHECKMATE!

Secret bank accounts? Oh, come on! They are not secret – they are in listed in Duterte’s own name, which anybody can check, as what Trillanes had done, naturally. Hidden wealth? Oh my! With his daughter as a joint depositor in the account, which makes her an automatic candidate herself for criminal prosecution? They are both lawyers and they are not that stupid. If Duterte had those wealth, he should have stashed them elsewhere under a fictitious name or have spent them already since he is already old with only a few years left. Besides, he needs a pair of quality shoes.

Ask the people in Davao why they are very passionate in defending him. I myself will not be very stupid enough to defend him if the allegations of his opponents are true. If he has no track record to back him up, I would have been a goner a long time ago. Again, refer to Exhibit Number 1 – DAVAO CITY. Example: He donated his own house in Davao City as a hospital for children cancer patients.

Endgame Strategy
The casting of votes will be in 7 days. HE IS WAY UP IN THE TILLS, with his opponents desperately clinging together and using the might of their combined forces and resources to bring him down. NO WAY will they succeed!

Their only hope? CHEATING, of course! Will Duterte be worried? Hell, NO! In fact, Cheating will lead to a revolution (without bloodshed, I pray). A revolutionary government ( unlike that of Cory Aquino) will fast track the Change required of this country.

Remember: Duterte had no Money and Machinery. The millions of his supporters, even very poor ones, spent their own money and used all their available means to campaign for Duterte. They waited long hours under the searing heat of the sun, without food and water, even until past midnight just to hear him speak. These supporters who all invested so much cannot accept to be cheated and will treat cheaters unkindly with all they got.

The people are his machinery. If you missed going to any of his campaign sorties, you will not understand. His supporters do not only have fires in their bellies – they have blazes burning in their hearts.

On election day, Duterte will be in a faraway beach, topless with a leg up on a table, sipping coffee and reading a magazine while waiting for the events he planned to unfold. He will not do and say anything as things unfold. The people will bring him there.

[Source Romeo Poquiz Facebook]

 

DUTERTE: A LUNATIC PRESIDENT OR A GENIUS STRATEGIST?

Duterte’s expletives against the US, the EU and the UN have made his tongue the center of the universe where global media has given much focus on, eagerly awaiting for the next blurt of swearing against the West.

Being called a boon or a bane, he couldn’t care less because he is doing this intentionally and for a hell of good reasons. America cannot afford to lose Philippines as an important ally in the Asia Pacific due to its strategic location in complementing the presence of Japan (another US ally) to neutralize the expansionist behavior of Beijing, particularly in the militarization of the south china sea which is important to the west.

Getting rid of the Philippines in the equation of the region’s balance of power will cripple America’s commercial, political and military grip in the Asia Pacific, thereby paving the way for China’s control with the backing of Russia. The west cannot afford such a scenario happening.
On the other hand, China’s expansionist policy is being hampered by Philippines claim over part of the south china sea (or West Philippine sea). Aside from going into war as an option, diplomatic negotiation between the two is warranted.

But being an ally of Russia, China will never negotiate with the Philippines if the latter remains under the influence of America.

Duterte wants to use this unique position to get the best terms of alliances from both sides of the fence, hence, the need for an independent foreign policy for the country. But having existed under the shadow of Uncle Sam for nearly a century now, Duterte needs to erase that stigma of being the puppet of America in the South East Asian region.

Doing so is such a gargantuan task as US has been used to having Philippine Presidents of their choice which has kept their control and influence over our affairs unabated since our independence. As the anti-thesis (re Philo on Dialectical Materialism) to the existing order (thesis), Duterte has to destroy the whole gamut of influence and control America has in our socio-political affairs and he has to do it brutally with precision and speed (synthesis).

No, Duterte never plans to leave America as an ally. He just wants the terms of alliance to be reviewed and be mutually agreed upon between two co-equal states for which we can never expect America to oblige itself given its continued treatment to our country as its vassal which hugely depends on their aids and trading relations.

They think, without America, Philippines will not survive, a proposition shared by their Filipino cohorts who continue to salivate on that beautiful ass of Uncle Sam.
And such mind set is best exemplified on the concerted move to replace him as manifested on the attacks and criticisms Duterte is getting from the US government, European Union and the UN in collaboration with their local minions to discredit him locally using EJKs as a camouflage.
These foreign attacks however proved useful to Duterte when he capitalized them in sending his strong revolting message across the globe.

By calling Obama “son-of-a bitch”; “he can go to hell”; “America as hypocrites” “Fuck you, EU and UN”; Bank Ki Moon of UN is fool”, he has actually brought US and the two international bodies to a showdown before the eyes of the world as you can see in the international broadsheets and other global media outlets.

Who do you think blinked first?

