Archive for September, 2015


Part II: Comparing the four Southeast Asian states of interest

This paper focuses on the contemporary politics of four Southeast Asian states—Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Thailand.  Two of them—the Philippines and Thailand—are relatively established democracies (albeit with authoritarian interludes) while the other two—Indonesia and Myanmar—are democratizing or liberalizing polities transitioning from authoritarianism.  It is must be noted however that Indonesia has made more considerable progress compared to Myanmar, which have moved away from authoritarianism only a few years ago.

Suharto, former president of Indonesia

Suharto, former president of Indonesia

The forms of government of these democratic (democratizing or liberalizing) states are not similar.  Both Indonesia and the Philippines are unitary presidential constitutional republics with bicameral legislatures.  While Indonesia started democratizing in 1998 after the resignation (ouster) of authoritarian President Suharto, it was only in 2004 that the Indonesian president and vice president were elected by the electorate at large.  Prior to 2004, the leaders of the Indonesian republic were chosen by the legislators.  In contrast, the presidents and vice presidents of the Republic of the Philippines were directly elected since 1946 when the United States granted its independence save for an authoritarian period when the elected leader, President Ferdinand Marcos, launched an auto-golpe in September 1972 and ruled the country beyond the constitutionally-specified end of his term in 1973.  Marcos was ousted in a popular uprising in February 1986 and the new basic law imposed a single-term limit on presidential incumbents.

King Bhumibol of Thailand

King Bhumibol of Thailand

Thailand, meanwhile, is a constitutional monarchy but actual governmental power is wielded by a prime minister (and his cabinet) chosen by a majority of incumbent parliamentarians.  However, the Thai monarch (specially the incumbent King Bhumibol) has played a substantial political role in mediating conflicts between Thai political factions (civilian, military, or otherwise).  The absolute monarchy in Thailand was ended by a military coup in 1930 and a limited monarchy was established in its place.  However, military officers took the reigns of power in several occasions largely through bloodless coups with such authoritarian interludes often gaining royal approval or acquiescence.

General Aung San, considered the father of Burma's independence, was assassinated on July 19, 1947.

General Aung San, considered the father of Burma’s independence, was assassinated on July 19, 1947.

Myanmar is a federated union established in 1948 as a weakened United Kingdom retreated from its Asian colonies.  It was a democratic polity until a coup in 1962 installed a military dictatorship.  The military regime was seriously challenged by insurrections in the capital city of Yangon in 1988 and in 2007 but was able to crush these risings.   Elsewhere, armed secessionist movements of the various non-Bamese (or Burmese) minorities (e.g. Shan, Karen, and other ethnic minorities) fought the Yangon government (considered as controlled by Bamese interests) in one of the world’s longest running civil wars.  To mollify urban opposition, the military regime called for limited parliamentary elections in 1990 but set it aside when the results were not to its liking.  Since the opposition led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (daughter of the acknowledged founder of the modern Burmese army, General Aung San) and her National League for Democracy (NLD) won almost 60% of the national vote and 80% of contested parliamentary seats, the military regime had been under considerable pressure from within and without to relinquish power to elected civilian leaders as well as release Suu Kyi from house arrest.  In 2011, the ruling military junta was officially dissolved following a 2010 general election and a nominally civilian government was installed.  While former military leaders like Thein Sein (nominally a civilian after retirement as military chief) still wield substantial power, the Burmese military have taken major steps in relinquishing governmental control.  Suu Kyi was released and allowed to stand for elections as a parliamentarian.  She assumed her seat in parliament in 2012 and has since served as NLD chair and leader of the opposition.

Shan secessionist soldiers

Shan secessionist soldiers

Notwithstanding differences in forms of government, all four Southeast Asian states have a common history of political regime swings.  However, since all four are either liberalizing, democratizing or consolidating their democratic polities, it is indeed a valid exercise to evaluate how these polities handle two key relationships—between ‘ins’ and ‘outs’, and between majorities and minorities for one to have a well-rounded assessment of their political health.

Advertisements

Travails of democratization and political liberalization in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Myanmar[1]

Amado M. Mendoza, Jr., Ph.D.

