Bush is wrong: Iraq is not Vietnam ; Hungary 50th Anniversary ; Labour's plans for faith school --Telegraph.co.uk

Thursday, October 19, 2006


Has Iraq become the new Vietnam?


Posted at: 11:01


President George W Bush has conceded for the first time that there are parallels between the fighting in Iraq and the beginning of the end of the Vietnam War.

Amid a steep spike in US deaths in Iraq, Mr Bush recognised comparisons between the current bloodshed and the 1968 Tet Offensive, considered a key turning point in the US war in Vietnam.

Do you agree that Iraq has become a second Vietnam – an unwinnable, costly and politically damaging conflict? If so, do you agree that the current situation is equivalent to the Tet Offensive, or does it echo an earlier or later stage of the Vietnam War?

Why do you think Mr Bush has chosen this moment to acknowledge the comparison for the first time?



What are the implications of his comments?





*** John Keegan: Bush is wrong - Iraq is not Vietnam ***





Bush is wrong: Iraq is not Vietnam

By John Keegan

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 20/10/2006




Your view: Has Iraq become the new Vietnam?

President Bush has for the first time conceded a similarity between events in Iraq and those in Vietnam 40 years ago. Asked in a television interview on Wednesday if he now saw a similarity between the recent escalation of American losses in Iraq and those suffered in the Tet offensive of 1968, he admitted that the rise of casualties in the past weeks had given ground for making a comparison. The President's admission will probably trigger a feeding frenzy in the American media, which has been seeking to equate Iraq with Vietnam ever since the insurgency started to inflict significant casualties.

It has to be said, however, that the President's admission will come as a surprise to those with long historical memories. Indeed, it is a surprise that the President allowed himself to be drawn. I recently had the opportunity to discuss Iraq with the President in the Oval Office at an intimate meeting with a small group of historians.

Mr Bush then — early September — did not want to discuss Iraq, but larger issues of the culture clash between radical Islam and the Christian West. Indeed, he has been ill-advised to rise to the bait. Many of those who took sides over Vietnam are still alive and active, still animated by the passions that transfixed the American people in the 1960s. His admission can do nothing but harm, certainly to him and to his administration, but also to the US forces in general and to the servicemen in Iraq in particular.

A large part of the reason for that is the lack of comparability between Iraq and Vietnam. Anyone familiar with both situations will be struck by the dissimilarities, particularly of scale and in the nature of the enemy.

By January 1968, total American casualties in Vietnam — killed, wounded and missing — had reached 80,000 and climbing. Eventually deaths in combat and from other causes would exceed 50,000, of which 36,000 were killed in action. Casualties in Iraq are nowhere near those figures. In a bad week in Vietnam, the US could suffer 2,000 casualties. Since 2003, American forces in Iraq have never suffered as many as 500 casualties a month. The number of casualties inflicted in Iraq are not established, but are under 50,000. In any year of the Vietnam war, the communist party of North Vietnam sent 200,000 young men to the battlefields in the south, most of whom did not return. Vietnam was one of the largest and costliest wars in history. The insurgency in Iraq resembles one of the colonial disturbances of imperial history.

There is a good reason for the difference. The Vietnamese communists had organised and operated a countryside politico-military organisation with branches in almost every village. The North Vietnamese People's Army resembled that of an organised Western state. It conscripted recruits throughout the country, trained, organised and equipped them.

The Iraqi insurgency, by contrast, is an informal undertaking by a coalition of religious and ex-Ba'athist groups. It has no high command or bureaucracy resembling the disciplined Marxist structures of North Vietnam. It has some support from like-minded groups in neighbouring countries, but nothing to compare with the North Vietnamese international network, which was supported by China and the Soviet Union and imported arms and munitions from both those countries on a large scale.

North Vietnam was, moreover, a sovereign state, supported explicitly by all other communist countries and by many sympathetic regimes in the Third World. The Iraqi insurgency has sympathisers, but they enjoy no organised system of support and are actively opposed by many of their neighbours and Muslim co-religionists.

The recent upsurge of violence in Iraq in no way resembles the Tet offensive. At Tet, the Vietnamese new year, the North Vietnamese People's Army simultaneously attacked 40 cities and towns in South Vietnam, using 84,000 troops. Of those, the communists lost 45,000 killed. No such losses have been recorded in Iraq at any place or any time. The Tet offensive proved to be a military disaster for the Vietnamese communists. It left them scarcely able to keep up their long-running, low-level war against the South Vietnamese government and the American army.

Indeed, insofar as Tet was a defeat for the United States and for the South Vietnamese government, it was because the American media decided to represent it as such. It has become a cliché to say that Vietnam was a media war, but so it was. Much of the world media were hostile to American involvement from the start, particularly in France, which had fought and lost its own Vietnam war in 1946-54. The defeat of Dien Bien Phu rankled with the French and there were few who wanted to see the Americans win where they had failed.

It was, however, the American rather than the foreign media who decided on the verdict. The American media had begun by supporting the war. As it dragged on, however, without any end in sight and with the promised military victory constantly postponed, American newspapers and — critically — the evening television programmes began to treat war news as a bad story.

The media were extremely influential, particularly at such places as university campuses and the firesides of American families whose sons had been conscripted for service. When casualties of 150 a week began to be reported, the war began to be increasingly unpopular. President Johnson, who was temperamentally oversensitive to criticism, believed that one particular broadcast by Walter Cronkite in February 1968, just after Tet, lost him Middle America. "If I've lost Kronkite," he said to his staff, "I have lost the war."

President Bush must now expect that America's television anchormen will be looking for a similar opportunity to damage him. If they find it, the blame will be the President's alone.

The Vietnam war was not lost on the battlefield, but in the American media's treatment of news from the front line.




© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.



* * *




Children of the 1956 revolution still haunted by invasion

By Kate Connolly, in Budapest

Last Updated: 2:51am BST 24/10/2006



In pictures: Budapest marks the 1956 uprising



Sandor Racz clutches a jagged piece of iron in his fist and stabs it in the air. The 73-year old calls it a symbol of a revolution that as far as he is concerned has never been completed.

"It was an incredible moment when they brought Stalin's statue down," he said, recalling the pivotal day of the Hungarian Uprising against communism 50 years ago, an event that still haunts the nation.

"All eight metres of it came crashing down on Heroes Square, and I and everyone around me took to it with hammers, saw, any tools we could find," he said. "It felt like a whole nation was venting its anger on that one mighty monument."

Racz, a retired toolmaker, was one of the leaders of the brutally suppressed revolt and was subsequently imprisoned like tens of thousands of others for his actions.

Today Mr Racz still carries his piece of the Stalin statue with him, wrapped in tissue, as a souvenir of those heady days. As this young democracy marks the anniversary today of its heroic but failed attempt to escape the Soviet Union's iron grip, the capital, Budapest, is awash with pride and nostalgia.

Tanks, machine guns, fire engines and ambulances have been parked in "open museums" around the city for children and toddlers to clamber on.

Young people dressed as freedom fighters ride the city's trams handing out copies of the "liberation" newspapers of the day. The city's theatres and cinemas are full of plays and films dramatising the events and the brutal interrogations and executions which followed and memories of the bloody days in which thousands of civilians died fighting Soviet forces.

Hungary's national goalkeeper at the time, Gyula Grosics, remembers returning from a match abroad on October 25, to find thousands had taken to the streets, led by students, demanding the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

Children as young as 12 were throwing Molotov cocktails in the paths of tanks. "When we arrived the city streets were blocked by Soviet tanks," the 80 year-old who was part of the legendary "Magic Magyar" team which dealt England its first home defeat of 6-3 in 1953, told The Daily Telegraph.

"We were transported to the outskirts by a special train and the revolution was in full flow," he said. "The entire team had to cross the bridge from Buda to Pest by crawling on our hands and knees to avoid the crossfire."

When he heard of the freedom fighters' search for a place to store their weapons, he offered them the basement of his home. "Only much later did I discover just how serious it was and that I could have been sentenced to death," he said. His actions led to constant surveillance by the secret police, who spied on him and his family and held a case file which was only closed in 1996.

At a Wall of Heroes outside Budapest's House of Terror, which recalls the horrors of Communist rule, Ella and Ferenc Lovasz stood hand in hand quietly contemplating the ceramic plaques commemorating some of those men and women who died.

"Many of my fellow students at university disappeared around this time," recalled Ferenc, 78, a retired engineer. He and his wife were caught up in the revolt when they attended a peaceful demonstration in front of parliament and troops unexpectedly opened fire.

"Out of the blue they started shooting," a tearful Ella, 75, a retired chemist recalled. "We ran – it was a bright autumn day like today – we saw people collapsing around us as we fled back to the safety of our home. We can never forget those who died for us." But as world leaders gather in Budapest to join the ceremonies, rather than find a country celebrating more than a decade of democracy since the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, they will find a bitter and divided Hungary.

Mr Racz said his souvenir chunk of the toppled Stalin statue reminded him of "our fight for a free, independent and democratic Hungary." But, he said, "it's a Hungary we're still fighting to achieve in 2006". Longstanding political rifts in society have only been intensified by recent remarks by Ferenc Gyurcsany, the Socialist prime minister, that he lied to Hungarians about the state of the economy, leading to the worst political violence since 1956.

As a result, the many different interest groups, including students, political parties, and veteran fighters will mark the event in separate ways.