In foreign relations, the gravity of insult issued by Duterte against the head of the world’s most powerful state could have resulted to an outright severing of diplomatic ties. Our ambassador in Washington DC could have been declared persona-non-grata and sent home.

But amidst Duterte’s pronouncements including that of reviewing the legality of EDCA and ending the RP-US Military Exercises as response to the US attacks on his drug war policy, in a pacifying statement, the US Pentagon Spokesman Pater Cook says, “We will continue to work closely with the government of the Philippines to address any concerns they may have.”
America bas therefore read the real message of Duterte beyond the harsh rhetoric. With this development, Philippines can now bring US to a negotiating table to agree on new terms of alliance that is mutually beneficial between the two co-equal states.

In the same manner, China and Russia will now look at the Philippines as an independent state capable of negotiating on terms of diplomatic ties on its own sans the shadow of the America.
We all know that China is a bully country based on our experience with them in our own backyard (re China’s 9-dash line claim in south china sea). But China bullied us only because we allied ourselves with America and hence, both Russia and China look at Philippines as a threat to their interest.

If war between the West and Russia erupts, we will be the first to be pulverized by China. And hell yeah, America will watch our annihilation from the distance. What is awkward in our current position is that US bullied us too despite our being in alliance with them. (dutertenewsdaily.com)

 

DON’T BE DECEIVED by DUTERTE’S VOLATILITY

Others thought, the statements of President Duterte is because of ANGER AND OUTBURST OF EMOTION.

BUT in fact, ALL are CALCULATED, AND DECIDED.

THE STRATEGIST: RODRIGO DUTERTE HAS ACHIEVED A STRANGE FEAT IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

ASPI - Graeme Dobell

October 10, 2016

Rodrigo Duterte is a maddening maverick who’s achieved a weird feat in the South China Sea (SCS)—delivering benefits to both China and the United States. His swing towards China offers Beijing all sorts of goodies, from the possibility of a bilateral deal in the SCS to a chance to unbalance the US rebalance.

The Duterte benefit to the US is momentary and may soon be outweighed by serious damage to the alliance. Still, at this bend in the river, Duterte has given Washington one big gift—the SCS crisis that didn’t happen. The new Philippines president changed the immediate tone of the SCS argument at an otherwise dangerous moment. Sometimes the mad and bad throw up unusual chances.

As China and America ponder the shifts and shouting coming from the new president, they have a common dilemma, well encapsulated by The Economist’s judgement: “Mr Duterte is not just crass and brutal; he is alarmingly volatile.” But volatility has its uses as well as dangers in international relations. And the mercurial Duterte has certainly shaken up the SCS issue.

The fresh opening he offers China creates an important pause in a dangerous chain of events. The volatile president met a volatile moment in the SCS and actually brought the temperature down. Many feared China’s reaction after its humiliation by The Hague Tribunal. Beaten by Manila on nearly every argument, the worry was that China might lash out by beating up the Philippines—perhaps building a new base on Scarborough Shoal, seized by China in 2012 after a standoff with the Philippines Navy.

As Bonnie Glaser observed at the time of the Arbitral Tribunal ruling: “Xi Jinping has lost face here, and it will be difficult for China to do nothing. I expect a very tough reaction from China, since it has lost on almost every point.” The South China Morning Post speculated that Scarborough reclamation work could begin after China’s G20 summit concluded on 5 September, but before the US presidential election in November.

In March, President Obama reportedly drew a red line around Scarborough, warning President Xi of serious consequences if China started to build another base. Perhaps Obama’s red line worked. Or perhaps Beijing decided not to test a lame duck president during an extraordinary US election campaign. Or maybe Beijing opted to turn the other cheek to the humiliation and loss of face delivered by the Tribunal. Or Duterte’s arrival is possibly the game-changer Beijing’s after. Why not give the maverick a try?

The immediate benefit for Obama is that no red line was crossed. The president who tends to blanch and go pink when other red lines are broken can, instead, head calmly to the finish line. No need for Obama to confront China in the SCS in the last moments of his watch. Indeed, if China had started a new great-wall-of-sand island creation project, would the US have stood with Duterte in either word or deed? Imagine Washington risking war with China on behalf of a Philippines leader who promises to “break up with America” and tells Obama to “go to hell.”

Obama can accept the fleeting Duterte benefit—that confrontation with China hasn’t (yet) happened—and head for the door. President Hillary can have the task of wrangling with the maverick who could wreck the alliance. If it’s President Donald, he’ll happily say ‘go to hell too’ and declare the alliance a bankrupt business. Such a business-like response from Trump would be apt, because Duterte has a lot of business he wants to do with China.

