OUTLINE
Background:
President Hugo Chávez announced a measure to nationalize wholesale gasoline distribution in Venezuela—despite the lobbying of British Petroleum, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, whose local subsidiaries currently control the business. Under the measure, which received initial approval in the National Assembly Aug. 27, the state company PDVSA will control Venezuela's fuel distribution network, although privately owned gas stations will not be nationalized. Dominated by Chávez allies, the National Assembly is expected to give its final approval to the legislation soon. (http://ww4report.com/node/5962)
Many countries are considering the need to nationalize oil distribution.
Pros
1. To secure fuel supply and to solve oil crisis.
2. Prices could be lower if oil is traded between governments and not through private companies. “Service contracts for supplying oil usually involve private companies. And these companies profit from it. (Carmelito Tatlonghari, a climate change expert and former Energy Program Manager of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) )
3. Oil giants are a clear and present danger to democracy and need to be put under state control. In an era of oil scarcity we no longer have the luxury of allowing a handful of corporate plutocrats to decide the fate of the global economy. (MIKE WHITNEY)
Cons
1. Legislation could cause fuel shortages, because the government is not prepared to take full control over distribution.
2. We’d be creating a false foundation for the economy. In effect, we’d be subsidizing petroleum use; the artificially low price would encourage more consumption at a time when conservation is necessary. (Jay Bookman)
3. In economic terms, it would send a false price signal. You simply can’t run the world’s biggest economy on heavily subsidized energy. Not for long, anyway. (Jay Bookman)
Showing posts with label ISSUE: Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISSUE: Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Chief Justice Puno: Freedom of the press is a 'touchstone of democracy'
Speech about freedom of the press. Good reference for moot court competitions.
----
Speech delivered by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno during the International Conference on Impunity and Press Freedom on February 27, 2008
We are here now to strengthen democracy, especially one of its touchstones – the freedom of the press.
It is a noble thing that we set out to do, but is also one which is difficult to accomplish. Thus, it is important that before we begin with our endeavor, we must first ensure that we all understand fully who "We" are, where "here" is, why we are here "now," and what "democracy" is basically all about.
It is a dangerous time for those who report the truth. From 1992 to 2008, 679 journalists have been killed worldwide. The Philippines has the 5th highest number of incidents where journalists have been murdered. Since 2001, 70 journalists have been killed in the line of duty on Philippine soil. Of the cases filed as a result of these killings, only one has been resolved, 6 are undergoing trial, 18 are under investigation, 4 have been dismissed, and 4 are pending prosecution.
"We" are persons who can do something that will have a profound impact in defense of freedom of the press. "We" are the advocates, experts, journalists, and jurists coming from all over the world who share the same concern over the rampant human rights violations around us. I emphasize that it is "We" who can do something, because we can better effect change not in our individual stations, but as a group working together.
"Here" is a conference organized by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance with the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility aimed at three objectives: first, to contribute to ongoing multisectoral efforts, as well as national, regional, and international campaigns, to fight impunity in the Philippines by finding, discussing, and generating insights and models for enhancing the rule of law, free expression, and human rights in general; second, to bridge Philippine campaigns on impunity with similar efforts around the world; and third, to raise public awareness about impunity and its effect in the Philippines on both the freedom of the press and of expression. "Here" is a forum for us to work together as a group.
"We" are "here" because of the urgency of "now." It is the culture of impunity that encourages attacks on journalists. Unless and until we do something to submerge this pernicious culture, these attacks will continue to litter our collective consciousness with corpses of people who are bearers of truth.
"Democracy" is all about the voice of the people. It is, as John Stuart Mill defines it, "government by discussion." Imperative to discussion are the cognate freedoms of information, of expression, and of the press. Hence, no less than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assures that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." The freedom of the press rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public; that a free press is a condition of a free society.
Democracy in this country is under siege because bullets fired at the direction of journalists pierce not only human flesh, but also our republican ideals. In their Joint Declaration regarding International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression identify two threats to freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas, which have now reached crisis proportions in many parts of the world: first, dubbed censorship by killing, are attacks on journalists and others exercising their right to freedom of expression; and second, is the abuse of restrictive defamation and libel laws. In the same declaration, each State was reminded of its obligation to take adequate measures to end the climate of impunity. Such measures should include devoting sufficient resources and attention to preventing attacks on journalists and others exercising their right to freedom of expression, investigating such attacks when they do occur, bringing those responsible to justice, and compensating victims.
Let not our knees wobble. These two challenges, censorship by murders and the restraint of libel laws, have been with us since time immemorial. Legal historians trace the roots of freedom of expression in Athens, Greece as far back as 800-600 B.C. Even then, expressive freedom was given only to select "citizens" which did not include women, resident aliens and juveniles. The Athenian majority was not accorded the expressive freedom by their aristocratic rulers.
During the Roman time, freedom of expression was likewise severely restricted by the ruling class. The Caesars controlled the distribution of news to the people. Without exception, they smothered dissent against their government. They hounded their critics to their graves.
So it was in England. Here the struggle to eliminate censorship took more than 500 years. The Crown of England was just as intolerant of criticisms. The 1274 De Scandalis Magmatum presaged the beginnings of seditious libel law. The edict proscribed political dissent. From the early 1500s, through the Puritan Revolution, until the 17th century, printing was regulated by the Crown and the restrictions were implemented through the church. Scribes tell us that it was during Henry VIII's reign that royal measures were enacted to censor alleged heretical materials. Thus, there was a special law to restrict the distribution of William Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament. The law states:
“There shall be no annotations or preambles in Bibles or New Testaments in English. The Bible shall not be read in English in any church. No women or artificers, prentices, journeymen, servingmen of the degree of yeomen or under, husbandmen, nor labourers, shall read the New Testament in English… anything contrary to the King's instructions… shall be thereof convict… his first offense recant, for his second abjure and bearer a fagot, and for his third shall be adjudged a heretic, and be burned. (Neal 1885)"
The English Court of Star Chamber, a secret tribunal, was an instrument of censorship. It meted out such punishments as levying unlimited fines, imprisonments, the pillory, flogging, mutilation and branding. In 1630 for instance, a certain Alexander Leighten published "An Appeal to Parliament" in which he urged the superiority of the Scriptures over the monarchy. On orders of the Star Chamber, Leighten was taken to Westminster and was "whipped, had one of his ears cut off, his nose slit and one side of his face branded." A week later, the mutilation was repeated on the other side of his face. In 1641, the Star Chamber was dissolved due to its surfeit of excesses. In fine, history tells us that no amount of mutilation, no amount of murders of truth tellers will kill freedom of press.
The second threat to freedom of the press is abuse of defamation and libel laws. The origins of defamation date back to Greece. As aforestated, it was in Athens, Greece that certain types of "citizens" were given freedom of expression. But even then, these "citizens" were made answerable for slander and sedition. This restriction was carried on in Roman times and got embedded in English common law. Early English defamation laws were of a different kind. Under early English common law, the truthfulness of a statement is not a defense. Hence, a truthful criticism of the Crown could result in a severe penalty. English law recognized four types of libel: (1) blasphemous libel, which is any speech that denied the existence of God or ridiculed any Christian doctrine; (2) seditious libel or criticism of the government, its leaders or policies; (3) obscene libel, which is the forerunner of obscurity laws; and (4) private libel, which is speech that injured the reputation of another person. Again, history teaches us that the misuse and abuse of libel laws against media practitioners through the ages did not stamp out the flame of freedom of the press, and it never will.
At this point, let me share with you our humble efforts to strengthen democracy in our country by enhancing human rights and giving more flesh to the freedom of the press. On the area of human rights, our High Court has promulgated the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data. It is interesting to note that the provenance of both the Rule on Writ of Amparo and the Rule on Habeas Data is a forum much like this one. The National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances, held last July 16-17, 2007 addressed also the culture of impunity that stalks our country.