Most prominent is the motley crew of protesters who have been camped outside the parliament for the past month, whose demands range from the toppling of Gyurcsany to the break-up of democracy. They see themselves as the inheritors of the 1956 revolution and are offended that a government they see as direct successors to the communists are leading today's events.

"Over the past 16 years every political party has tried to hijack 1956 for their own purposes," said Laszlo Garaczi, an author and historian who was four months old when the revolution started.

"While the revolution itself was very complex, over the 10 to 12 days in which it was fought the nation pulled together like never before or since."





"Children clamber over a tank placed in Budapest for the anniversary celebrations"




© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.






* * *





Labour's plans for faith schools will only make divisions deeper

By Vincent Nichols

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 24/10/2006



The exact government amendment concerning admissions to all new schools of a religious or faith character has not yet been seen. But its intention is well known: to make available a quarter of places in such a school to pupils of other faiths or none.

Hints that this will be extended to existing faith schools have already been made.

The amendment is ill-thought-out, unworkable, contradictory of empirical evidence and deeply insulting of the reality and achievements of Catholic schools. Yet, in many ways it could well mark a watershed in government thinking and action.


The intended amendment is based on the assumption that Catholic schools, as they stand, are socially divisive. The evidence is the opposite, and in a letter to me on October 2, Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, fully acknowledged the qualities of Catholic schools and the way they serve social cohesion. Yet now he is acting on the opposite assumption, without further consultation or discussion.

Ofsted statistics confirm that the pupils in a Catholic school closely reflect the national school population in terms of levels of disadvantage and special educational needs. Catholic schools have a higher proportion of pupils from minority ethnic groups than other schools.

Catholic schools, on average, already welcome 30 per cent of their pupils from other Churches, faiths or none. Pupils in Catholic schools achieve above-average academic standards and are less likely to encounter bullying, racism and harassment than in other schools.

Catholic secondary schools are also twice as effective as other schools at developing respect for others. When it comes to social integration, Catholic schools are part of the solution.

This is increasingly so with the arrival in this country of people from many lands. Through their participation in a stable and unified Catholic school, especially where the faith is shared, newly arrived families and children find an excellent point of entry into British society.

One priest told me that in his First Holy Communion group from the parish school, there are 14 different nationalities among the 19 candidates. That is not in central Birmingham but in Henley-on-Thames.

These are the foundations on which we want to build, but the coercive measures being proposed by the Government will not win co-operation.

In this I stand with Tahir Alam of the Muslim Council of Britain and with Henry Grunwald of the Jewish Board of Deputies. Confrontation will not build social cohesion.

Nor do Catholic schools act in isolation. Many examples could be given of Catholic schools working within their neighbourhood.

In Leicester, one set of neighbouring schools, including a community school of which Muslim children made up 80 per cent of the roll, share lunchtime groups, educational and creative projects, parental activities and a common vision for the future.

I support suggestions that all schools — and not just religious schools — be inspected for the ways in which they build up networks with other schools and contribute to mutual understanding.

The amendment that Mr Johnson is bringing forward seems to enshrine as government policy the view that, left to themselves, Catholic schools would be divisive.

In other words, the vision that inspires Catholic education is no longer trusted as capable of delivering the qualities and virtues needed in our complex society. Since the evidence suggests the opposite, I can only assume that this view rises from muddled thinking or prejudice.

Muddled thinking often does damage. The requirement that a quarter of places in a new Catholic school are open to all contains within it the prospect that those seeking such places will have scant regard for the Catholic nature of the school and want only its "success".

Those who understand Catholic education know very well that it is an integrated endeavour, centred on the person of Christ, whose Spirit informs the school and whose teaching is embraced and explored in every aspect of its life.

It is not a "secular" education with RE and prayer bolted on. A willingness to be at least a passive partner in this endeavour is a minimum expectation of participation in the life of these schools.

The introduction of "admissions requirements" is a Trojan horse, bringing into Catholic schools those who may not only reject its central vision but soon seek to oppose it.

But there is another consequence of muddled thinking. Is it really sensible to assume that a new Catholic school could be planned on the projected needs of the Catholic community — for that is what happens — only for a quarter of those places to be taken away from that group of parents?

There is a deep pride within the Catholic community over its schools. It is rooted in part in the efforts of many generations to finance and sustain those schools. It is expressed in the £20 million found every year by the Catholic community for its schools, in addition to the taxes that all pay.

Any Government wanting to remove a quarter of the school places actually needed by that community, and to do so on false grounds, cannot expect co-operation or respect.

Clearly pressure has produced this muddle. Over the past few weeks, there has been an intense scrutiny of the role of religious faith in our society.

So far we have not got much beyond knee-jerk reactions. I am quite clear that the work of building a coherent and harmonious society in Britain requires all possible partnerships, including partnerships with the major faiths and religious bodies.

A precondition of this co-operation is that partners must be treated with respect for what they are and what they can contribute.

It is now clear that multi-culturalism is never going to work within a secular model. A secular model excludes recognition of the spiritual and religious roots of many cultures. The diversity of cultures has been encouraged, but without genuine engagement with their moral values or beliefs.

This has left us with a spiritual vacuum at the heart of life, illustrated in the poverty of so much religious education in state schools.

In the face of this ignorance, tolerance does not last long. Equally important is the ability to think ethically about what constitutes a good life. Neither opinion polls nor focus groups are a sound foundation for shared moral thinking.

The challenges of learning about other faiths, of which Mr Johnson speaks, and of educating youngsters in moral literacy, confront not so much faith schools, which have a clear contribution to make, as every other school in the land.

The alternative to secular multi-culturalism is not an enforced integration, such as we see in France. What is required is a proper and mutually respectful co-operation between religious faith and public authorities.

That has been our way in the past and it has given rise to good schools and a rich tradition of voluntary work, much inspired by religious belief. That is the road on which we must continue. But this amendment seems to signal an alternative and deeply divisive step. It has to be resisted.



Dr Nichols is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and chairman of the Catholic Education Service.




© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006.

UK army chief says troops should leave Iraq ; ASEAN chief hails accelerated economic integration timetable--Thanh Nien News

ASEAN chief hails accelerated economic integration timetable

Last Updated: Monday, October 23, 2006 21:18:46 Vietnam (GMT+07)


ASEAN chief hails accelerated economic integration timetable
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had made a giant leap toward completing the economic integration process by resetting the deadline five years ahead of the previous schedule, the grouping’s chief said.


Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong said in a recent interview that ASEAN had two very important reasons for bringing forward the dateline of the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community from 2020 to 2015.

"We believe that by 2014 many of the FTA (free trade area) negotiations with other countries like China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand will be completed," he said.

"It means that ASEAN markets have already committed (themselves) to certain sets of requirements for the FTA. Why do we have to wait until 2020 if we can finish all these FTAs by 2014 or 2015."

Ong said the second reason for ASEAN to shorten its economic integration schedule was to "encourage ASEAN countries to be more active in doing internal changes."

"[The year] 2020 is far away, people can still wait and take the time and then you don't get a lot of good results and then the negotiations for FTAs with other countries will also suffer a delay. We moved the date from 2020 to 2015 and now everybody in ASEAN knows they cannot delay anymore," said Ong, who has been leading the 10-member bloc since January 2003.

He said the rescheduling had received favorable responses from businesses in the region.

The goal is to establish ASEAN as a single market and production base so that it can become a more dynamic and stronger segment of the global supply chain.

However, concern remains over the less-developed countries in the region in terms of catching up with their wealthier neighbors.

"We have some countries that are developed, some countries not so developed. This is true that we have a gap, and the gap is quite big. The important thing today is to improve the transportation in all the countries, to improve the infrastructure," said Ong.

Apart from the need for an improvement of the infrastructures in the member countries, Ong pointed out that some economies that used to be centralized needed "a lot of officials who understand how to upgrade the system in the open market," adding that the ASEAN had been offering the appropriate training.

With the regional economic integration process now at top speed, Ong dismissed suggestions that the ASEAN was walking on the same path as the European Union (EU).

"The EU has a common currency, they also have free movement of people. We don't think Southeast Asian countries are ready to do that," he said.

"What we are seeing (in ASEAN) is more the movement of professional people, skilled people. We cannot be like the EU which (allows) free movement of people," he said. "Many of our countries are still relatively insecure, and if you have complete free movement of people, you can see thousands more coming into a small country or thousands more going where the market is good, The local population may not be ready to welcome this competition from another guy next door."



Source: Xinhua







* * * * * * *




UK army chief says troops should leave Iraq

Last Updated: Friday, October 13, 2006 21:46:33 Vietnam (GMT+07)


Britain's army chief said his troops should be withdrawn from Iraq soon as their presence was making security worse, in bluntly worded comments seized upon by opponents of the US-led invasion three years ago.


Chief of the General Staff Richard Dannatt told the Daily Mail newspaper that post-war planning for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was "poor" and the presence of troops there was hurting British security globally.

The remarks, extraordinary from such a senior serving officer, could have political fallout on both sides of the Atlantic. The war has damaged the standing of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and is a major issue for US President George W. Bush's allies in congressional elections next month.

Although in later interviews Dannatt denied any split with Blair, he may have added to the storm by warning that over-stretching the British army in Iraq could "break it."

Britain should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems," he told the Mail.

"I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them," he said.

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning."

Iraq government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said US and British troops were still needed.

"The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people don't want foreign troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. But we believe the British and Americans are playing a positive role in Iraq and that their presence is necessary to control the security issue."