University of the Philippines

Part I: Introduction

Notwithstanding differences in the political and social development of Southeast Asian states, it is noteworthy that a ‘politics of hatred, revenge and political obstruction’ characterizes contemporary Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and the Philippines. In Indonesia, unrepentant vestiges of the Order Baru era seeks to derail the new presidency of the popular reformist Joko Widodo, who is further hobbled by his ‘allies’ in the ruling coalition. Thailand meanwhile is gripped by the seemingly intractable enmity between pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin forces. In the Philippines, the out-going Aquino administration is scrambling to field a friendly successor to avoid a fate it ruthlessly imposed on the preceding president. While liberalizing and on the road to democracy and internal reconciliation, the Buddhist-dominated regime in Myanmar is currently engaged in an apparent genocide against Muslim Rohingyas, now the new ‘boat people’ that even Muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia are unwilling to accommodate.

Pnoy Aquino

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III

It can be argued that democracy does not have room for a peculiar ‘politics of hatred, revenge and obstruction’ that has characterized the contemporary polities of four key Southeast Asian states: two relatively established democracies—Thailand and the Philippines; a new democracy, Indonesia; and a liberalizing polity—Myanmar—supposedly on a democratic road map. Democracy is a political order ideally based on civil dialogue and compromise and political differences are to be resolved mainly through the electoral process and other political institutions. The hallmark of democracy is thus to resolve conflicts and differences in a rule-based, peaceful or non-violent, and inclusive manner. In fact, democratic theorists argue that the quality of a democracy is largely determined by its capacity to respect the rights and legitimate interests of minorities even as it recognizes that majorities rule. While consensus is not required for a polity to qualify as a democracy, the legitimate interests of any minority as well as their human rights should be respected and must not be summarily dismissed simply because ‘they do not have numbers’. This desideratum is of great importance especially to a polity that is supposedly democratizing like Myanmar.

Myanmar opposition leader Daw Aung Suu Kyi

Myanmar opposition leader Daw Aung Suu Kyi

Incumbent governments in democracies gain their right to rule, or their legitimacy, through the electoral process that must be perceived by political actors and stakeholders to be fair and clean. Electoral legitimacy can be eroded through the life of a government if it fails to deliver a decent modicum of desired public goods to a critical majority of its constituents. If electoral legitimacy is buttressed by performance, a government that seeks re-election will most likely (ceteris paribus) succeed in obtaining a new electoral mandate.

Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia

Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia

Nonetheless, such mandates are not permanent since democracies, as rule, prescribe time-bound terms of incumbency. Alternation of incumbents is thus an institutional feature of democracies. Even if the same political party or coalition is returned to power through elections, the political leaders of government need not be same. For this reason, how the ‘outs’ are treated by those in power (or the ‘ins’) is another important indicator of a democratic polity’s quality. In the same manner, how ex-incumbents deal with a sitting government will also matter. In the main, ex-incumbents may either choose to cooperate with the incumbents even while maintaining an oppositionist stance. This stance of being the ‘loyal opposition’ is acceptable in a democracy which does not require unanimity and accepts and tolerates political differences. The qualifier ‘loyal’ is important as ex-incumbents are required to respect the electoral will of a state’s citizens. Ex-incumbents, even in if the opposition, are required to limit such opposition to legal means and avenues. They may ‘plot’, plan, organize and mobilize to regain incumbency but only within electoral and institutional parameters. Should they seek to regain incumbency through non-institutional and violent ways such as revolution, coups, and the like, they undermine and weaken their polities’ democracies and impede democratic consolidation.

Thailand's former premier Thaksin Shinawatra gestures as he speaks to journalists outside his home in Dubai, after Puea Thai Party's Yingluck Shinawatra announced her coalition in Bangkok July 4, 2011. Exiled former Thai prime minister Thaksin said on Monday he had no wish to become prime minister again in the wake of a landslide election victory for his sister's opposition party. Thaksin, a billionaire twice elected premier, was ousted in a 2006 coup. (REUTERS/Jumana El Heloueh)

Thailand’s former premier Thaksin Shinawatra

Cleavages other than electoral fortune such as religion, ethnicity, wealth and income, among others, may also create majorities and minorities. In the same manner, how these non-electoral majorities relate with or treat non-electoral minorities is another important index of a polity’s democratic bona fides. If these non-electoral minorities are discriminated against, oppressed, or persecuted systematically by the majority, the discontent can lead to political disorder and instability and could inspire armed secessionist movements.

Thus, the health of a democracy, the prospects of a democratizing polity can be measured through two variable relationships: between majorities and minorities and between the ‘ins’ and the ‘outs’.

__________________________

Presented at the 9th APISA Annual Conference, Phnom Penh, Cambodia (September 11-12, 2015). Not for citation; comments are welcome and could be sent to ammendoza@up.edu.ph or ammendozajr@gmail.com.)