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo which protects the victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances took effect last October 24, 2007. In the Supreme Court alone, a total of 14 writs of Amparo have already been issued out of 18 petitions that prayed for the writ. Out of these 14 cases, 5 have already been decided by the Court of Appeals from October 2007 to present.
On the other hand, the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data took effect last February 2, 2008. This Rule is an independent remedy to enforce the right to informational privacy and the complementary "right to truth." It is also as an additional remedy to protect an individual's civil rights. This writ is available "to any person whose right to privacy in life, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party." Reliefs include the "deletion, destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data or information."
Just a month old, no writ of habeas data has been issued yet. It is an excellent human rights tool used mostly in countries recovering from military dictatorships. It enforces the right to truth, which is the bedrock of the rule of law. Observers say that with the promulgation of these two writs, the number of victims of extrajudicial and enforced disappearances had declined. Perhaps it is too early to rejoice over their deterrent effect. This fight for human rights is one fight full of commas and no period; a fight where you never write "30."
On the second area (i.e., protecting freedom of the press), the High Court, through Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, issued Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases. In this Circular, the High Court directed judges to determine whether the imposition of a fine alone in libel cases would best serve the interest of justice. The High Court cited cases where it refused to incarcerate those accused of libel but instead penalized them with the payment of fine. Somehow, this Circular has caused Congress to fast track debate on bills decriminalizing libel. I respectfully suggest that Congress should also look into the idea of putting a cap on civil liability for libel of media people. It is not only the threat of imprisonment that handcuffs media. The punches of poverty coming from threats of unlimited civil liability can also convert some of their backbones into mere wishbones. Just a few days ago or on February 15, 2008, we decided the case of Chavez v. The Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission (G.R. No. 188338). We struck as unconstitutional prior restraints the warnings issued by the respondent public officials that media people will be prosecuted if they air the controversial wiretapped conversation between the sitting President and a Commissioner of the COMELEC allegedly revealing fraud in the 2004 national elections.
Let me submit that attempts to curtail freedom of the press all over the world will never end. We should never weary in protection. I end by emphasizing just one particular value promoted by freedom of the press – the search for truth. I can do no better than quoting the explanation of First Amendment scholar Thomas Emerson:
xxx A central value of free and open debate is the discovery of truth and knowledge through the free trade of ideas. In language that is reminiscent of John Milton's Areopagitica and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, Emerson stated,
an individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to opposition, and make full use of different minds. Discussion must be kept open no matter how certainly true an accepted opinion may be; many of the most widely acknowledged truths have turned out to be erroneous. (Emerson 1970, 6-7)
The idea that free expression is central to discovering truth is not just discussed in philosophical tomes of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It appears in Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's 1919 dissent in Abrams, in which he passionately stated, "[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas --- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the marketplace" (Abrams v. United States [1919] 630). It also appears in Justice Louis D. Brandeis's 1927 concurring opinion on Whitney, in which he referred to the Founding Fathers and how "they believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and the spread of political truth" (Whitney v. California [1927] 374). Brandeis added, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" (Cornwell, Freedom of the Press, pp. 4-5).
Today, our society is bedeviled by the enforced disappearances of some votaries of democracy, especially media practitioners. An enforced silence on these enforced disappearances cannot but give impetus to its growing culture of impunity. It is this enforced silence that we ought to break for if there is anything that democracy can ill afford it is the sovereignty of the deaf and the dumb. It is speech and speech-plus that will dissipate the darkness that today hovers over the heads of the Filipino people. Speech is the function of the press. Speech-plus is the action of the sovereign people. Let them converge for they will lead us to the doorstep of truth.
A pleasant day to all.
----
Speech delivered by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno during the International Conference on Impunity and Press Freedom on February 27, 2008
We are here now to strengthen democracy, especially one of its touchstones – the freedom of the press.
It is a noble thing that we set out to do, but is also one which is difficult to accomplish. Thus, it is important that before we begin with our endeavor, we must first ensure that we all understand fully who "We" are, where "here" is, why we are here "now," and what "democracy" is basically all about.
It is a dangerous time for those who report the truth. From 1992 to 2008, 679 journalists have been killed worldwide. The Philippines has the 5th highest number of incidents where journalists have been murdered. Since 2001, 70 journalists have been killed in the line of duty on Philippine soil. Of the cases filed as a result of these killings, only one has been resolved, 6 are undergoing trial, 18 are under investigation, 4 have been dismissed, and 4 are pending prosecution.
"We" are persons who can do something that will have a profound impact in defense of freedom of the press. "We" are the advocates, experts, journalists, and jurists coming from all over the world who share the same concern over the rampant human rights violations around us. I emphasize that it is "We" who can do something, because we can better effect change not in our individual stations, but as a group working together.
"Here" is a conference organized by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance with the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility aimed at three objectives: first, to contribute to ongoing multisectoral efforts, as well as national, regional, and international campaigns, to fight impunity in the Philippines by finding, discussing, and generating insights and models for enhancing the rule of law, free expression, and human rights in general; second, to bridge Philippine campaigns on impunity with similar efforts around the world; and third, to raise public awareness about impunity and its effect in the Philippines on both the freedom of the press and of expression. "Here" is a forum for us to work together as a group.
"We" are "here" because of the urgency of "now." It is the culture of impunity that encourages attacks on journalists. Unless and until we do something to submerge this pernicious culture, these attacks will continue to litter our collective consciousness with corpses of people who are bearers of truth.
"Democracy" is all about the voice of the people. It is, as John Stuart Mill defines it, "government by discussion." Imperative to discussion are the cognate freedoms of information, of expression, and of the press. Hence, no less than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assures that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." The freedom of the press rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public; that a free press is a condition of a free society.
Democracy in this country is under siege because bullets fired at the direction of journalists pierce not only human flesh, but also our republican ideals. In their Joint Declaration regarding International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression identify two threats to freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas, which have now reached crisis proportions in many parts of the world: first, dubbed censorship by killing, are attacks on journalists and others exercising their right to freedom of expression; and second, is the abuse of restrictive defamation and libel laws. In the same declaration, each State was reminded of its obligation to take adequate measures to end the climate of impunity. Such measures should include devoting sufficient resources and attention to preventing attacks on journalists and others exercising their right to freedom of expression, investigating such attacks when they do occur, bringing those responsible to justice, and compensating victims.
Let not our knees wobble. These two challenges, censorship by murders and the restraint of libel laws, have been with us since time immemorial. Legal historians trace the roots of freedom of expression in Athens, Greece as far back as 800-600 B.C. Even then, expressive freedom was given only to select "citizens" which did not include women, resident aliens and juveniles. The Athenian majority was not accorded the expressive freedom by their aristocratic rulers.
During the Roman time, freedom of expression was likewise severely restricted by the ruling class. The Caesars controlled the distribution of news to the people. Without exception, they smothered dissent against their government. They hounded their critics to their graves.