But Dannatt's remarks were seized upon by anti-war campaigners. Reg Keys, whose son died in Iraq, said: "Here you have an officer, at last, who is prepared to speak how it is, and not be a mouthpiece for the delusions of a prime minister."

In Basra, where most of Britain's 7,200 troops are based, locals told Reuters they agreed it was time for them to go.

"In the last three years, people started to look at these troops in a different way. They simply hate these troops," said school teacher Fatima Ahmed, 35.


Political storm

Hours after Dannatt's interview appeared, he made radio and television appearances to calm the political storm. He said his remarks were taken out of context but he did not deny them.

"It was never my intention to have this hoo ha, which people have thoroughly enjoyed overnight, trying to suggest there is a chasm between myself and the prime minister," he told BBC radio.

British troops were targets in some places, but were beneficial in others, he said and insisted he was not proposing an immediate withdrawal. "I'm a soldier. We don't do surrender ... We're going to see this through," he said.

But he added: "I've got an army to look after which is going to be successful in current operations. But I want an army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one. Lets keep an eye on time."

Britain has launched a large new operation in Afghanistan this year, and commanders have acknowledged that they had hoped they could reduce their force in Iraq faster.

Generals have said they now hope to cut their force in Iraq in half by the middle of next year. They have turned over control of two of the four provinces they patrol to Iraqis.

"We're going to complete that process and ... the number of troops deployed there will reduce," Dannatt said.

Blair's spokesman said the prime minister still had confidence in Dannatt.

In another sign of strain in the US-British alliance, a British coroner ruled American troops had unlawfully killed television journalist Terry Lloyd in the early days of the invasion. Lloyd's family's lawyer said US troops had acted like "trigger happy cowboys" and should be tried for murder.

In Iraq on Thursday, a bomb in a police station in Hilla killed a police colonel and five others. The bodies of 14 construction workers were found in an orchard near a town 40 km (25 miles) north of Baghdad. One policeman and eight insurgents were reported killed in clashes in Mosul.




Copyright © 2004

VoIP firms in RP ; News Corp/James Packer/Kerry Stokes ; Murdoch on Fairfax shares ; British risk defeat in Afghanistan

2 more VoIP firms approved



Inquirer

Last updated 08:49pm (Mla time) 10/21/2006


THE National Telecommunications Commission has allowed two more Internet call outfits to provide Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services.

BC Net Inc. received permission to operate as a provider of VoIP services from Oct. 11, 2006 to Oct. 10, 2007.

Broadband2Go Communications obtained permission to resell VoIP services from Oct. 10, 2006 to Oct. 9, 2007.

The two bring the number of VoIP providers and sellers to 14.

The VoIP resellers are TransPacific Broadcast Group International Inc., Mozcom Inc., and KD Pacific Trading Development Corp. The VoIP providers are Cashround Inc., TechNetworks Corp., Crown Multimedia and Information Service Corp., BT&T Network Corp., Vonics Philippines, Pacific Netcom Inc., Pastels Inc., Fiber Telecommunications Inc., and Textron Corp. With INQ7.net




Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



* * *



Australia's media moguls in multi-billion dollar poker game



Agence France-Presse

Last updated 01:00pm (Mla time) 10/22/2006


SYDNEY -- Australia's media moguls have made their first bets in a multi-billion dollar poker game where power, profits and press diversity are at stake under liberalized ownership laws, analysts said Sunday.

Global political power-broker Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp have bought chips. So have Australia's richest man James Packer and television baron Kerry Stokes.

They are waiting for the game to start in earnest when the government's new media laws, passed by parliament last week, come into effect and allow an expected wave of takeovers, mergers and foreign investment.

"There is a very large poker game going on where large players have put themselves in a position to do some acquiring and be part of the process of deciding who else does any acquiring," said media analyst Jock Given.

The swift moves by the moguls have led critics to reinforce their warnings that the result of the new laws -- expected to come into effect early next year -- would be a further consolidation of media ownership in the hands of a few.

"If that's what ends up occurring I think it does concentrate political power to a very worrying extent," Given told Agence France-Presse.

The biggest play so far has been Packer's $4.5-billion Australian ($3.4 billion US) sale of half the media assets of his Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd (PBL) to a Hong Kong-based private equity firm.

Packer, who holds major television and magazine assets, is believed to be positioning the spin-off PBL Media to expand into newspapers.

Under the old laws this would not have been possible, but the new legislation allows a company to own two instead of just one out of three media -- television, radio and newspapers -- in any single market.

Industry analysts say a prime target for Packer is Fairfax newspapers, publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age in Melbourne and the Australian Financial Review.

But Rupert Murdoch's News Corp on Friday said it had bought a strategic $276 million US 7.5 percent stake in Fairfax, the main rival to its own stable of metropolitan newspapers.

"It's just a strategic holding. We don't have any particular plans for it -- certainly no plans to take over Fairfax," Murdoch told a News Corp shareholders meeting in New York.

Murdoch is seen as more likely to be interested in moving into television, but he has criticized the new laws as protecting the current free-to-air channels, which he said would be "expensive" to buy.

News Corp owns a powerful international stable of 175 newspapers, including The Times of London, The Sun tabloid in Britain, the New York Post and The Australian as well as cable television network Fox and satellite broadcasters DirecTV and BSkyB.

Fairfax newspapers are seen as more "left-liberal" and critical of the government of Prime Minister John Howard than Murdoch's more conservative stable, but even a takeover by Packer could change that.

"The Fairfax papers would struggle to maintain the kind of editorial position they have at the moment under Packer's ownership," Given said.

Of the three moves so far, the clearest was a $350-million Australian raid on the shares of West Australian Newspapers which secured just under 15 percent for Stokes, owner of Seven Network television.

"I think the Stokes move is the clearest because the asset that he's put his foot on, West Australian Newspapers, makes perfect sense commercially," Given said. "He has the top rating television station in (the West Australian capital) Perth -- it would make commercial sense for him to have the daily newspaper as well."

Analyst Alan Kohler, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, said the wave of activity had shown that the government's proposition that the new laws would promote greater diversity were "threadbare."





Copyright 2006 Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.




* * *



Murdoch defends News Corp's raid on Fairfax shares --Channel NewsAsia


Posted: 21 October 2006 1448 hrs


SYDNEY : News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch has defended his global media giant's surprise raid on Fairfax stock, saying he had no plans to control his main Australian rival or see it broken up.

Speaking for the first time on the matter, Murdoch said Friday's decision to snap up a 7.5 percent stake in Australia's second largest news publisher John Fairfax Holdings Ltd was not a hostile move.

"It's just a strategic holding. We don't have any particular plans for it -- certainly no plans to take over Fairfax," he told a News Corp shareholders meeting in New York, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Murdoch said he might gradually increase his holding in Fairfax but did not expect the newspaper group to be broken up once Australia's new media ownership laws take effect next year.

New legislation passed this week clears media companies to own two, not just one, out of three media -- newspapers, radio and television -- in any single market, and lifts a ban on foreign ownership.

Murdoch said his company's share raid was aimed a building a strategic stake in Fairfax ahead of any potential takeover bid for the newspaper group.

"Ours is more a friendly move for the existing regime at Fairfax now," he said.

He also ruled out swapping a Fairfax newspaper for one of his own.

News Corp owns a powerful stable of 175 newspapers, including The Times of London, The Sun tabloid, the New York Post and The Australian as well as cable television network Fox and satellite broadcasters DirecTV and BSkyB.

The global media mogul also said he is unlikely to make a play for an Australian TV network, describing all the commercial channels as far too expensive, but stressed News Corp was studying all of its options.

Fairfax has been at the centre of frenzied takeover speculation after parliament on Wednesday voted in the new laws easing media cross ownership rules.

Analysts said Fairfax was the obvious takeover target under the new laws as it is the only major Australian news group that does not have a single controlling shareholder, weakening its ability to ward off acquisitions.


- AFP/ir


Copyright © 2006 MCN International Pte Ltd. All Rights Reserved.



* * *



Britain risks defeat in Afghanistan, says ex-military chief --inq7.net



Agence France-Presse

Last updated 11:49am (Mla time) 10/22/2006


LONDON -- The former chief of the British military said the country's armed forces risked defeat in operations in Afghanistan due to a lack of clear strategy, The Observer newspaper reported Sunday.

Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, the former chief of the defense staff, attacked Britain's military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and come on the back of the present army head saying British troops should leave Iraq "sometime soon" because their presence was exacerbating security problems there.

"I don't believe we have a clear strategy, either in Afghanistan or Iraq," Inge said at a meeting sponsored by the Open Europe think tank last week, the newspaper said.
"I sense we've lost the ability to think strategically.”

"Deep down inside me, I worry that the British army could risk operational failure if we're not careful in Afghanistan. We need to recognize the test that I think we could face there."

He said that despite the pressures on the armed forces, defense received neither the research nor funding it required, The Observer reported.

Government departments have "lost the knack of putting together interdepartmental thinking about strategy," Inge said.

Governmental administration "talks about how we're going to do to in Afghanistan, it doesn't really talk about strategy."

Inge served as chief of the defense staff, the professional head of the British armed forces, between 1994 and 1997.

Last Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that British troops would stay in Iraq as long as necessary, as he battled to face down new criticism over his strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

But he reiterated that Britain's policy was to progressively cut its troops in Iraq -- while warning that premature withdrawal would be "disastrous."