An excellent interpretation has been offered by an Oz Asia hand, Mack Williams, who was Ambassador to Manila from 1989 to 1994 during the last alliance bust up, when the Philippines was booting the US Navy from Subic Bay.

Williams explains the Duterte plan in language far more reasonable than the president seems to manage. He lists the key factors that’ll influence the way Duterte handles the SCS dispute and, especially, China:

– the Philippines is all too aware that any military confrontation would be catastrophic for them—especially if the US were to use it as a base

– it wasn’t Duterte who launched the international arbitration case and he’s keen to handle its outcome with extreme caution

– the Philippines is more concerned about fishing rights and oil and gas potential in the disputed area than it is about international navigation

– the Philippines–China relationship is also longstanding and complex, with local Chinese dominant in business—often camouflaged by non-Chinese names.

Duterte sees much that he wants in China; the feeling is mutual. China has been deeply frustrated that it can’t translate economic might into clear strategic gains in Southeast Asia. The island creation splurge can be read as an expression of rage and frustration as much as an assertion of power: We’re big and strong and the top dog around here, but we can’t get no respect!

Duterte offers China tantalising prospects: the bilateral deal it has always sought in the SCS and a weakening of the US alliance structure. At last, Beijing would be getting the sort of shift it wants—using the power of money to create strategic power. (AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE )

CHINA’S 9-DASH LINE CLAIM IN SOUTH CHINA SEA OR OTHER KNOWN AS WEST PHILIPPINE SEA

At the heart of the South China Sea dispute is the “nine-dash line”, Beijing’s claim that encircles as much as 90 per cent of the ­contested waters. The line runs as far as 2,000km from the Chinese mainland to within a few hundred kilometres of the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. Beijing maintains it owns any land or features ­contained within the line, which confers vaguely defined “historical maritime rights”.

Arbitral tribunal’s ruling

In January 2013, the Philippines formally initiated arbitration proceedings against China’s territorial claim on the “nine-dash line”, which it said is unlawful under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention. China however refused to participate in the arbitration. A arbitration tribunal was constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS and it was decided in July 2013 that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) would function as registry in the proceedings.

On 12 July 2016, the five arbitrators of the tribunal agreed unanimously with the Philippines. They concluded in the award that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources, hence there was “no legal basis for China to claim historic rights” over the nine-dash line. The tribunal also judged that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights and caused “severe harm to the coral reef environment”. China however rejected the ruling, calling it “ill-founded”; the Chinese President Xi Jinping said that “China’s territorial sovereignty and marine rights in the South China Sea will not be affected by the so-called Philippines South China Sea ruling in any way”, but China was still “committed to resolving disputes” with its neighbours.Taiwan, which currently administers Taiping Islandwhich is the largest of the Spratly Islands, also rejected the ruling. (wikipedia)

WHAT IS NINE-DASH LINE

The nine-dash line (Chinese: 九段线; pinyin: jiǔduàn xiàn; literally: “nine-segment line”), and at various times also referred to as the “10-dash line” and the “11-dash line”, refers to the demarcation line used initially by the government of the Republic of China (ROC / Taiwan) and subsequently also by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), for their claims of the major part of the South China Sea. The contested area in the South China Sea includes the Paracel Islands,the Spratly Islands,various other areas including the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. The claim encompasses the area of Chinese land reclamation known as the “great wall of sand“. 

WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THE LINE?

It appeared on a Chinese map as an 11-dash line in 1947 as the then Republic of China’s navy took control of some islands in the South China Sea that had been ­occupied by Japan during the second world war. After the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 and Kuomintang forces fled to Taiwan, the communist government declared itself the sole ­legitimate representative of China and inherited all the nation’s maritime claims in the region.

An early map showing a U-shaped eleven-dash line was published in the then Republic of China on 1 December 1947.Two of the dashes were removed in the early 1950s at the behest of Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, reducing the total to nine,to bypass the Gulf of Tonkin as a gesture to communist comrades in North Vietnam. Subsequent editions added a dash to the other end of the line, extending it into the East China Sea.

Beijing intensified its hold in the northern part of the waters in the mid-1970s when it expelled the South Vietnamese navy from the Paracel Islands after a clash that saw dozens killed.

Seven out of about 200 reefs in the Spratly Islands came under Chinese control in the 1980s and 1990s and Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Taiwan still maintains its maritime claims in the region and has kept a military garrison on Pratas Islands and the largest ­natural feature in the Spratlys, ­Taiping.

Despite having made the vague claim public in 1947, China has not (as of 2016) filed a formal and specifically defined claim to the area within the dashes. China added a tenth-dash line to the east of Taiwan island in 2013 as a part of its official sovereignty claim to the disputed territories in the South China Sea.