So it was in England. Here the struggle to eliminate censorship took more than 500 years. The Crown of England was just as intolerant of criticisms. The 1274 De Scandalis Magmatum presaged the beginnings of seditious libel law. The edict proscribed political dissent. From the early 1500s, through the Puritan Revolution, until the 17th century, printing was regulated by the Crown and the restrictions were implemented through the church. Scribes tell us that it was during Henry VIII's reign that royal measures were enacted to censor alleged heretical materials. Thus, there was a special law to restrict the distribution of William Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament. The law states:
“There shall be no annotations or preambles in Bibles or New Testaments in English. The Bible shall not be read in English in any church. No women or artificers, prentices, journeymen, servingmen of the degree of yeomen or under, husbandmen, nor labourers, shall read the New Testament in English… anything contrary to the King's instructions… shall be thereof convict… his first offense recant, for his second abjure and bearer a fagot, and for his third shall be adjudged a heretic, and be burned. (Neal 1885)"
The English Court of Star Chamber, a secret tribunal, was an instrument of censorship. It meted out such punishments as levying unlimited fines, imprisonments, the pillory, flogging, mutilation and branding. In 1630 for instance, a certain Alexander Leighten published "An Appeal to Parliament" in which he urged the superiority of the Scriptures over the monarchy. On orders of the Star Chamber, Leighten was taken to Westminster and was "whipped, had one of his ears cut off, his nose slit and one side of his face branded." A week later, the mutilation was repeated on the other side of his face. In 1641, the Star Chamber was dissolved due to its surfeit of excesses. In fine, history tells us that no amount of mutilation, no amount of murders of truth tellers will kill freedom of press.
The second threat to freedom of the press is abuse of defamation and libel laws. The origins of defamation date back to Greece. As aforestated, it was in Athens, Greece that certain types of "citizens" were given freedom of expression. But even then, these "citizens" were made answerable for slander and sedition. This restriction was carried on in Roman times and got embedded in English common law. Early English defamation laws were of a different kind. Under early English common law, the truthfulness of a statement is not a defense. Hence, a truthful criticism of the Crown could result in a severe penalty. English law recognized four types of libel: (1) blasphemous libel, which is any speech that denied the existence of God or ridiculed any Christian doctrine; (2) seditious libel or criticism of the government, its leaders or policies; (3) obscene libel, which is the forerunner of obscurity laws; and (4) private libel, which is speech that injured the reputation of another person. Again, history teaches us that the misuse and abuse of libel laws against media practitioners through the ages did not stamp out the flame of freedom of the press, and it never will.
At this point, let me share with you our humble efforts to strengthen democracy in our country by enhancing human rights and giving more flesh to the freedom of the press. On the area of human rights, our High Court has promulgated the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data. It is interesting to note that the provenance of both the Rule on Writ of Amparo and the Rule on Habeas Data is a forum much like this one. The National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances, held last July 16-17, 2007 addressed also the culture of impunity that stalks our country.
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo which protects the victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances took effect last October 24, 2007. In the Supreme Court alone, a total of 14 writs of Amparo have already been issued out of 18 petitions that prayed for the writ. Out of these 14 cases, 5 have already been decided by the Court of Appeals from October 2007 to present.
On the other hand, the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data took effect last February 2, 2008. This Rule is an independent remedy to enforce the right to informational privacy and the complementary "right to truth." It is also as an additional remedy to protect an individual's civil rights. This writ is available "to any person whose right to privacy in life, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party." Reliefs include the "deletion, destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data or information."
Just a month old, no writ of habeas data has been issued yet. It is an excellent human rights tool used mostly in countries recovering from military dictatorships. It enforces the right to truth, which is the bedrock of the rule of law. Observers say that with the promulgation of these two writs, the number of victims of extrajudicial and enforced disappearances had declined. Perhaps it is too early to rejoice over their deterrent effect. This fight for human rights is one fight full of commas and no period; a fight where you never write "30."
On the second area (i.e., protecting freedom of the press), the High Court, through Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, issued Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases. In this Circular, the High Court directed judges to determine whether the imposition of a fine alone in libel cases would best serve the interest of justice. The High Court cited cases where it refused to incarcerate those accused of libel but instead penalized them with the payment of fine. Somehow, this Circular has caused Congress to fast track debate on bills decriminalizing libel. I respectfully suggest that Congress should also look into the idea of putting a cap on civil liability for libel of media people. It is not only the threat of imprisonment that handcuffs media. The punches of poverty coming from threats of unlimited civil liability can also convert some of their backbones into mere wishbones. Just a few days ago or on February 15, 2008, we decided the case of Chavez v. The Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission (G.R. No. 188338). We struck as unconstitutional prior restraints the warnings issued by the respondent public officials that media people will be prosecuted if they air the controversial wiretapped conversation between the sitting President and a Commissioner of the COMELEC allegedly revealing fraud in the 2004 national elections.
Let me submit that attempts to curtail freedom of the press all over the world will never end. We should never weary in protection. I end by emphasizing just one particular value promoted by freedom of the press – the search for truth. I can do no better than quoting the explanation of First Amendment scholar Thomas Emerson:
xxx A central value of free and open debate is the discovery of truth and knowledge through the free trade of ideas. In language that is reminiscent of John Milton's Areopagitica and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, Emerson stated,
an individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to opposition, and make full use of different minds. Discussion must be kept open no matter how certainly true an accepted opinion may be; many of the most widely acknowledged truths have turned out to be erroneous. (Emerson 1970, 6-7)
The idea that free expression is central to discovering truth is not just discussed in philosophical tomes of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It appears in Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's 1919 dissent in Abrams, in which he passionately stated, "[T]he ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas --- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the marketplace" (Abrams v. United States [1919] 630). It also appears in Justice Louis D. Brandeis's 1927 concurring opinion on Whitney, in which he referred to the Founding Fathers and how "they believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and the spread of political truth" (Whitney v. California [1927] 374). Brandeis added, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" (Cornwell, Freedom of the Press, pp. 4-5).
Today, our society is bedeviled by the enforced disappearances of some votaries of democracy, especially media practitioners. An enforced silence on these enforced disappearances cannot but give impetus to its growing culture of impunity. It is this enforced silence that we ought to break for if there is anything that democracy can ill afford it is the sovereignty of the deaf and the dumb. It is speech and speech-plus that will dissipate the darkness that today hovers over the heads of the Filipino people. Speech is the function of the press. Speech-plus is the action of the sovereign people. Let them converge for they will lead us to the doorstep of truth.
A pleasant day to all.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
OUTLINE: That this house would expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council
Background:
Four nations that aspire to permanent seats on the Security Council — Japan, Germany, Brazil and India — are preparing a resolution to change the U.N. charter to expand the council. Under this plan, the number of permanent members would increase from five to 11, including two African countries that have not yet been named. The number of rotating elected seats would rise from 10 to 14. The draft also proposes that the new permanent members have the same veto power as the five current permanent members. (Maggie Farley, UN Divided over Proposal to Expand Security Council, May 13, 2005 )
Pros:
1. To reflect more accurately the realities of the international community, which has experienced dramatic change over the past 60 years, and to bring about improvement in the representation of the Member States. (Permanent Mission of Japan to the U.N.)
2. In order to adequately address the wide range of today ’ s challenges, the composition of the Security Council must be reformed to permit Member States with the requisite capabilities to participate continuously in the Council’s decision-making process. (Permanent Mission of Japan to the U.N.)
3. Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community. Any package for restructuring of the Security Council should, therefore, be broad-based. In particular, adequate presence of developing countries is needed in the Security Council. Nations of the world must feel that their stakes in global peace and prosperity are factored into the UN's decision making. ("India's position on UN Reform Process", India's Permanent Mission to UN)
Cons:
1. Regional disputes persist. North Korea and South Korea dislike the idea of a permanent seat for Japan. The United States opposes Germany's bid for a permanent seat. Within Africa, a fight between South Africa and Nigeria, which represent the continent's two largest economies, has emerged over which nation should get a seat. And though India is a natural choice for a permanent seat since it is home to a fifth of the world's population, its nuclear rival Pakistan opposes its inclusion. (Kristina Nwazota, U.N. Member States Torn Over Security Council Expansion, Online NewsHour).