Britain has around 7,000 troops stationed in Iraq and around 5,000 in Afghanistan.




Copyright 2006 Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Revisiting economic group that is BIMP-Eaga --www.inq7.net

Revisiting economic group that is BIMP-Eaga


By Allan Nawal
Inquirer
Last updated 11:31pm (Mla time) 10/15/2006

Published on page B2-1 of the October 16, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANADO, INDONESIA -- When the Asian financial crisis struck in 1997, the fledgling sub-regional economic cooperation between Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines (BIMP) started to falter.

It had been barely three years since talks aimed at accelerating the growth of the four countries’ least developed areas were initiated.

Under the East Asian Growth Area (Eaga) concept, the provinces of Sulawesi, Kalimantan, Malacca Islands, West Papua in Indonesia, Mindanao and Palawan in the Philippines, Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan in Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam, would foster closer trade and investment relationships.

Former President Fidel V. Ramos, whose administration vigorously pushed the idea of closer ties with the four Southeast Asian neighbors, had projected that the Eaga concept would result in economic growth for Mindanao.

For Ramos, economic growth in Mindanao would also become an effective tool against the Muslim insurgency that has been dogging the Manila government for more than three decades.

Then the currency crisis hit and BIMP Eaga was placed on the back burner.

“Nagkanya kanya muna (They went their separate ways),” was how Efren Abu, the current Philippine special envoy to the BIMP-Eaga, described how members of the sub-regional cooperation behaved at the onset of the financial crisis.

Abu says by that time, nobody was talking anymore about BIMP-Eaga, once hailed as the answer to the woes of the least developed areas of Southeast Asia.

“During the time of President Joseph Estrada, it was totally forgotten,” he said.

When President Macapagal-Arroyo came to power in 2001, the idea of revitalizing the Eaga concept surfaced.

The Mindanao Economic Development Council (Medco) based in Davao City started to pick up the pieces of what was left of the Eaga concept.

Networking with authorities in the three other members of the growth polygon, Medco started to organize trade missions.

By this time, businessmen from General Santos City, who have previously started talks with their counterparts in Indonesia, were making a bold decision.


Mini successes

One group, led by fishing tycoon Doming Teng, trained its sights on Bitung, an hour and a half trip by car from here.

Bitung, strategically located in the rich fishing grounds of Indonesia, looked the most promising place for a tuna cannery plant.

“We exchanged visits several times with our Indonesian partners, practically the output of what we have been doing before in the Eaga,” Teng says.

Three years ago, the partnership materialized and PT Sinar Pure Foods International was born.

With $7.7 million in capital, Teng’s Signal Marine Ventures and its Indonesian partners took over the ailing Pure Foods facilities inside a 4.5-hectare area in Raya Madidir.

Infusing more that $1 million in additional capital to revive the former Pure Foods business, SMV and its Indonesian partners bought additional machinery and improved existing ones, such as a fishmeal factory, an ice plant and a cold storage facility.

PT Sinar’s throughput capacity was raised to 140 metric tons a day although production was only currently at 35-40 MT a day.

“We still have problems with fish supply but we are trying to address that,” Teng says.

PT Sinar markets its canned tuna products to Europe (55 percent), the United States (43 percent) and Japan (2 percent).

Last year, PT Sinar’s revenues were $20 million, making it the second biggest tuna exporting company in Indonesia.

“We are currently developing our Middle East market,” he says.

Teng says his group’s vision was not only to provide world-class products to consumers but also to generate livelihood and employment under the Eaga concept.

On the Indonesian side, PT Sinar’s business has generated 1,000 jobs at the factory alone.

There is also the effect of its activities on other industries such as empty cans producers.

“For local fishermen, we also help them by buying their catch,” he says.

But what about the Philippine side?

Teng says about 80 percent of PT Sinar’s raw materials come from General Santos City.

“Filipino fishermen contribute to the majority of our fish supply. When the financial crisis hit Asia in 1997, the fishing industry in General Santos City was heavily affected. Even in the following years, it hardly recovered,” Teng says.

Marfin Tan of the General Santos fishing industry association said PT Sinar’s business in Bitung has assured the security and continuity of the fishing sector.

Teng says PT Sinar also imports some of its packaging supplies from Mindanao.

“We still lack supplies for packaging materials and spare parts and this causes cost-leaks because they are sourced elsewhere,” he says.

Teng says it would be better if investments in these areas would be made, not only to help PT Sinar lower the cost, but also to help generate livelihood.

A few meters away from PT Sinar, tuna canning company PT Samudra Sentosa stands on a 3.3-hectare area.

Like PT Sinar, the Filipino owners of PT Samudra came to Bitung about three years ago under the BIMP-Eaga concept.

Taking over the existing facilities of a company producing canned vegetables such as asparagus, the General Santos-based Damalerio Group of Companies infused more capital to establish a tuna canning plant.

“We are 100 percent Filipino-owned,” Gary Damalerio, PT Samudra’s operations officer, says.

Like PT Sinar, Damalerio’s company exports its produce to the United States.

“We are also trying to source more fish because we cannot maximize our capacity because of under supply,” he says.

Currently, PT Samudra gets half of its supply from General Santos City.

“We want to see an increase in the future. Our fishermen do not have the capability right now because of lack of fishing boats,” he explains.


Reviving talks

The apparent success of the two companies under the Eaga concept has encouraged government officials to revive talks on economic cooperation.

Abu says upcoming talks—including the one scheduled at the sidelines of the Asean summit in Cebu this year—between Eaga players would center on “doable” things such as trading linkages.

“This is a good start,” he comments.

Sarangani Gov. Miguel Dominguez says he wanted the success of the big businesses replicated, but he wants small and medium enterprise (SMEs) in his province to get into the game.

“The backbone of every economy is the SME sector. We want to tap their potential to improve our local economy,” he says.

Dominguez accompanied the largest delegation of Mindanao businessmen to Indonesia last Sept. 21.

The group included the Labrador couple, whose Cassea’s company produces herbal-based beauty products.

But Christian Widmann, project manager of the German Technical Cooperation, says that while the idea of SMEs being involved in the BIMP-Eaga effort was laudable, it was equally important to bring in more big players.

GTZ is an agency funded by the German government that provides technical support. It started providing technical assistance to the BIMP-Eaga concept in January 2005.

“I am not a big fan of say San Miguel, but we need to have somebody lead the efforts,” Widmann says.

Widmann says although there have been previous talks between BIMP-Eaga players, much still needs to be done to ensure the success of the idea.

He says one of these was for the major players to have a roadmap or common goal and to find ways and means to achieve that goal.

“There should also be more commitment on the side of the governments involved,” he says.

Widmann says the problem that GTZ sees now in the economic cooperation effort was that people making the decisions were not the ones actually implementing them.

“It should be localized,” he says.

Dominguez could not agree more.

He says if the success of the economic cooperation was to be ensured, local government units should be more involved and committed to the success of BIMP-Eaga.





Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.







MAPPING THE FUTURE
Country above self


By Evelyn R. Singson
Inquirer
Last updated 11:28pm (Mla time) 10/15/2006


Published on page B2-2 of the October 16, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer



THE STATISTICS THAT I WILL CITE IN my message did not come from me or the MAP. These came from very well-respected and credible organizations like the World Bank, the United Nations and The Economist publication.

We are sometimes tempted to ask ourselves -- why should we care about these statistics compiled and interpreted by these foreign entities? Unfortunately we have no choice but to care and to care enough to do something. International perceptions, as translated into country ratings, are critical considerations in the decision of foreign capital to flow into any country. We need to compete and prove ourselves over and over again to gain, and retain, a piece of the global economic pie.

Emerging markets, of which our country is a part, are playing an ever increasing role in the world economy. As the Economist chart shows, emerging-market countries, which are home to 80 percent of the world’s population, contribute over 50 percent of the world’s output of goods and services.

What the data suggests is that emerging markets are no longer simply manufacturing hubs for advanced economies such as the United States, Japan and Western Europe. With the proliferation of high-speed data transfers and the diminution of telecommunications costs, emerging markets provide business-critical services in the fields of research and development, finance, medicine, law, engineering -- and the list grows.


24th largest economy

Indeed, by the World Bank’s measure of Purchasing-power Parity GDP, the Philippines is actually the world’s 24th largest economy -- considerably higher than its current-dollar GDP ranking of 50th.

Our place among the emerging markets is boosted by the export of services in the form of numerous call centers and BPOs that have become the fastest-growing employers of our young graduates. Owing to rich nations’ proclivity for business process outsourcing and our relative advantage in terms of skilled workers, we are today the world’s 4th largest exporter of IT-enabled services behind India, Canada and Ireland.

Over the years, however, the questions that Filipino policymakers, entrepreneurs and businesspersons shall have to wrestle with are these: what role shall the Philippines play among emerging economies? How do we avert the tragic decline in our ranking in the last 40 years?

In 1960 -- or 46 years ago -- GDP per capita in the Philippines was higher than in Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia and Myanmar. Today, per capita GDP is higher in Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand. Meanwhile both Taiwan and South Korea are already considered Newly Industrialized Economies.

During the past few years, we also have been held in needles by our country’s credit rating, another measure of the credit risk perception by credit rating agencies. Standard and Poors rates the Philippines a “BB-,” whereas Taiwan is rated “AA-,” South Korea is “A,” and Thailand is “BBB+.”