“The changing triangular relations between the Philippines, the United States and the People’s Republic China: From Obama, Aquino, and Xi and beyond”

 

Amado M. Mendoza, Jr. and Richard Javad Heydarian

Part V

What now?

None illustrates the abject poverty of the Philippine government’s current position vis-à-vis China that the just concluded seventh bilateral strategic and economic dialogue between China and the United States last June.  A glaring contrast is offered by a more powerful U.S. talking with China while the  weakest state, the Philippines, spurns talking with a powerful neighbor.   It appears that the smallest power in this triangle has put all its eggs in two baskets: the ITLOS arbitration case and an expanding security relationship with its American ally (as well as Japan).  It remains to be seen how the Benigno Aquino III administration will respond to the latest entreaty from the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines that the former drop its ITLOS case and resume the bilateral dialogue between the two states.

US-China strategic and economic dialogue

Even the bitterest adversaries can and should talk, and the measure of good leadership is to combine deterrence with smart engagement. After all, diplomacy is about avoiding conflict, resolving disputes, and outsmarting adversaries through means than raw brinkmanship.  We can learn from our neighbors.  The Philippines is not the only country which has territorial disputes with China.  If anything, Tokyo and Hanoi have been locked in a similar, if not fiercer, territorial show down with Beijing.  Since 2010, Japan has had to resist the ever-growing deployment of Chinese para-military patrols and jet fighters close to the shores of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. Armed hostilities loomed possible.  Hawks in Beijing have utilized the disputes to fan the flames of anti-Japanese sentiment, which led to violent protests in China against Japanese interests and products in 2012.

Senkaku-Diaoyu-Tiaoyu-Islands

Pre-modern Vietnam had waged a millennium-old war of anti-colonial resistance against its powerful northern neighbor.  Vietnam’s very national identity has been shaped by what it sees as a struggle for independence against China.  Unlike Japan and the Philippines, Vietnam has had to contend with both continental as well as maritime disputes with China.  In 1974, China effectively evicted (South) Vietnam from the Paracels in the South China Sea and mounted a full-scale invasion of Vietnam in 1979.  In 1988, Vietnam faced another bloody skirmish with China over disputed islands in the Spratlys.  In mid-2014, Vietnam and China relations suffered a huge setback after Beijing deployed a giant oil rig into Vietnamese-claimed waters.

However, both Japan and Vietnam[1] have maintained robust diplomatic channels with China, while rapidly developing their deterrence capabilities.  Both Tokyo and Hanoi have tried (with considerable success) to maintain large-scale economic ties with China, defend their territorial integrity, and avoid outright conflict. They have accomplished this difficult balancing act by combining pro-active engagement with a determined push to enhance their deterrence capabilities.  Leaders in Japan and Vietnam have tried to ensure territorial disputes with China do not define their overall relationship with Asia’s new superpower.   In economic terms, China is a leading trading partner and source of investments for Vietnam . With respect to Japan, China is a critical investment and consumer market as well as a key source of rare earth elements.

Pursuing (and maintaining) engagement with China has always risked domestic political backlash for rivals, especially among more hawkish circles, which view China as a monolithic expansionist power. In 2014, as the dispute with China entered a dangerous stage, Japan’s nationalist leader, Shinzo Abe, took a huge gamble when he instructed his diplomats to open communication channels with China, culminating in a formal dialogue between Abe and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Beijing.  Abe’s meeting with Xi ended up in one of the world’s most awkward handshakes, but it did not take long before Japan and China resumed high-level talks among their foreign and defense ministries, and began exploring various confidence-building measures to avoid accidental clashes in the high seas.

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, left, and China's President Xi Jinping, right, shake hands during their meeting at the Great Hall of the People, on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, in Beijing, Monday, Nov. 10, 2014. President Xi and Prime Minister Abe held an ice-breaking meeting Monday on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific conference in Beijing, following more than two years of deep tensions over an island dispute. (AP Photo/Kim Kyung-Hoon, Pool)

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, left, and China’s President Xi Jinping, right, shake hands during their meeting at the Great Hall of the People, on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, in Beijing, Monday, Nov. 10, 2014. President Xi and Prime Minister Abe held an ice-breaking meeting Monday on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific conference in Beijing, following more than two years of deep tensions over an island dispute. (AP Photo/Kim Kyung-Hoon, Pool)

At the height of their disputes in the South China Sea last year, Vietnam hosted China’s leading foreign policy advisor, Yang Jiechi, and dispatched a top official, Le Hong Anh, to Beijing to de-escalate tensions. Soon, the two countries signed their third hotline, between their defense ministries, while the country’s party chief, Nguyen Phu Troung, made a high-profile visit to Beijing in mid-2015.  China not only withdrew the oil rig from Vietnamese waters; it also did not dispatch additional ones.  In exchange, Vietnam is said to have temporarily shelved the option of taking the dispute to an international court.  All the while, Vietnam as well as Japan have augmented their presence close to disputed features, fortified their position on the ground, and have embarked on a long-term initiative to enhance their defensive capabilities.