2. An expanded Security Council could find it more difficult to garner support and act quickly in times of crisis. (Maggie Farley, Mexico, Canada Introduce Third Plan to Expand Security Council, July 22, 2005 ) More countries on the Security Council would mean a greater divergence of goals and thus more gridlock. (Cowin, Andrew J., Expanding The U.N. Security Council: A Reciepe for More Somalias, More Gridlock, and Less Democracy)
3. The present five permanent members already place a great burden on the Council. Eleven permanent members would add to this burden. Their presence would block future reform and make limitation or outright elimination of permanency far more difficult. (Africa Week Magazine)
Four nations that aspire to permanent seats on the Security Council — Japan, Germany, Brazil and India — are preparing a resolution to change the U.N. charter to expand the council. Under this plan, the number of permanent members would increase from five to 11, including two African countries that have not yet been named. The number of rotating elected seats would rise from 10 to 14. The draft also proposes that the new permanent members have the same veto power as the five current permanent members. (Maggie Farley, UN Divided over Proposal to Expand Security Council, May 13, 2005 )
Pros:
1. To reflect more accurately the realities of the international community, which has experienced dramatic change over the past 60 years, and to bring about improvement in the representation of the Member States. (Permanent Mission of Japan to the U.N.)
2. In order to adequately address the wide range of today ’ s challenges, the composition of the Security Council must be reformed to permit Member States with the requisite capabilities to participate continuously in the Council’s decision-making process. (Permanent Mission of Japan to the U.N.)
3. Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community. Any package for restructuring of the Security Council should, therefore, be broad-based. In particular, adequate presence of developing countries is needed in the Security Council. Nations of the world must feel that their stakes in global peace and prosperity are factored into the UN's decision making. ("India's position on UN Reform Process", India's Permanent Mission to UN)
Cons:
1. Regional disputes persist. North Korea and South Korea dislike the idea of a permanent seat for Japan. The United States opposes Germany's bid for a permanent seat. Within Africa, a fight between South Africa and Nigeria, which represent the continent's two largest economies, has emerged over which nation should get a seat. And though India is a natural choice for a permanent seat since it is home to a fifth of the world's population, its nuclear rival Pakistan opposes its inclusion. (Kristina Nwazota, U.N. Member States Torn Over Security Council Expansion, Online NewsHour).
2. An expanded Security Council could find it more difficult to garner support and act quickly in times of crisis. (Maggie Farley, Mexico, Canada Introduce Third Plan to Expand Security Council, July 22, 2005 ) More countries on the Security Council would mean a greater divergence of goals and thus more gridlock. (Cowin, Andrew J., Expanding The U.N. Security Council: A Reciepe for More Somalias, More Gridlock, and Less Democracy)
3. The present five permanent members already place a great burden on the Council. Eleven permanent members would add to this burden. Their presence would block future reform and make limitation or outright elimination of permanency far more difficult. (Africa Week Magazine)
RP-China agreements probed for legal, constitutional infirmities
Committee News: house of Representatives of the Philippines
* A Publication of the Committee Affairs Department
Committee Source: AGRICULTURE & FOOD
LAWMAKERS representing the marginalized sectors of society were one in urging Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the various lease and agribusiness agreements recently entered into by the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.
Fighting to uphold and protect the national interest in general and the rights of the small farmers in particular, Party List Representatives Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquiel (AKBAYAN), Crispin Beltran (ANAKPAWIS), Satur Ocampo and Teodoro Casiño (BAYAN MUNA), and Liza Largoza-Maza and Luzviminda Ilagan (GABRIELA) filed House Resolutions 79, 224 and 237, respectively.
Upon receipt of the measures, the Committee on Agriculture and Food, together with the Committee on Agrarian Reform, under the leadership of Rep. Abraham Kahlil Mitra (2nd District, Palawan) and Rep. Elias Bulut Jr. (Lone District, Apayao) respectively, started its inquiry into the alleged anomalous bilateral agreements made between the Philippine government through the Departments of Agriculture (DA), Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and China and some private Chinese corporations.
The authors of the resolutions expressed concern on the contracts’ serious implications on food security, economic stability and the over-all national sovereignty of the country.
They also found the agreements wanting for “transparency” and “reciprocity” as they will only be beneficial to the interest of China to the detriment of the Filipino people.
These agreements, Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel presented, pose serious threat to the country’s agrarian reform program citing one contract which allowed the lease of one million hectares of land to a Chinese corporation for twenty five years without specifying the nature of these lands.
In addition, she said, the produce of these lands are to be exported to China “rendering our food supply vulnerable.”
As presented in Rep. Beltran’s HR 224, there were 31 Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) signed between the Philippine government and China and some private Chinese corporations. These will promote bilateral trade and development in agricultural, fisheries and food products according to the government.
Quoting a position paper of the Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services (IDEALS) Inc., HR 224 stated that the 31 RP-China agreements cover a broad range of obligations, which include questionable financial grants and concession loans, the removal of some protective barriers on trade, a 25-year lease of more than one million hectares of agricultural lands whose produce will be exported to China, and the utilization of lands for bio-fuel production intended for China’s consumption.
Arnel Mateo, who represented IDEALS during the hearing, expressed objection to the agreements. He noted that the lack of transparency, consultation and people’s participation are the reasons why these contracts are perceived as anomalous.
The lease of one million hectares of land to the Fuhua Co., Mateo said, will effectively disenfranchise farmers and farm workers tilling these lands which directly violate the principles of agrarian reform.
This contract, he added, is also in direct violation of the 1987 Constitutional provision on patrimony which stipulates that no foreign-owned corporations can lease agricultural lands of the public domain exceeding one thousand hectares.
The pertinent provision in the Constitution (Section 3, Article 12) reads “Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area.”
Mateo opined that this venture should only serve as an interim measure to arrest poverty until such time that farmers have acquired the necessary skills to cultivate the lands on their own and not for 25 years.
Another point raised by IDEAL concerns the protection and conservation of the country’s marine resources as well as the livelihood of small fishers.
These agreements, Mateo read, “alter the policy framework of the government where land and marine resources are protected for Filipinos, domestic industries are nurtured, agrarian reform is of the highest order, and food security is primordial.”
Concealed from the
Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel also questioned the involvement of the three executive departments known as “DA-DAR-DENR Convergence” in the agreements.
She disclosed that the agencies involved concealed the contents of the agreements from the public in the guise of private contracts beyond the ambit of the Constitutional requirement of disclosure.
On the other hand, DA Undersecretary Bernie Fondevilla stated that the agency is willing to cancel all the agreements it entered into if verified unconstitutional.
He added that the concerns raised will not fall on deaf ears but will be tackled in a consultative meeting with their Chinese counterparts this month.
Not listed in SEC
Suspicions of corruption arose when three of the seven local corporations involved in the RP-China agreement were not found under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) listing of registered companies or corporations, observed Rep. Teofisto Guingona III (2nd District, Bukidnon).
The corporations named were the B.M. SB Integrated Biofuels Company, the Negros Southern Integrated Biofuels Company, and the Philippine Marine Technology Group Inc.
The Chair questioned the legality of the said corporations’ creation and incorporation two months after the signing of the MOA.
Upon learning that grains produced on Philippine soil will be exported to China, Rep. Justin Marc Chipeco (2nd District, Laguna) proposed that the particular MOA be revised so that part of the produce will remain in the country for consumption by the Filipinos.
Rep. Pryde Henry Teves (3rd District, Negros Oriental) suggested that the government adopt China’s rice production technology as well as the method of planting known as “Alturas” which is being practiced by Chinese folks in Bohol.
The Committee decided to continue the investigation at a later date.
* A Publication of the Committee Affairs Department
Committee Source: AGRICULTURE & FOOD
LAWMAKERS representing the marginalized sectors of society were one in urging Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the various lease and agribusiness agreements recently entered into by the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.
Fighting to uphold and protect the national interest in general and the rights of the small farmers in particular, Party List Representatives Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquiel (AKBAYAN), Crispin Beltran (ANAKPAWIS), Satur Ocampo and Teodoro Casiño (BAYAN MUNA), and Liza Largoza-Maza and Luzviminda Ilagan (GABRIELA) filed House Resolutions 79, 224 and 237, respectively.