Clearly, these countries have come a very long way from where they were 46 years earlier. Today, they are nearly on par with the developed economies of Western Europe. In contrast, our performance over the same span may best be described as “mediocre.”

Recently, the World Bank published its annual “Doing Business” survey, ranking 175 countries in terms of how the regulatory and legal environment in these countries encourage investors and business.

Unfortunately for the Philippines, it fell by 5 places in a one-year period -- from 121st place in 2005 to 126th place in 2006. So, by the World Bank’s reckoning, it is actually easier to do business these days in Lebanon (86), Bosnia and Herzegovina (95), Vietnam (105) and Iran (120) than it is in the Philippines.

The “Doing Business” survey actually contains a set of 10 sub-rankings. Among these is how the country’s regulations protect investors. Here, the Philippines is ranked 151st -- much worse than its overall ranking. What the survey seems to suggest is that shareholders have better rights-protection in countries such as Timor-Leste, Belarus and Uzbekistan.

The Philippines received a better rating in terms of the ease of paying taxes, ranking 106th. But by this measure, the World Bank says that it is easier to pay taxes in the African nations of Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Nigeria than it is in the Philippines.

The Philippines is in the middle of the pack or even in the upper-third of countries when it comes to enforcing contracts, trading across borders and registering property.

We should pay particularly close attention to our rankings in enforcing contracts since it greatly affects the marketability of our nation as a place for foreign direct investment. At 59th, we are ranked higher than Taiwan, Malaysia and Mexico but lower than Thailand and South Korea, which are ranked 44th and 17th respectively.


Aggressive response

In any case, what do these survey results say about our competitiveness? What has been done in our recent history that has given rise to the perception of outsiders that business conditions in our archipelago are so dismal? More importantly, what can we do to avert this trend -- to send the world the signal that “the Philippines is here and, yes, we are open for your business?”

Make no mistake: the forces of globalization -- the faster movement of manufactured goods, services, ideas and capital -- demand a pro-active and aggressive response. Our failure to acknowledge and act on its inevitability will leave our nation behind, or even worse, consign it to irrelevance.

Therefore maintaining our competitiveness -- our edge, as it were -- is not simply the theme of this year’s MAP CEO Conference but the challenge of our times. If we do not at least sow the seeds that shall ensure our competitiveness in the years ahead, future generations of Filipinos will look upon us with great recrimination and regret.

Of course, as many of you are aware, much of the country’s business environment is determined by our elected representatives and our laws -- things that, as businesspersons, we have very little direct control over.

That said, perhaps it is time for us businesspersons to take a more pro-active role in helping elect the right people into public office. If our political environment is perceived as unstable or unfriendly to business, much of our microeconomic efforts will not bear fruit. It is necessary that the public and private sectors work in tandem and cooperate effectively because it is only through our combined efforts that our country will move out of its undeserved bottom place.

In fact, there are good signs that our economy is improving. Inflation has been declining and that economic growth has been resilient. Net foreign portfolio investments and OFW remittances have enabled the peso to appreciate by 6.1 percent against the US dollar thus far this year.

Furthermore, corporate profits grew exceptionally in the first half of the year and the national government has been successful in keeping its finances under control. All of these developments have led investment banks such as Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers to express confidence that the Philippines is on the right track.

Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that the Philippines can excel and lead on a global stage.

For instance, Filipino telecommunications firms are regarded with great respect around the world for the way that they have advanced the business model for mobile communications through their innovations in pre-paid credits and mobile e-commerce.

Moreover, the overseas Filipino worker is considered among the hardest-working and most competent in the world. Our nurses, teachers, seafarers and other professionals are on demand in the international markets. But to sustain this demand requires that we keep our reputation as a dependable and credible supplier of world class talents. We should condemn those who seek short-term gains at the expense of our country’s reputation.

Interestingly, while we do not consider them as overseas workers, men like Manny Pangilinan, Manny Pacquiao and Efren “Bata” Reyes, to name a few of our more famous fellow Filipinos, earn much of their income from overseas sources. They bring credit to our nation as world-class talents and their successes in various fields provide strong examples for future generations of Filipinos to emulate.

It is our hope that the business cases and lessons presented here today will buttress and bring your knowledge of management practice to the global level so that you can use these, with great success, in your respective organizations and answer the challenge of our times.

I wish to leave you with a brief story.

Recently, some Filipinos undertook to climb Mt. Everest and naturally, their success has generated great interest in the history of the Everest Expeditions. Certainly, anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Everest Expeditions is now familiar with the names of Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay, the two men who reached the summit first.

However, fewer people can probably name the leader of the successful expedition of 1953.

His name was Col. John Hunt. It was his meticulous planning, together with the generous team spirit that he fostered throughout the expedition that enabled Hillary and Norgay to reach the summit. Many prior expeditions had failed up to that point because lesser men chose personal glory rather than the common good.

The same is true in the world of business. MAP’s theme “Country Above Self” is the only mindset that will enable our country to achieve and sustain global competitiveness that will bring prosperity to those who participate in the production of wealth.


* * *


(Speech delivered during the 5th MAP International CEO Conference on Oct. 11, 2006. The author is president of the Management Association of the Philippines and eBusiness Services Inc. Feedback at mapsec@globenet.com.ph)





Defying gravity in restaurant industry: 3 success lessons


By Eduardo A. Morato
Inquirer
Last updated 11:31pm (Mla time) 10/15/2006

Published on page B2-3 of the October 16, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

SOMETHING IS FISHY AT Somethin’ Fishy. The Eastwood eatery is defying the law of gravity in the restaurant industry. What goes up, refuses to come down. A lesson or two in the food business can be drawn from this popular dining destination.

Prior to Eastwood City’s opening in 2001, a few bars and restaurants were already attracting crowds to the Libis area and C-5. Megaworld lured customers to its new urban development center with several enticements like free parking, entertainment events, varied food offerings, and a captive community of residential dwellers and office workers. Eastwood boomed as the latest “in place.”

Four years down the road, the Eastwood luster began to fade as competition in neighboring destinations attracted the fickle consumers. The Promenade in Greenhills, Tiendesitas, Metro Walk, SM Hypermart and Fort Bonifacio enticed segments of the Eastwood market with their differentiated appeal. It did not help that parking lots gave way to the construction of new condominiums at Eastwood. Parking fees were charged. Marketing events declined somewhat. Traffic worsened at C-5, demotivating diners. Beer prices were set at a minimum of P45 per bottle. All this reduced the customer count.

Somethin’ Fishy had to find new bait for fishing. One Eastwood opportunity presented itself. The call centers located in the area provided customers with strange working hours and even stranger eating habits. The restaurant opened its doors to tired and hungry night jobbers. It offered eat-all-you-can breakfast buffets from five to ten in the morning for only P80. What Somethin’ Fishy lost in price, it recovered in volume. Later on, the restaurant extended this offering from midnight to 10 a.m. A new “school of fish” bit at the bait. These were “after gimmick” diners gulping food after their bar hoppings or merry makings. Long queues of off-beat but value-seeking customers stormed the off-tangent restaurant operating at ungodly hours. Somethin’ Fishy found the formula for defying gravity.

Of the 40 or 50 casual dining and fastfood restaurants at Eastwood, some 10 to 15 have closed down. However, there is hope for Eastwood locators. A mall is rising inside the complex. More call centers are coming in. Condominiums are being built. This means more captive markets. To the patient and persevering will belong the restaurant spoils. Meanwhile, Somethin’ Fishy is plotting strategies for its lost lunch and dinner markets. It has come up with Filipino “hunger buster platters” and a “swordfish festival at 50 percent off. Combo meals for four persons, with seven to eight viands, are priced between P499 and P769. Bento plates at P150 for lunch and larger servings at dinner for P275 round up their price assault.

An interview with Jom Policarpio, manager of Somethin’ Fishy, yielded a demand estimate of P500 million for Eastwood restaurants in 2005. Eastwood has a large employee population of 13,221 from 197 companies. Twelve call centers provide the off-hour customers. There are 752 families living inside Eastwood. Some 7,962 middle to high income households in nearby subdivisions augment the market base. “Gimmickers” from Metro Manila’s watering holes round up the customer profile. The future of Eastwood seems brighter than its immediate past.

The restaurant and bar industry is subject to the whims of a market always on the lookout for “something new.” When customers leave a place, it is hard to get them back unless fresh excitements lure them anew. Rockwell was “in” for a while, only to give way to the rejuvenated Greenbelt complex which sucked in the crowd from the adjacent Fort as well. Greenbelt has become the diners’ black hole. But then again, Greenbelt at Makati is not just the new “in place”. What is going for it is Makati’s large base of customers since the city is envied as the most densely populated office and residential center in the country. Makati was just waiting for Greenbelt to happen with a vengeance.


Lessons learned

So what are the lessons learned from the restaurant industry?

A large customer base is definitely a must.

More than that, there must be constant renewal and fresh excitement to entice the restless crowd. For budding commercial centers, avoid customer “demotivators” and “dissatisfiers” (e.g. parking difficulty, traffic), especially if the base load is still small.

Finally, look for unusual market segments (e.g.the off-beat customers) or market differentiators (e.g. fantastic customer offerings). Continuously reinvent and reposition the restaurant as often as necessary or as the wind shifts. The creative restaurant entrepreneur should wake up every morning to ask himself one question “how do I make myself obsolete today?”






Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.