The Philippines can draw crucial lessons from its neighbors. First and foremost, it has to acknowledge the importance of maintaining high-level communication channels with Beijing. So far, Aquino and Xi are yet to hold a single formal summit.  For what is publicly known, Manila has not established a single hotline with China to prevent accidental clashes in the high seas and make sure they do not escalate into a full-scale conflict.

It is important to make sure Manila’s bilateral relations with China are not primarily defined by their conflicts but rather by their long-term shared interests.  Finally, the Philippines must also draw lessons from poorer neighbors such as Vietnam, which, instead of relying on external powers, are investing in their own air, naval, and coast guard capabilities in order to push back against Chinese assertiveness.

With Xi Jinping expected to visit Manila for the APEC summit later this year, there is a crucial opportunity to kick start a more proactive engagement with Beijing, keeping in mind the importance of diplomacy not only to mobilize friends but also outsmart or neutralize rivals.  Ultimately, however, as the more powerful party Beijing bears the greater responsibility for reaching out to its much-weaker and vulnerable neighbor.  This is apparently what the Chinese ambassador Zhao Jianhua has done recently, with the assurance that the Philippines is not in any way excluded from the Chinese-sponsored Maritime Silk Road (Remo 2015).  To encourage good will, China should offer greater economic incentives without any geopolitical preconditions. For starters, China can also boost confidence-building efforts by permanently postponing the imposition of any Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea.  It could also raise hopes for greater cooperation by ending its unilateral, coercive occupation of the Scarborough Shoal, ending para-military patrols close to Philippine- controlled features in the area, agreeing to a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, and start negotiating mutually-satisfying joint development schemes with its neighbors.  More than anyone else, the ball is in China’s court, but it is also necessary for the Philippines to re-calibrate its diplomatic posturing, driven by more reason than emotions or ideological preferences.

REFERENCES

  1. Books, book chapters, and journal articles

Advincula, J. 2015. “China’s Leadership Transition and the Future of US-China Relations: Insights from the Spratly Islands case.” Journal of Chinese Political Science (2015) 20: 51-65.

Anderson, B. 1999.  “From Miracle to Crash”. London Review of Books. 20(8): 3-7.

Bello, W. 2010.  “From American Lake to People’s Pacific in the Twenty-First Century.” in Militarized Currents: Toward a Decolonized Future in Asia and the Pacific, eds. Shihematsu S. & Keith Camacho. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.

Bello, Walden. 2006. Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire. Metropolitan Books: New York.

Blackwill, R. D. and Tellis, A. J. 2015. Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

Blanchard, J. and Shen, S. 2015. Conflict and Cooperation in Sino-US Relations. London/New York: Routledge.

Chen, R. 2013. “A critical analysis of the U.S. ‘Pivot’ toward the Asia-Pacific: How realistic is neo-realism?” The Quarterly Journal (Summer): 39-66.

Chung, C.P. 2004. “Southeast Asia-China Relations: Dialectics of ‘Hedging’ and ‘Counter-Hedging’.” Southeast Asian Affairs 2004: 35-53.

Dollar, D. 2007. “Asian Century or Multi-polar Century.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4174.

Dong, W. 2015. “Is China trying to push the U.S. out of East Asia?” China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies 1(1): 59–84.

Feria, D. 1993. The Barbed Wire Journal: Project Sea Hawk. Baguio: Paper Tigers and Circle Publications.

Garver, J. W. 1992. “China’s Push through the South China Sea: The Interaction of Bureaucratic and National Interests”. China Quarterly, No. 132: 999-1028.

Hamilton-Paterson, J. 1998. America’s Boy: The Marcoses and the Philippines. Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing.

Heydarian, R. J. 2015. “The Diplomatic Implications of Philippine-China Arbitration”, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies. January 21, 2015.

Kissinger, H. 2012. “The Future of U.S.-Chinese Relations.” Foreign Affairs March/April 2012.