Upon receipt of the measures, the Committee on Agriculture and Food, together with the Committee on Agrarian Reform, under the leadership of Rep. Abraham Kahlil Mitra (2nd District, Palawan) and Rep. Elias Bulut Jr. (Lone District, Apayao) respectively, started its inquiry into the alleged anomalous bilateral agreements made between the Philippine government through the Departments of Agriculture (DA), Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and China and some private Chinese corporations.
The authors of the resolutions expressed concern on the contracts’ serious implications on food security, economic stability and the over-all national sovereignty of the country.
They also found the agreements wanting for “transparency” and “reciprocity” as they will only be beneficial to the interest of China to the detriment of the Filipino people.
These agreements, Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel presented, pose serious threat to the country’s agrarian reform program citing one contract which allowed the lease of one million hectares of land to a Chinese corporation for twenty five years without specifying the nature of these lands.
In addition, she said, the produce of these lands are to be exported to China “rendering our food supply vulnerable.”
As presented in Rep. Beltran’s HR 224, there were 31 Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) signed between the Philippine government and China and some private Chinese corporations. These will promote bilateral trade and development in agricultural, fisheries and food products according to the government.
Quoting a position paper of the Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services (IDEALS) Inc., HR 224 stated that the 31 RP-China agreements cover a broad range of obligations, which include questionable financial grants and concession loans, the removal of some protective barriers on trade, a 25-year lease of more than one million hectares of agricultural lands whose produce will be exported to China, and the utilization of lands for bio-fuel production intended for China’s consumption.
Arnel Mateo, who represented IDEALS during the hearing, expressed objection to the agreements. He noted that the lack of transparency, consultation and people’s participation are the reasons why these contracts are perceived as anomalous.
The lease of one million hectares of land to the Fuhua Co., Mateo said, will effectively disenfranchise farmers and farm workers tilling these lands which directly violate the principles of agrarian reform.
This contract, he added, is also in direct violation of the 1987 Constitutional provision on patrimony which stipulates that no foreign-owned corporations can lease agricultural lands of the public domain exceeding one thousand hectares.
The pertinent provision in the Constitution (Section 3, Article 12) reads “Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area.”
Mateo opined that this venture should only serve as an interim measure to arrest poverty until such time that farmers have acquired the necessary skills to cultivate the lands on their own and not for 25 years.
Another point raised by IDEAL concerns the protection and conservation of the country’s marine resources as well as the livelihood of small fishers.
These agreements, Mateo read, “alter the policy framework of the government where land and marine resources are protected for Filipinos, domestic industries are nurtured, agrarian reform is of the highest order, and food security is primordial.”
Concealed from the
Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel also questioned the involvement of the three executive departments known as “DA-DAR-DENR Convergence” in the agreements.
She disclosed that the agencies involved concealed the contents of the agreements from the public in the guise of private contracts beyond the ambit of the Constitutional requirement of disclosure.
On the other hand, DA Undersecretary Bernie Fondevilla stated that the agency is willing to cancel all the agreements it entered into if verified unconstitutional.
He added that the concerns raised will not fall on deaf ears but will be tackled in a consultative meeting with their Chinese counterparts this month.
Not listed in SEC
Suspicions of corruption arose when three of the seven local corporations involved in the RP-China agreement were not found under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) listing of registered companies or corporations, observed Rep. Teofisto Guingona III (2nd District, Bukidnon).
The corporations named were the B.M. SB Integrated Biofuels Company, the Negros Southern Integrated Biofuels Company, and the Philippine Marine Technology Group Inc.
The Chair questioned the legality of the said corporations’ creation and incorporation two months after the signing of the MOA.
Upon learning that grains produced on Philippine soil will be exported to China, Rep. Justin Marc Chipeco (2nd District, Laguna) proposed that the particular MOA be revised so that part of the produce will remain in the country for consumption by the Filipinos.
Rep. Pryde Henry Teves (3rd District, Negros Oriental) suggested that the government adopt China’s rice production technology as well as the method of planting known as “Alturas” which is being practiced by Chinese folks in Bohol.
The Committee decided to continue the investigation at a later date.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Heroes day: A day before my blog Anniversary
Last night, August 24, 2008, I had the occassion to watch ABS-CBN's 'BEYOND CONSPIRACY': 25 Years after Ninoy Aquino's Assasination. I was able to follow the analysis of how Ninoy's assasination was plotted all along. Ive seen the video of Ninoy's arrival on August 21, 1983 and how we was fetched by military personnels who were the ones in-charged of killing him. Ive observed how views were blocked to cover the incident on said date from any eye witnesse. And in the eyes of the Crying lady and other witnesses who paved their way to see who shot Ninoy, I felt bad and saddened by the fact that a Filipino who has the bravery to fight for the freedom of his country would have to be killed by his fellow Filipino. More importantly, Im saddend by the fact that many of us seemed to have forgotten what Ninoy and the rest of our National Heroes have done for us.
Today, August 25, 2008, a day before my blog anniversary, we are celebrating our National Heroes' Day. I would like to have this opportunity to thank them for fighting for our independence and freedom against colonial intruders and against the martial law rule. Without them, Philippines will not enjoy the blessings of self-determination and democracy that the country has right now. And without them, Filipinos would never enjoy the opportunity to exercise their freedom to life and liberty, and the freedom to express their opinions as regards issues affecting.
Jose Rizal fought the colonizers by attacking them in his brave writings in Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. Andres Bonifacio established the Katipunan to directly fight the regime of the colonizers. And Benigno 'Ninoy' Aquino fought against the Martial rule by exposing the corrupt leadership of Martial Law.
To my fellow Filipinos, have we live up responsibly in exercising the freedom that we have right now? Have we manage to continously fight against any threat to our freedom?
Let us remember the heroic efforts of our heroes. More than celebrating our birthdays or our personal anniversaries, let us spend our lives in worthy endeavors toward vigilant and responsible exercise of our freedom.
The Filipinos are worth dying for!
Today, August 25, 2008, a day before my blog anniversary, we are celebrating our National Heroes' Day. I would like to have this opportunity to thank them for fighting for our independence and freedom against colonial intruders and against the martial law rule. Without them, Philippines will not enjoy the blessings of self-determination and democracy that the country has right now. And without them, Filipinos would never enjoy the opportunity to exercise their freedom to life and liberty, and the freedom to express their opinions as regards issues affecting.
Jose Rizal fought the colonizers by attacking them in his brave writings in Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. Andres Bonifacio established the Katipunan to directly fight the regime of the colonizers. And Benigno 'Ninoy' Aquino fought against the Martial rule by exposing the corrupt leadership of Martial Law.
To my fellow Filipinos, have we live up responsibly in exercising the freedom that we have right now? Have we manage to continously fight against any threat to our freedom?
Let us remember the heroic efforts of our heroes. More than celebrating our birthdays or our personal anniversaries, let us spend our lives in worthy endeavors toward vigilant and responsible exercise of our freedom.
The Filipinos are worth dying for!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Should the Philippine Constitution be changed to bring peace to Mindanao?
OUTLINE:
NO.
The Constitution should not be changed to bring peace to Mindanao.
Not necessary and impractical.
1. The Constitution already provides autonomy to the Muslim through the ARMM and elements of federalism are already embedded therein.
2. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act already recognizes the right of the indigenous people to their ancestral domain and their right to self-determination.
3. We only need to strengthen our exiting laws. No need to change the Constitution which may lead to extension of terms of those who are already in power.
4. The creation of an additional layer of government—namely the state—will inevitably lead to higher levels of expenditures.
Not beneficial
1. No assurance of peace. We should learn from Pakistan which adopted a federal form of government, and yet, peace is not achieved in said country.