Dropout raises hogs, earns big bucks, shares secrets


By Yolanda Sotelo-Fuertes
Inquirer
Last updated 11:31pm (Mla time) 10/15/2006


Published on page B2-5 of the October 16, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer



BINALONAN, PANGASINAN -- Some children here who are unable to finish their schooling are encouraged by their parents to just raise hogs to have a source of income.

A Chinese-Filipino from Bulacan, who dropped out of high school because of poverty, raises piglets and now owns one of the biggest hog farms in Northern Luzon.

Danilo Uy, a Pangasinan board member, says he dropped out of Far Eastern University after two years when he was only 14. At 15, he was already working as a salesman of a commodity company in Manila.

“I learned to drive when I was 18, so I became the driver, salesman and delivery boy of the company I worked for. I was on deck to become the sales manager,” Uy says.

But it was found out that he was a high school dropout. Thus, while he was doing well as a salesman, he was taken out of the race.


Chicharon

“I resigned after that and put up a small chicharon (kropeck) factory in Malabon. My father Kiana Uy, one of the early Chinese who migrated to the Philippines, and the other family members were in charge of the production while I sold the product in the Ilocos region and Baguio City,” he says.

The business was good in Baguio and Uy stayed there most of the time until he met Myrna, also a Chinese-Filipino, and they got married in 1970.

Eight years later, Uy decided to put up a chicharon business in a rented 5,000-hectare lot in Barangay Bugayong in Binalonan town.

His wife Myrna operated a canteen in Baguio to augment the income derived from the chicharon business.

As the business was doing well, a problem emerged: The neighbors complained about the smell of rotting waste products from the chicharon factory.

“I told them the waste products would make good food for hogs, which many raised in their backyards. That solved the problem as the neighbors took turns getting the waste products. But another problem cropped up: The neighbors quarreled among themselves about the waste materials, two of whom stabbed each other,” he says.


Going into

Uy decided to buy 10 piglets to consume the waste products. Then he bought 20 more, then another 100.

As the number of the pigs increased, he went to Baguio City to collect waste foods from his wife’s canteen.

He also collected “kaning baboy” from other canteens in the city to feed to the pigs. “I’m able to save up on feeds,” he says.

Uy has several hog breeders and eventually, his hog raising business grew to such proportions that today, several buildings house the more than 1,000 breeders in a bio-secure area in the village.

It is also one of the most modern commercial hog farms in the country, with automatic feeders, a health program and a tight bio-security to prevent bacteria and viruses from wreaking havoc on the farm.

The farm has become a family corporation.

A veterinarian son, Donald, manages the farm. Another son Dennis, mans the office. Daniel is in charge of marketing ingredients of feeds. His other son, Darwin, works as a resident doctor at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City.

Most of the farm’s workers live inside the compound with their families. They are provided with free housing and food.


Pollution control

The farm’s wastes are collected in six ponds and used to fertilize the corn fields. “The manure is applied on the field, killing the weeds there, after which the land is plowed,” Uy says.

Some 120-200 tons of corn are harvested from the corn fields, and the harvest is processed into hog feeds.

“We are not high-tech yet when it comes to corn production. But we intend to hire an agriculturist,” he says.

His father Kiana, now 87, also maintains a vegetable garden from which the family harvests vegetables for their meals.

Many people as far as Baguio City come to the farm to ask for the farm wastes to use as fertilizer, he says.

Uy, president of the Northern Luzon Hog Raisers Cooperative, adopted Sen. Manuel Villar’s secret to success: Hard work and perseverance.

Another tip he readily shares is: When one puts up a business, the owner should not depend on it for the daily expenses, especially during the business’ early days.

“In my case, there was the kropeck factory and my wife’s canteen from which we derived the family’s expenses. Others may try to find employment until the income from the business is stable enough to support the family,” he says.

Other advice he shares is: Do not spend more than you earn. Discipline yourself. Do not gamble.

He narrates a story of a couple who had a booming piggery business until the husband got hooked on gambling. The business collapsed.

Uy’s kropeck factory closed in 1983 when fire struck it.

By then, the 10-piglet backyard piggery meant to consume the waste products of a backyard factory had grown into the biggest hog farm in Northern Luzon and was big enough to support the family.

It was also big enough to support the couple’s scholarship program which has seen at least 60 students through college. Two of these scholars are doctors while others are nurses, engineers and teachers.



Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.







For Unilever, making a difference is what counts


By Jerry E. Esplanada
Inquirer
Last updated 04:06am (Mla time) 10/18/2006


SAYING, "Be generous," Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales has appealed to Catholics to chip in and help build the Church of the Risen Christ, described as the country's first environment-friendly church.

Designed by architect Jun Palafox, the church will have solar panels to provide energy, wind towers to take care of ventilation system, and, among other features, waterless composting toilets.

Construction of the P60-million project, in the partly rehabilitated Smokey Mountain former garbage dump in Manila's Tondo district, has been delayed for over two years because of funding problems.

The project has so far received a little over P15 million in pledges from various individuals and groups.

In a videotaped message, Rosales asked Catholic communities here and abroad to help Smokey Mountain residents "make their dream, their church, a reality."

Long before Rosales issued his appeal, consumer goods giant Unilever Philippines had already hooked up with the Smokey Mountain parish to do its share, said SVD priest Benigno Beltran, the man behind the church project.

"Unilever has donated more than five tons of office waste, converted into building blocks at the nearby Pier 18 Material Recovery Facility," said Beltran, fondly called "Father Ben" by the impoverished Tondo residents he has been serving since the late 1970s.

During the project's groundbreaking rites, Unilever chairman and chief executive officer Howard Belton reaffirmed the company's commitment to make a difference in the lives of the 20,000-plus former scavengers of the infamous dumpsite.

The project can expect more waste donations from Unilever, Belton assured the cardinal.

Belton also led about 100 Unilever staff members in a visit to the nearby Pier 18, said to be the "new Smokey Mountain." The Unilever team, however, prefers to call it the "mountain of life."

Officially the temporary waste transfer station of the city of Manila, the 10-hectare property sits near where the Pasig River meets the Manila Bay.

Waste collected from Manila's six districts is taken to Pier 18 before they are moved to the Navotas dumpsite or the sanitary landfill in Montalban, Rizal.

Pier 18 is also home to more or less 1,000 "eco-aides" or scavengers who have put up dwellings alongside several junk shops at the dumpsite.

The team's recent visit to Pier 18 was "aimed at raising awareness of Unilever managers on solid waste management -- with the impact of our product packaging on the environment and our solid wastes on the landfill in mind -- as well as developing an appreciation for both the economic and social relevance of environment programs," said Jike Mendoza-Dalupan, Unilever assistant vice president for corporate relations and
communications.

"Clad in full battle gear, gloves, overalls, boots and optional masks, we first listened to an inspiring talk by Father Ben," Dalupan said. "We were humbled by his commitment and marveled at how he has transformed Smokey Mountain into a progressive community."

Enriched with the SVD priest's passion for the environment, the group headed to its next stop: the Material Recovery Facility, or MRF.

"Run by the Smokey Mountain Cooperative, the MRF collects wastes from partner offices like Unilever and private schools," Dalupan said. "Wastes are dropped off at the MRF where they are segregated by the facility's eco-aides. Segregated wastes are then recycled, sold or composted."

"Working side by side with the eco-aides, Unilever managers dived into the garbage, separating paper, plastic bottles, aluminum cans, even biodegradable remnants," she said. "It was good to see how much of Unilever's packaging, as well as that of our competitors, were collected. It's also good to see how waste segregation helps the community lessen the waste load that is dumped into the landfills."

The group also met the women of Smokey Mountain who have been "trained in creating beautiful bags out of old newspapers and magazines which are sold mainly to foreign markets."

"This livelihood activity enables them to work at home while taking care of the household," said Dalupan. "Some of us gave the folding and weaving of newspapers a try. I have a strong feeling these are now part of the 'rejects' allocation."

The group's third and last stop was Pier 18.

"We call it the Mountain of Life because a number of people depend on it for survival," Dalupan told the Inquirer. "The trek was clearly an eye opener for most of us, seeing first-hand the squalid conditions of their homes made to stand on top of garbage. There, children walked around naked and barefoot, while we walked in the safety and comfort of our boots. We watched as scavengers scrambled for the arriving dump trucks, not knowing whether to feel sorry for them or feel sorry for ourselves as we groped for answers to explain such poverty in our midst."

The weekend initiative complemented "Project Eliminate," the firm's own solid waste management project in its Paco plant, said Chito Macapagal, Unilever general manager for corporate development.

"In Unilever, we make sure that our operations have the minimum possible effects on the environment. Our factory and offices maintain the highest standards, ensuring that the plant does not pollute the air or the water. We have also reduced solid waste by 90 percent. But in 2003, we found out we're still responsible for 1,200 tons of landfill. Not only was this bad for the environment, but costly, too," Macapagal pointed out.

So Unilever created Project Eliminate, he said.

"Through Total Productive Maintenance, or TPM, we're able to reduce waste by 80 percent.

In March 2005, Unilever's goal to reduce by 75 percent the cost associated with its "No solid waste landfill" was achieved.

"We did it through reduction at source and optimization of the recycling processes," Macapagal said. With INQ7.net

Previous stories:
A husky venture that plays by the ear – 10/13/06
‘Pepe’ does wonders for kids – 09/23/06
Getting OFWs and their families to save, invest – 9/16/06





Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.