On 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled that China has no legal basis to claim “historic rights” within its nine-dash line in a case brought by the Philippines. The tribunal judged that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources within the nine-dash line. The ruling was rejected by the Chinese government.

WHY HAS CHINA NINE DASH LINE CREATED SO MUCH TENSION IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (WEST PHILIPPINE SEA)?

The line serves as the basis of China’s claim to “historical rights” in the region, as neither Beijing nor Taipei ever held effective control over the entire region encompassing more than 2 million sq km. Other claimants such as the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei root their claim in geographical proximity, while Vietnam, which occupies the largest number of islands and reefs in the Spratlys, at 29, stresses it actively administers the area. The Philippines is challenging the legality of the line at the international tribunal under UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

According to the treaty, a nation has sovereignty over waters extending 12 nautical miles from its land and exclusive control over economic activities 200 nautical miles out. Beijing maintains it has historical evidence proving its control of territory further out to sea.

Beijing argues the nine-dash line emerged in the new world ­order after the second world war and came well before the 1982 Unclos. Beijing says China accepted the Japanese surrender and reclaimed the region with legal backing and the authorisation of the Allies. Other claimants in the region and the US expressed no objections at the time, it argues.

What is Beijing’s strategy with the nine-dash line?

Beijing is a signatory to Unclos, but it has intentionally never ­defined the legal meaning of the nine-dash line or what its “rights” are within the boundary. This ambiguity has led to the idea among many ordinary Chinese people that it marks the nation’s maritime boundary, but again, Beijing has never made this explicit.

Others say it encircles the area where China demands economic rights. Another interpretation is the line marks the islands and reefs China wants to control rather than the waters inside its boundaries. ­Beijing has long favoured a strategy of ambiguity. It does not openly go against international law, but prefers to leave space for its more ambitious claims.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE TRIBUNAL RULES AGAINST CHINA? 

The consensus among legal experts is that the court is unlikely to rule specifically on the nine-dash line. The court has said earlier it will not offer a judgment on territorial disputes, but there is a small chance it may rule on whether there is a legal basis for the line under the UN convention. If it rules against China, the government may face increased international pressure to clarify its position on the line’s legal justification. But what is virtually certain is China will not remove the line from its maps, especially given growing nationalism.

On 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled that China has no legal basis to claim “historic rights” within its nine-dash line in a case brought by the Philippines. The tribunal judged that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources within the nine-dash line. The ruling was rejected by the Chinese government.

Beijing has also repeatedly said it will ignore any rulings by the tribunal. Taiwan has said it stands by its position that all South China Sea islands are its territory. The island’s leader, Tsai Ing-wen, has not mentioned the nine or 11-dash line and has emphasised it will adhere to international law. If she were to give up the nine-dash line claims following the ruling, cross-strait relations would likely be further strained.

SOURCES:

wikipedia

South China Morning Post

 

A Diplomatic Genius and Not a Psychopath

[Just on time, President Rodrigo “Digong” Roa Duterte advocated for Neutrality and established his intentions to galvanize Philippine diplomatic ties with Asian/ASEAN Nations including Russia. Asian Amity and Brotherhood with the People’s Republic of China is a genius strategy to evade being caught on a crossfire in her possible involvement in the impending War between the United States of America and Russia; a diplomatic ingenuity indeed.] -Dr. Delmar Topinio Taclibon, MBA, PhD.D.A.

“Diplomacy is the art of telling people to GO to HELL in such a way that they ask for directions.” – Winston Churchill, U.K. Prime Minister during World War II and recipient of the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature

“To SAY NOTHING, especially when speaking, is half the art of diplomacy.” – Will Durant, author, philosopher and historian

Salient Principles of the Art of War by Sun Tzu

1.“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

2. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

3. “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

4. “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

5. “Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

6. “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”

7. “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

8. “If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”

9. “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity”

10. “Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”

11. “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”

12 “There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”

13. “Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.”

14. “The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.”

15. “Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain.”

16. “Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.”

17. “When the enemy is relaxed, make them toil. When full, starve them. When settled, make them move.”

18. “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”

19. “There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.

There are not more than five primary colours, yet in combination
they produce more hues than can ever been seen.

There are not more than five cardinal tastes, yet combinations of
them yield more flavours than can ever be tasted.”

20. “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”

21. “To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

22. “who wishes to fight must first count the cost”

23. “One may know how to conquer without being able to do it. ”

24. “Be extremely subtle even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.”

25. “What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.”

26. “He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.”

27. “Rouse him, and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots.”

28. “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.”

29. “Thus the expert in battle moves the enemy, and is not moved by him.”

30. “Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.
But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.”

Datuk Delmar Nur Faramarz Ferdowsi Salah Ad-Din.Topinio Taclibon, Bt., DKR, KRSS, BSCE, MBA, PhD.D.A.