2. Premium for greater demand for an independent Muslim state.
3. Will trigger conflict. MILF is not serious about peace. They would continue to fight for an independent state.
NO.
The Constitution should not be changed to bring peace to Mindanao.
Not necessary and impractical.
1. The Constitution already provides autonomy to the Muslim through the ARMM and elements of federalism are already embedded therein.
2. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act already recognizes the right of the indigenous people to their ancestral domain and their right to self-determination.
3. We only need to strengthen our exiting laws. No need to change the Constitution which may lead to extension of terms of those who are already in power.
4. The creation of an additional layer of government—namely the state—will inevitably lead to higher levels of expenditures.
Not beneficial
1. No assurance of peace. We should learn from Pakistan which adopted a federal form of government, and yet, peace is not achieved in said country.
2. Premium for greater demand for an independent Muslim state.
3. Will trigger conflict. MILF is not serious about peace. They would continue to fight for an independent state.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
OUTLINE: Should church property in the Philippines be taxed?
NO
Taxation of church property is not necessary:
A. Present stastusqou already provides taxation and this is if elements of exemption under the Constitution are not present.
Article VI, Section 28(3)):
1. Lands, buildings and improvement;
2. Actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes.
A claim of exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception.
B. Jurisprudence proves that exemption from real property tax is not absolute.
1. When they lease their real property to private entities as these are not the actual, direct and exclusive used contemplated by law.. (Lung Center vs. QC, 433 SCRA 119)
2. Church is not exempted from excise taxes. (Lladoc vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 292)
3. organization is automatically exempt without first having to apply and demonstrate that the actual use of the property is within the limited purposes prescribed in the particular exemption statute. The fact that a property is being used for non-profit purposes will not merit an exemption unless the use is one specifically exempted by law. (Maryland)
3. In a 1997 case the Arkansas Court of Appeals said that ownership of the property by a church is not necessary to entitle it to an exemption; use is determinative of entitlement. The property must be used for church purposes. If the property is being used by the owner with a view toward profit it will not be exempt.
C. Loss of revenue is attributed to corruption, trade liberalization where Philippines allows trade in goods and services through elimination of tariffs, tax evasion and over expenditure.
Taxation of church property is not beneficial:
Taxation of church property is not necessary:
A. Present stastusqou already provides taxation and this is if elements of exemption under the Constitution are not present.
Article VI, Section 28(3)):
1. Lands, buildings and improvement;
2. Actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes.
A claim of exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception.
B. Jurisprudence proves that exemption from real property tax is not absolute.
1. When they lease their real property to private entities as these are not the actual, direct and exclusive used contemplated by law.. (Lung Center vs. QC, 433 SCRA 119)
2. Church is not exempted from excise taxes. (Lladoc vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 292)
3. organization is automatically exempt without first having to apply and demonstrate that the actual use of the property is within the limited purposes prescribed in the particular exemption statute. The fact that a property is being used for non-profit purposes will not merit an exemption unless the use is one specifically exempted by law. (Maryland)
3. In a 1997 case the Arkansas Court of Appeals said that ownership of the property by a church is not necessary to entitle it to an exemption; use is determinative of entitlement. The property must be used for church purposes. If the property is being used by the owner with a view toward profit it will not be exempt.
C. Loss of revenue is attributed to corruption, trade liberalization where Philippines allows trade in goods and services through elimination of tariffs, tax evasion and over expenditure.
Taxation of church property is not beneficial:
A. It will result to the Impairment of freedom of religion
Rule on freedom of religion:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) Exemption furthers this provision.
The Philippines adopt the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
2. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (1987 Constitution)
Taxing church property and income would destroy the free exercise of religion that the Bill of Rights seeks to protect. The old principle that the power to tax is the power to destroy is still valid. In regard to taxing door-to-door religious solicitation, the court held in Murdock v. Pennsylvania in 1943:
The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance.
The power to tax religious institutions must be construed as the power to limit the free exercise of religion. Levying property taxes upon churches would have the effect of closing the doors of thousands of small congregations that operate on a shoestring. Many downtown churches would be forced out by the property taxes on their valuable land, and their buildings would be replaced by high-rise office complexes.
It will severe the principle of cooperation between church and state. Church gives considerable assistance to the State in the improvement of the morality of the people and the care of the indigent and the handicapped (Essential governmental function). Taxation will make this assistance to the State burdensome due to the impediment of taxes that they otherwise would have to shoulder.
B. It will result to impairment of the separation between church and State.
By not taxing churches, the government is prevented from directly interfering with how churches operate. By the same token, those churches are also prevented from directly interfering with how the government operates in that they cannot endorse any political candidates, they cannot campaign on behalf of any candidates, and they cannot attack any political candidate. (Murdock v. Pennsylvania)
Taxation of church property is not practical:
A. Not only is exemption from property tax provided by the Real Property Tax code, it is the fundamental law of the land that grants the exemption.
Since taxation is the rule and exemption therefrom the exception, the exemption may thus be withdrawn at the pleasure of the taxing authority. The only exception to this rule is where the exemption was granted to private parties based on material consideration of a mutual nature, which then becomes contractual and is thus covered by the non-impairment claim of the Constitution. (Mactan Cebu International Airport vs. Marcos)
B. Since it is unconstitutional, the only way to do it is through revision of the Constitution. Revising the Constitution is not an option.
Our Constitution is a rigid one which can only be done through a difficult process.
The cost of revising the Constitution is very high.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Philippines "Down Under": Negotiating the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA
A number of treaties are now being negotiated by the government in its effort to promote trade liberalization. One of these is the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA) that is expected to be concluded by the end of the year. Surprisingly, different Non-government Organizations got said information not from Philippine agencies but from the information available in the websites of New Zealand and Australia.
We’ve learned that this agreement will be comprehensive in nature and it will cover liberalization of investment, government procurement, competition policy and trade facilitation which will result to an unfair agreement as it threatens to eliminate the remaining powerful tools the Philippines still have in order to protect and develop its own domestic industries. The negotiation also seeks to eliminate all forms of barriers to trade including preferences given to Filipinos. The agreement seeks to give access to Australian and New Zealand miners the right to explore, develop and utilize Philippine natural resources as the agreement seek to give national treatment to these two countries.
New Zealand and Australia are demanding no limitation on the schedule of trade in services. The services offers of New Zealand and Australia seek 100% ownership and control of foreign investment opportunities in the Philippines which is against the pertinent provisions of Philippine laws. No 100 % ownership and control is allowed under Philippines laws in advertising services, public utilities, practice of engineering, architecture and mining, the practice of law, accountancy, and environmental planning, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and education which are the services interests of the two foreign countries.
Question is, are consultations to domestic stakeholders being made by the government? How come that our government cannot provide said information about the negotiation if New Zealand and Australia can?
In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in AKBAYAN vs. Aquino in the disclosure of the JPEPA, the Supreme Court said that diplomatic negotiations are recognized as privilege in this jurisdiction. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
What will warrant a strong public interest to overcome the privileged status of diplomatic negotiations? Based from said decision, it can be viewed that strong public interests can be shown only by those whose functions involve the right to be involved in treaty-negotiation. If we will study our law, and based on the decision, it says that negotiation is the sole power of the President. If that is the case, will there ever be a situation that other people will be involved in treaty-negotiations?
In light of the negotiation of the AANZFTA, what will happen now to the people’s right to participate at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making? How do we build a strong showing of need that will overcome the privileged status of diplomatic negotiations? How do we do effective and reasonable participation during the negotiation of treaties such as the AANZFTA?