Ayala sells Burger King stake to Lina group


By Elizabeth L. Sanchez
Inquirer, XFN-Asia
Last updated 03:59am (Mla time) 10/18/2006



CONGLOMERATE Ayala Corp. told the stock exchange Tuesday that it had sold its entire majority stake in Burger King franchise owner PFN Holdings Corp. to BK Titans Inc., a company identified with courier service magnate Alberto Lina and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. chairman Manuel Pangilinan.

PFN owns Perf Restaurants Inc., the Philippine franchisee of BK Asiapac Pte. Ltd., the parent company of all Burger King franchises in Asia-Pacific region.

Inquirer sources estimated that the deal brought in P100 million to Ayala, equivalent to Burger King's current capital.

Ayala did not confirm the sources' information, citing confidentiality agreements.

Lina, who holds a majority stake in BK Titans, said in a phone interview: "The objective of the new group is to turn around the business and to make Burger King one of the world's best fast food chains."

Ayala said in a statement: "The sale of PFN is consistent with Ayala's strategy to focus on its core businesses, which include real estate, financial services, telecommunications, utilities, and electronics."

Ayala exited the food business in 2001 when it sold processed meats producer Pure Foods Corp. to beverage and food conglomerate San Miguel Corp. The Burger King business was not part of that transaction.

Since that time, Ayala and BK Asiapac have looked to place the business, which has been hounded by poor sales, in the hands of an ideal owner who is committed to the quick service restaurant industry.

BKT is a company organized by Lina, who heads Airfreight 2100 Inc., sole licensee of Federal Express Corp. in the Philippines since 1985.

Co-investors are Airfreight president Angelito Alvarez, Philippine Basketball Association chairman Victorico Vargas and Tanduay Holdings president Wilson Young.

BKT said it also fully supported the strategy of BK Asiapac and its programs to make the Burger King a leader in the market.

BK Asia-Pacific welcomed the entry of BKT.

"We look forward to working together with BKT towards strengthening the Burger King franchise in the Philippines," said Peter Tan, president of BK Asia-Pacific.

Burger King operates more than 11,000 restaurants in all 50 states of the United States and in more than 65 countries and US territories. With INQ7.net





Copyright 2006 Inquirer, XFN-Asia. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

FVR's Speech in Pacific Basin Economic Council & Pacific and Asian Affairs --Hawaii, September 29,2006

Wednesday, October 04, 2006 --The Manila Times




Asia Pacific prospects: China, Japan, the United States and Asean


By Fidel V. Ramos, Former Philippine President


(Speech before the Pacific Basin Economic Council and the Pacific and Asian Affairs Council in Honolulu, Hawaii, September 29, 2006.)



First of three parts

IN our part of the world, over the next ten years 2006-2015, the main currents seem fairly easy to predict.

In its drive for great-power status, China will continue to reclaim its historical centrality in East Asia. Already it is emerging as the “second” pole of what has been, over these last 15 years, a unipolar world.

We may also expect Japan, China’s long-standing rival, to contest Beijing’s efforts to gain regional primacy. Meanwhile, the smaller and economically weaker Southeast Asian states, in self-defense, have begun to take seriously their avowed ambition to achieve economic and political consolidation by way of an Asean Charter in the making.

And they are wise to do so, because East Asia does not lack flashpoints of regional conflict. There are the rival claims over still-undiscovered hydrocarbon resources in the islands of the South China Sea (Spratlys); rising Islamic militancy in Indonesia and in Southern Thailand; and, most worrying of all, is the unstable Pyongyang regime on the Korean Peninsula still rattling its nuclear saber.

Of course, the United States, which has regarded itself—since the 1890s—as an Asia-Pacific power, will continue to assert its security interests in the region. And Washington’s first priority has always been to prevent the rise of a regional superpower that could undermine the US lead role in the Asia Pacific and, subsequently, pose a global challenge to US preeminence.

Since the end of World War II, Washington has been the fulcrum of the East Asian power balance. And it is Pax Americana that has given the East Asian states the breathing spell to put their houses in order and to grow their economies at the postwar world’s fastest rate. Over the foreseeable future, the American presence will continue to be a key factor in East Asia’s affairs.


How will the great-power rivalries resolve themselves?

Any of these flashpoints flaring up into conflict will burst the bubble of Asia-Pacific stability. The life-and-death question is how the US-China relationship will resolve itself. And the answer will never be as plain as it was in the case of older historical rivalries—such as that between France and Germany in the middle 1800s; that between Great Britain and Germany, beginning in the late 1880s; and, that between Japan and the so-called ABCD powers (the Americans, the British, the Chinese and the Dutch) in the late 1930s.

In our time—given the awesome power of nuclear weapons—the outcome of the natural rivalry between a hegemonic state and a rising power need no longer be inevitable conflict. Consider how the 40-year-long American-Soviet Russian ideological confrontation died away, without breaking out into a shooting war. Nowadays, too, great-power relationships are made up of many complex strands. Not only are there more avenues for contact. In an increasingly interdependent world their strategic interests often overlap—as the US-Chinese-Japanese-and-Russian interests do in the Korean Peninsula. Also, the recent sortie to Beijing of US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson—to exploit his well-established economic networks with Chinese leaders as head of Goldman-Sachs in his previous role—augurs well for a more congenial relationship between America and China.


Even globalization could become an irritant

Economic globalization has been another positive influence—at least for the most part. Open trade and investment have linked great-power economies in ways that can mitigate great-power rivalries. For instance, Japan’s ruling politicians may regard China as a strategic rival, but Japanese business leaders regard it as a valued economic partner. It is by trading with China—and by investing there—that the Japanese have revived their declining economy.

US-Chinese commerce, too, is expanding beyond conventional expectations. In President Hu Jintao’s own estimate, over 9 percent of all the foreign direct investment (FDI) in China today comes from American corporation. Naturally, China’s surplus in their two-way trade—now in the neighborhood of $200 billion—has become an irritant to many American leaders. Already populist American politicians blame China for the migration of US jobs and industries.

Over these next 10 years, a China driving for superpower status, a Japan nurturing a resurgent nationalism and an America asserting its Asia-Pacific lead role are the realities we in East Asia must live with.


China reasserting its central role in Asia

Let us elaborate briefly on these points, beginning with China’s drive for great-power status.

China’s first economic census—concluded in 2005—suggests that its economy is larger than has been estimated. With an economy valued at nearly $2 trillion (instead of $1.65 trillion) in 2004, China may have already surpassed Italy, France and Britain to become the fourth-largest in the world—next to Germany, Japan and the United States. Already, many forecasters convincingly argue that China will be the largest in the world before 2040.

China’s political leaders tout their country’s “peaceful rise.” But most every one else—the American superpower especially—is hedging against an unwanted consequence of China’s resurgence from 150 years of decline. In July 2005, the Pentagon declared that “China’s rapidly modernizing military could pose a long-term threat to other regional forces.”

But—at least for the moment—it is the “soft power” being generated by its increasingly open economy that Beijing is deploying expansively. China has not merely revived the Japanese economy. It has become a growth engine for the Asean states as well. And even Australia’s enduring boom Canberra owes almost entirely to its export of mineral and energy resources to China.







Thursday, October 05, 2006 --The Manila Times


Asia-Pacific prospects: China, Japan, the United States and Asean


By Fidel V. Ramos, Former Philippine President

(Speech before the Pacific Basin Economic Council and the Pacific and Asian Affairs Council in Honolulu, Hawaii, September 29, 2006)


Second of three parts

In Japan, Beijing is leveraging its economic power to break down “Japan Inc.”—the cronyist partnership traditionally shared by Japan’s political and business leaders. In the view of Japan’s ruling elite, Mao Zedong’s heirs will try to hang on to power by substituting a new nationalism (pride in China’s modernization achievements) in place of their communist ideology. And they believe that Beijing has chosen Japan as its “hate-object.” At the same time, Japan’s leaders worry that their economy is becoming as closely tied to China’s as Taiwan’s.

Historical baggage left over from WW II still hinders the Northeast Asian states from leaving behind the “politics of national memory.” Korean nationalism, too, remains fiercely anti-Japanese. And, quite predictably, Chinese and Korean feelings had been inflamed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visits to the Yasukun Shrine—where some war criminals are venerated along with the war dead in accordance with the imperial Shinto cult. It is hoped that PM Shinzo Abe, Koizumi’s successor (and protégé), will act to moderate this historical antagonism.

How emotional these competing nationalisms can be is shown by the feelings recently aroused by conflicting claims over uninhabited China Sea islets—between Japan and China over Senkaku-Daioyu, and between Seoul and the Japanese prefecture of Shimane over Dokto-Takeshima. Generally, Japan is becoming more assertive against China, which Tokyo’s National Defense Program now describes as a “potential threat.” To build up counterweights to China, Japan is moving closer to both Russia and the United States. With Russia, Japan has begun to resolve its postwar dispute over islands in Kuriles chain. And, despite Chinese protests, it has also begun investing in the Russian Far East.


Tokyo reassessing its defense policies

The Bush administration, for its part, wants Tokyo to become—like Great Britain—a more “complete” ally. This will entail a revision of Japan’s 1946 Constitution—whose Article 9 memorably renounces war as an instrument of national policy or as an inherent right of the Japanese state. While Charter change is something most Japanese now are willing to do, younger Japanese in particular no longer take for granted that the United States will protect them.

Under the impact of what it sees as the shifting regional power balance, Tokyo is moving its security system from defensive power to a preemptive strike capability. Japanese strategists see their short-term problems as arising from guerrilla attacks, terrorism, or missiles from North Korea. But they accept that, over the long-term, the national interests of Japan and China might collide.

Although PM Shinzo Abe has openly espoused reforms in Japan’s pacifist Constitution, and most Japanese may have reached a consensus on Article 9, Tokyo is unlikely to rush through such a step, since Japanese rearmament neighbors still are unconvinced that Japan has been cured of its militarism. Japanese liberals themselves still warn that the people and the government may not be able to control a resurgent military.



Future of the US-China relationship


Let us now turn to the future of the US-China relationship.

The era of good feeling in the security relations between Washington and Beijing generated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks has largely dissipated. In the view of an American analyst, it has been replaced by a “climate of strategic mistrust,” but not yet of unrelieved, “strategic antagonism.” The scale of its military spending attests to America’s determination not to be overtaken by any other power—or even a combination of powers. China’s military spending itself is estimated (by The Economist of London) to be rising by 12.6 percent yearly—although it is still less than a fifth of what the United States does spend.

Pentagon strategists have been shifting the weight of US overseas deployments from Europe to the Pacific, and from Northeast Asia broadly southwards—toward Okinawa, the Philippines and Vietnam—and westward from Hawaii to Guam. The Chinese themselves have been redeploying their forces away from the Russian border. Even more significantly, China—a land power since the 15th century—is developing its seagoing capability. Already China’s navy is beginning to intrude into American dominance of the China Sea. Fortunately, one potential flashpoint—the Taiwan independence movement—seems to be declining with the passage of time.


Washington outside looking in on EAEG

Beijing’s diplomacy seems focused on diluting Washington’s strategic dominance in East Asia, avoiding strategic encirclement by the United States and its allies, and positioning the erstwhile “Middle Kingdom” as the core-state of an East Asian community.

The United States is at the moment outside looking in on an East Asian economic bloc that is performing up—with a resurgent China as its most likely leader. The East Asian Economic Grouping (EAEG) that Beijing and Asean contemplate will incorporate Japan and South Korea, but many cut out the United States.

Washington itself is weaving an alliance to “contain” China’s influence. It is courting Vietnam, Indonesia and India while cementing its relationship with Pakistan. Not only has Washington established a military presence in the cluster of Muslim states in Central Asia; it apparently even provides hospitality to China’s Uighur separatists in Xinjiang. With Delhi, Washington has just signed a 10-year military agreement that provides for joint weapons production, greater sharing of technology and intelligence, as well as increased trade in arms.

Washington also seems to be trying to contain China economically. In 2004 opposition in the American Congress killed the Chinese bid for the acquisition of the American energy company, UNOCAL—in what The Economist described as a “blatant disregard for fair play and open markets.” And, at a time when Beijing is reaching out all over the world for strategic raw-material sources to keep up its economy’s galloping growth, the UNOCAL fiasco will remind Chinese leaders—uncomfortably—of the boycott the Western powers imposed on Japan’s raw-material imports in 1941, which firmed up Tokyo’s fateful decision to attack Pearl Harbor.

So where will it all end? China is not just reshaping the global economy. The global economy is also reshaping China. Already China is moving—even if by fits and starts—toward an economic structure based on the rule of law, a more efficient allocation of capital, and improved corporate governance.

In a word, China’s stake is growing in the rules-based global market system that the United States has done the most to promote over these past 50 years. The two powers have a stake in each other’s prosperity—not only because they are huge trade and investment partners, but also because, together, they can decide on global war or peace.


China as a growth center for Asean

Washington may resist what it perceives as Beijing’s determination to assert itself as the paramount East Asian power. But Southeast Asians are more ready to accept that China will sooner or later become a great power—and that it is unrealistic to think that outsiders can prevent such an outcome.

For the moment, Southeast Asians have set aside their anxieties about how this resurgent China will exercise its regional preeminence. Given the downturn over this last decade in Southeast Asia’s biggest traditional markets—mainly Japan and the United States—Asean has embraced China as an engine of growth for the region. This year, China’s entire trade with the 10 Asean states would catch up with the region’s $120-billion trade with the United States.

Over January-June of 2005, two-way trade grew by 27 percent, making Asean China’s fourth-largest trading partner. China-Asean trade has increased by $50 billion since the sides began carrying out their free-trade agreement in 2002. President Hu Jintao has set a target of $200 billion for China-Asean trade by 2010, when the agreement becomes fully operational. By then, Asean plus China will become the world’s largest free-trade area in population terms. Right now, it represents a market of over 1.75 billion people; a combined gross domestic product of over US$2.6 trillion; and external trade valued at $1.3 trillion (2005).

When Asean plus China expands to incorporate Japan and the republic of Korea, East Asia would be able to sustain economic growth from within itself—because of its increasingly wealthy home-market and its vast savings pool. Of course, Asean and China also compete—in their labor-intensive exports, in attracting foreign direct investments, and even in building up their value-added chains.





Friday, October 06, 2006 --The Manila Times




China’s strong influence on the Philippines


By Fidel V. Ramos, Former Philippine President


(Speech before the Pacific Basin Economic Council and the Pacific and Asian Affairs Council in Honolulu, Hawaii, September 26, 2006)



Conclusion

Among all the Southeast Asian states, the Philippines enjoys the fastest-growing trade with China. Over these last six years, China-Philippine trade has been growing by an average of 38 percent. From a low of US$65 million in 1965, total trade rose to $17.6 billion in 2005—with the Philippines gaining a favorable balance of $8.1 billion. For 2006, total trade is projected to reach $23 billion, which should bring it close to the magnitude of Philippine trade with the United States and Japan.

Not only has the two-way trade grown exponentially. Chinese investments, Chinese technology and Chinese tourists have all started coming into the Philippines. Economic cooperation between our two governments has also expanded in many areas—in agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure and tourism.

Not coincidentally, economic cooperation has generated political side-benefits. It has enabled the two countries quietly to ease their residual political problems, notably their conflicting claims to islets in the South China Sea—thus enabling their national oil corporations including Vietnam’s to explore jointly for hydrocarbon resources in the contested area. This tripartite arrangement in the South China Sea is the obvious model for resolving similar conflicts in the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan.

Philippine leaders have also invited the Chinese to make equity investments in mining projects and large public works ventures being planned. These include railways, airports, seaports, highways and power projects. A Cabinet Working Group estimates that these programs and projects would require, over an extended period, a total Chinese investment of US$32.5 billion—in equity, joint ventures and loans on varying terms.


Regional integration as the global norm

To a certain extent, the other East Asian countries share Japanese apprehensions that, as China’s power increases, the latter could eventually distort the rules for regional transactions—whether in trade, investment, the environment or even security—but they differ from the Japanese in that they see in rules-based regional institutions and treaties their beast hope for positively channeling the rising influence of the great powers. It is true that, for East Asia—even more than for Western Europe—deep integration that submerges the nation-state is no more than a distant dream. Over the foreseeable future, an East Asian Economic Grouping—even if it takes off—is unlikely to develop beyond a free-trade area, similar to earlier movements in Europe and in the Americas.

If they are to deal equally with China in the already-established Asean plus China configuration, the Asean states must also become more coherent economically and politically. Right now, they are still a long way even from reducing the trade barriers among themselves and creating a single Asean market that can rival China’s in the eye of foreign investors.

For the countries of East Asia, the immediate usefulness of an East Asian Economic Grouping would lie in the framework of rules and procedures that it sets down—and within which not just China, but also Japan, must work—in all their regional dealings.

In another 10 years, we may expect regional integration to become the global norm. Given the World Trade Organization’s recent failure to open up global trade, regional blocs to create economic scale will likely become the main diplomatic activity of these next few years. Certainly, all Asean leaders live with the knowledge that the alternative to regional unity is to become marginalized in global competition. Thus, the urgent need for an Asean Charter.

Among these regional groupings, East Asia could become the greatest—since it would have vigorous growth engines—China and Japan, plus up-coming ones like Korea, a resurgent Indonesia, and an interconnected India.


From the American to the Asia-Pacific peace

Over the next 10 to 15 years, the task for our statesmen would be to replace the American peace (Pax Americana) that has enforced stability in this region with a Pax Asia-Pacifica. Unlike the American peace—which is at bottom based on America’s military might—an Asia-Pacific peace would be the peace of virtual equals.

An emergent Pax Asia-Pacifica, in which the US will still be a major player, would be a broader security arrangement based not on the “balance of power” but on the “balance of mutual benefit.” Clearly, it must be built on an understating among the most affluent, and most powerful, countries in our part of the world—the United States, Japan and China. Indeed, a constructive Chinese role in organizing the Asia-Pacific peace would demonstrate China’s commitment to becoming the “responsible stakeholder” that Washington has challenged Beijing to become.

Japan, too, must take up a more responsible role in the region. Clearly, one of the challenges in ensuring the Asia-Pacific peace is a win-win relationship between Beijing and Tokyo. In the interest of stability, both these two powers should stop allowing the historical past to get in the way of a bountiful, peaceful, stable Asia-Pacific future.

In the end, relations among the great Asia-Pacific powers, Asean included, will always be an interplay of competition and cooperation. The strategic challenge will be for all our countries and all organizations devoted to regional integration to ensure that the “spirit of cooperation” is always stronger than the “competitive impulse.”







 
 
 
Copyright (c) 2001 The Manila Times