We’ve learned that this agreement will be comprehensive in nature and it will cover liberalization of investment, government procurement, competition policy and trade facilitation which will result to an unfair agreement as it threatens to eliminate the remaining powerful tools the Philippines still have in order to protect and develop its own domestic industries. The negotiation also seeks to eliminate all forms of barriers to trade including preferences given to Filipinos. The agreement seeks to give access to Australian and New Zealand miners the right to explore, develop and utilize Philippine natural resources as the agreement seek to give national treatment to these two countries.
New Zealand and Australia are demanding no limitation on the schedule of trade in services. The services offers of New Zealand and Australia seek 100% ownership and control of foreign investment opportunities in the Philippines which is against the pertinent provisions of Philippine laws. No 100 % ownership and control is allowed under Philippines laws in advertising services, public utilities, practice of engineering, architecture and mining, the practice of law, accountancy, and environmental planning, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and education which are the services interests of the two foreign countries.
Question is, are consultations to domestic stakeholders being made by the government? How come that our government cannot provide said information about the negotiation if New Zealand and Australia can?
In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in AKBAYAN vs. Aquino in the disclosure of the JPEPA, the Supreme Court said that diplomatic negotiations are recognized as privilege in this jurisdiction. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
What will warrant a strong public interest to overcome the privileged status of diplomatic negotiations? Based from said decision, it can be viewed that strong public interests can be shown only by those whose functions involve the right to be involved in treaty-negotiation. If we will study our law, and based on the decision, it says that negotiation is the sole power of the President. If that is the case, will there ever be a situation that other people will be involved in treaty-negotiations?
In light of the negotiation of the AANZFTA, what will happen now to the people’s right to participate at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making? How do we build a strong showing of need that will overcome the privileged status of diplomatic negotiations? How do we do effective and reasonable participation during the negotiation of treaties such as the AANZFTA?
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Executive Privilege in the Philippines
Executive Privilege
The power of the Government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress.”
The right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.”
It has encompassed claims of varying kinds. One variety of the privilege, is the state secrets privilege invoked by U.S. Presidents, beginning with Washington, on the ground that the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or diplomatic objectives. Another variety is the informer’s privilege, or the privilege of the Government not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of that law. Finally, a generic privilege for internal deliberations has been said to attach to intragovernmental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.
This privilege, based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, exempts the executive from disclosure requirements applicable to the ordinary citizen or organization where such exemption is necessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities involved in maintaining governmental operations, and extends not only to military and diplomatic secrets but also to documents integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive’ domestic decisional and policy making functions, that is, those documents reflecting the frank expression necessary in intra-governmental advisory and deliberative communications.
In this jurisdiction, the doctrine of executive privilege was recognized by this Court in Almonte v. Vasquez. Almonte used the term in reference to the same privilege subject of Nixon. It quoted the following portion of the Nixon decision which explains the basis for the privilege:
“The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondences, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution x x x ” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Almonte involved a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Ombudsman against the therein petitioners. It did not involve, as expressly stated in the decision, the right of the people to information. Nonetheless, the Court recognized that there are certain types of information which the government may withhold from the public, thus acknowledging, in substance if not in name, that executive privilege may be claimed against citizens’ demands for information.
In Chavez v. PCGG, the Court held that this jurisdiction recognizes the common law holding that there is a “governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters.” The same case held that closed-door Cabinet meetings are also a recognized limitation on the right to information.
In In Re: Sealed Case, the U.S. Court of Appeals delved deeper. It ruled that there are two (2) kinds of executive privilege; one is the presidential communications privilege and, the other is the deliberative process privilege. The former pertains to “communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.” The latter includes ‘advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”
The above cases, especially, Nixon, In Re Sealed Case and Judicial Watch, somehow provide the elements of presidential communications privilege, to wit:
1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.”
2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777. April 20, 2006
What remains to be valid provision of E.O 464?
In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress (Section 1).
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including (Section 2(a)):
Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002);
Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995;
Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998).
Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).
Q&A
1. For purposes of appearing before the Congress, when is consent of the President necessary? Only when the Congress exercises oversight functions.
2. May oversight functions be facilitated by compulsory process? Yes, if it is made in aid of legislation. In which case, Department heads may be compelled to appear.
3. Is there an instance when a Department Head may refuse to appear in inquiries in aid of legislation? Yes, if he informs the President that the information might be covered by executive privilege and the President invokes the same, he cannot be compelled to appear.
4. Who can invoke executive privilege? Only the President and its Executive Secretary
Neri vs. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
The revocation of E.O. 464 does not in any way diminish our concept of executive privilege. This is because this concept has Constitutional underpinnings occasionally interpreted only by this Court in various cases.
The Court is convinced that, indeed, the communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable power” of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. Second, the communications are “received” by a close advisor of the President. Under the “operational proximity” test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to conversations. Here, the record is bereft of any categorical explanation from respondent Committees to show a compelling or critical need for the answers to the three (3) questions in the enactment of a law. Instead, the questions veer more towards the exercise of the legislative oversight function under Section 22 of Article VI rather than Section 21 of the same Article.
AKBAYAN vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
Are trade offers and notes during negotiations privileged?
The privilege character of diplomatic negotiations has been recognized in this jurisdiction. In discussing valid limitations on the right to information, the Court in Chavez vs. PCGG held that “information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interests. In PMFF v. Manglapus, the Court stressed that secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom to access to information. An essential characteristic of diplomacy is its confidential nature. Further, the President is the sole organ of the nation in its negotiations with foreign countries. Into the field of negotiations the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress is in itself powerless to invade it.
Applying the principles in PMFF v. Manglapus, while the final text of JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential, the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published for historic confidentiality would govern the same.
The Court sees no reason in abandoning the doctrine in PMFF v. Manglapus there being a public policy supporting a privilege for diplomatic negotiations. In our jurisdiction, there is no counterpart of the Freedom to Information Act nor is there any statutory requirement for withholding information. Hence, Philippine Courts when assessing a claim for privilege for diplomatic negotiations are more free to focus directly on the issue of whether the privilege being claimed is indeed supported by public policy.
Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exceptions. It bears emphasis, however, that such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita holds, recognizing a type of information as privilege does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
There are at least two kinds of public interests that must be taken into account. One is the presumed public interest in favor of keeping the subject information confidential, which is the reason for the privilege in the first place, and the other is public interest in favor of disclosure, the existence of which must be shown by the party seeking the information.
Petitioners failed to present the strong and sufficient showing of need to overcome executive privilege. They failed to show that the information sought is critical to the performance of the functions of Congress, functions that do not include treaty-negotiation
The power of the Government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress.”
The right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.”
It has encompassed claims of varying kinds. One variety of the privilege, is the state secrets privilege invoked by U.S. Presidents, beginning with Washington, on the ground that the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or diplomatic objectives. Another variety is the informer’s privilege, or the privilege of the Government not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of that law. Finally, a generic privilege for internal deliberations has been said to attach to intragovernmental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.
This privilege, based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, exempts the executive from disclosure requirements applicable to the ordinary citizen or organization where such exemption is necessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities involved in maintaining governmental operations, and extends not only to military and diplomatic secrets but also to documents integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive’ domestic decisional and policy making functions, that is, those documents reflecting the frank expression necessary in intra-governmental advisory and deliberative communications.
In this jurisdiction, the doctrine of executive privilege was recognized by this Court in Almonte v. Vasquez. Almonte used the term in reference to the same privilege subject of Nixon. It quoted the following portion of the Nixon decision which explains the basis for the privilege:
“The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondences, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution x x x ” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Almonte involved a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Ombudsman against the therein petitioners. It did not involve, as expressly stated in the decision, the right of the people to information. Nonetheless, the Court recognized that there are certain types of information which the government may withhold from the public, thus acknowledging, in substance if not in name, that executive privilege may be claimed against citizens’ demands for information.
In Chavez v. PCGG, the Court held that this jurisdiction recognizes the common law holding that there is a “governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters.” The same case held that closed-door Cabinet meetings are also a recognized limitation on the right to information.
In In Re: Sealed Case, the U.S. Court of Appeals delved deeper. It ruled that there are two (2) kinds of executive privilege; one is the presidential communications privilege and, the other is the deliberative process privilege. The former pertains to “communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.” The latter includes ‘advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”
The above cases, especially, Nixon, In Re Sealed Case and Judicial Watch, somehow provide the elements of presidential communications privilege, to wit:
1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.”
2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777. April 20, 2006
What remains to be valid provision of E.O 464?
In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress (Section 1).
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive order, including (Section 2(a)):
Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002);
Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995;
Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998).
Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).
Q&A
1. For purposes of appearing before the Congress, when is consent of the President necessary? Only when the Congress exercises oversight functions.
2. May oversight functions be facilitated by compulsory process? Yes, if it is made in aid of legislation. In which case, Department heads may be compelled to appear.
3. Is there an instance when a Department Head may refuse to appear in inquiries in aid of legislation? Yes, if he informs the President that the information might be covered by executive privilege and the President invokes the same, he cannot be compelled to appear.
4. Who can invoke executive privilege? Only the President and its Executive Secretary
Neri vs. Senate, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
The revocation of E.O. 464 does not in any way diminish our concept of executive privilege. This is because this concept has Constitutional underpinnings occasionally interpreted only by this Court in various cases.
The Court is convinced that, indeed, the communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable power” of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. Second, the communications are “received” by a close advisor of the President. Under the “operational proximity” test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. And third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
Presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to conversations. Here, the record is bereft of any categorical explanation from respondent Committees to show a compelling or critical need for the answers to the three (3) questions in the enactment of a law. Instead, the questions veer more towards the exercise of the legislative oversight function under Section 22 of Article VI rather than Section 21 of the same Article.
AKBAYAN vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
Are trade offers and notes during negotiations privileged?
The privilege character of diplomatic negotiations has been recognized in this jurisdiction. In discussing valid limitations on the right to information, the Court in Chavez vs. PCGG held that “information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interests. In PMFF v. Manglapus, the Court stressed that secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom to access to information. An essential characteristic of diplomacy is its confidential nature. Further, the President is the sole organ of the nation in its negotiations with foreign countries. Into the field of negotiations the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress is in itself powerless to invade it.
Applying the principles in PMFF v. Manglapus, while the final text of JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential, the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published for historic confidentiality would govern the same.
The Court sees no reason in abandoning the doctrine in PMFF v. Manglapus there being a public policy supporting a privilege for diplomatic negotiations. In our jurisdiction, there is no counterpart of the Freedom to Information Act nor is there any statutory requirement for withholding information. Hence, Philippine Courts when assessing a claim for privilege for diplomatic negotiations are more free to focus directly on the issue of whether the privilege being claimed is indeed supported by public policy.
Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exceptions. It bears emphasis, however, that such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita holds, recognizing a type of information as privilege does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
There are at least two kinds of public interests that must be taken into account. One is the presumed public interest in favor of keeping the subject information confidential, which is the reason for the privilege in the first place, and the other is public interest in favor of disclosure, the existence of which must be shown by the party seeking the information.
Petitioners failed to present the strong and sufficient showing of need to overcome executive privilege. They failed to show that the information sought is critical to the performance of the functions of Congress, functions that do not include treaty-negotiation
Thursday, April 10, 2008
OUTLINE: Should Tibet be given Independence?
Background:
Beijing's rule in Tibet has been alarmed by series of protests coming from the Tibetan communities. These protests are brought about by the desire of the Tibetan to attain independence from China. Issues about self-determination, human rights and issues of economic sustainability are the concerns that were largely raised during the protests. The debate comes now if Tibet has the legal capacity to be independent.
Pros:
1. Tibet has the right to self-determination. The Himalayan region was an independent kingdom for many centuries, and that Chinese rule over Tibet has not been constant. For example, after a brief military conflict between China and Tibet in the early part of the 20th Century, Tibet declared itself an independent republic in 1912.
2. Independence will ensure peace andsecurity in Tibet. China's rule in Beijing is characterized by human rights violations. Widespread mistreatment of the Tibetan population and a denial of religious and political freedom.
3. Tibet can govern itself. People of Tibet recognizes the authority and mandate of the Dalai Lama in leading region's autonomy.
4. China is taking advantage of Tibet's economy. Work and trade is dominated by the Hans leaving the Tibetan in a disadvantageous position.
Cons:
1. Tibet is part of China's Territorial Jurisdiction. Tibet has officially been part of the Chinese nation since the mid-13th Century, so should continue to be ruled by Beijing. China sent troops to Tibet in 1950 and summoned a Tibetan delegation the following year to sign a treaty ceding sovereignty to China.
2. Tibet cannot protect itself from foreign elements. Beijing plays up the foreign threat. Beijing has raised the specter of Tibetan suicide squads organized by the "Dalai Lama clique" attacking the Olympics.
3. Tibet is not ready to be an independent State. The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet after a failed uprising in 1959 but remains the religious and cultural leader of many Tibetans, has said that he wants greater autonomy for the remote mountain region but is not seeking independence.
4. China knows what's best for Tibet. The Communist Party is like a parent to the Tibetan people and is always considerate about what the children need. Hans have poured in the money to Tibet's economy.
References:
1. BBC News, Q&A: China and Tibet
2. International Herald Tribune, US lawmakers criticize China for Tibet crackdown, urge negotiations with Dalai Lama, April 9, 2008
3. Philip Bowring, Bowring: Beware an angry China, April 8, 2008, iht.com
Beijing's rule in Tibet has been alarmed by series of protests coming from the Tibetan communities. These protests are brought about by the desire of the Tibetan to attain independence from China. Issues about self-determination, human rights and issues of economic sustainability are the concerns that were largely raised during the protests. The debate comes now if Tibet has the legal capacity to be independent.
Pros:
1. Tibet has the right to self-determination. The Himalayan region was an independent kingdom for many centuries, and that Chinese rule over Tibet has not been constant. For example, after a brief military conflict between China and Tibet in the early part of the 20th Century, Tibet declared itself an independent republic in 1912.
2. Independence will ensure peace andsecurity in Tibet. China's rule in Beijing is characterized by human rights violations. Widespread mistreatment of the Tibetan population and a denial of religious and political freedom.
3. Tibet can govern itself. People of Tibet recognizes the authority and mandate of the Dalai Lama in leading region's autonomy.
4. China is taking advantage of Tibet's economy. Work and trade is dominated by the Hans leaving the Tibetan in a disadvantageous position.
Cons:
1. Tibet is part of China's Territorial Jurisdiction. Tibet has officially been part of the Chinese nation since the mid-13th Century, so should continue to be ruled by Beijing. China sent troops to Tibet in 1950 and summoned a Tibetan delegation the following year to sign a treaty ceding sovereignty to China.
2. Tibet cannot protect itself from foreign elements. Beijing plays up the foreign threat. Beijing has raised the specter of Tibetan suicide squads organized by the "Dalai Lama clique" attacking the Olympics.
3. Tibet is not ready to be an independent State. The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet after a failed uprising in 1959 but remains the religious and cultural leader of many Tibetans, has said that he wants greater autonomy for the remote mountain region but is not seeking independence.
4. China knows what's best for Tibet. The Communist Party is like a parent to the Tibetan people and is always considerate about what the children need. Hans have poured in the money to Tibet's economy.
References:
1. BBC News, Q&A: China and Tibet
2. International Herald Tribune, US lawmakers criticize China for Tibet crackdown, urge negotiations with Dalai Lama, April 9, 2008
3. Philip Bowring, Bowring: Beware an angry China, April 8, 2008, iht.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