Kissinger, Henry. 2011. On China. New York: Penguin books.

Kohli, H., Sharma, A., and Sood, A. eds. 2011. Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century. Singapore: Sage Publications.

Kurlantzick, Joshua. 2007. Charm-offensive: How China’s soft power is transforming the world. New York: Yale University Press.

Li, J. 2014. “Managing tension in the South China Sea: Comparing the China-Philippines and the China-Vietnam approaches.” RSIS Working Paper No. 273. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.

Mearsheimer, J. 2014. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (Updated edition). New York: Norton.

Mearsheimer, J. 2014a. “Can China Rise Peacefully?” National Interest  25 October 2014. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/can-china-rise-peacefully-10204 (Accessed 19 July 2015).

Mendoza, A. and Heydarian, R. 2012.  “China-Philippines”, in ASEAN – China Free Trade Area Challenges, Opportunities and the Road Ahead, Keith, F. & Kalyan Kemburi (eds.). Nanyang Technological University: Singapore.

Morada, N. 2006. “Philippine Foreign Relations after September 11 (2001-2005),” in Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Eds. Morada N., & Teresa Encarnacion Tadem. Quezon City: University of the Philippines.

Morrison, W. 2015. “China-U.S. Trade Issues.” US Congressional Research Service.

Nye, Joseph Jr. 2015. “The future of U.S.-China Relations.” Brazilian Journal of International Relations 4(1): 7-20.

Saha, P. 2015. “The Scarborough Shoal Dispute and the United States-Philippines Relations.” Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 4(6): 237-253.

Saunders, P. 2014. “China’s Rising Power, the U.S. Rebalance to Asia, and Implications for U.S.-China Relations.” Issues & Studies 50(3): 19-55.

Shirk, Susan. 2007. China: Fragile Superpower:  How China’s Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise. New York: Oxford University Press.

Swaine, M. 2015b. “Averting a deepening U.S.-China rift over the South China Sea.” National Interest, 2 June 2015.

Swaine, M., et al. 2015. Conflict and Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Strategic Net Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Yamaguchi, N. 2012. “Facilitating the US Pivot: A Japanese Perspective.” Global Asia 7(4): 42-45.

Zhao, S. 2014. “A new model of big power relations? China-US strategic rivalry and balance of power in the Asia-Pacific.” Journal of Contemporary China 24(93): 377-397.

  1. Periodical articles

Allan, A. 1974. “Red arms smuggling plot busted.” Philippine Daily Express, August 29, 1974, pp. 1-2.

Anon. 2015. “Russia first to approve AIIB.” The BRICS Post, 3 July 2015.

  1. 2015. “US Pacific Fleet chief joins surveillance of South China Sea.” Inquirer.net, 19 July 2015.

Bosco, J. 2015. “America’s Asia Policy: The New Reality.”  The Diplomat, 23 June 2015.

Chubb, A. 2015. “The South China Sea: Defining the ‘Status Quo’.” Name of publication, 11 June 2015.

Fonbuena, C. 2014.  “SC orals on EDCA: China threat looms over charter issues.” Rappler, 18 November 2014.

Fonbuena, C. 2015. “Miriam sends anti-EDCA draft resolution to Supreme Court.” Rappler, 30 June 2015.

Jakobson, L. and Medcalf, R. 2015. “The perception gap: Reading China’s maritime objectives in Indo-Pacific Asia.” Lowy Institute for International Policy, 23 June 2015.

Heydarian, R. J. 2015. “The China challenge in the West Philippine Sea.” Rappler, 12 June 2015.

Heydarian, R. J. 2015. “Made in Beijing: An Anti-China Alliance Emerges.” The National Interest, 13 June 2015.

Heydarian, R.J. 2015. “Engaging China: Time for smart diplomacy.”  Rappler, 16 June 2015.

Heydarian, R. J. 2015. “Japan: The Philippines’ New Best Friend?” Publication’s name, 17 June 2015.

Heydarian, R. J. 2015. “Time for China and the Philippines to Talk: Resolving the South China Sea Conundrum.” The World Post, 18 June 2015.

Heydarian, R.J. 2015. “Chinese-Filipino Community’s Dilemma: The Philippines, China, and the China South Sea Disputes.” The World Post, 28 June 2015.

Katigbak, J. 2015. “US to China: Prove your claim.” Philippine Star, 29 June 2015.

Malay, R. 2005. “How NPA guerillas lost China’s support”. Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 29, 2005, p. A1.

Perlez, J. 2015. “Stampede to join China’s development bank stuns even its founder.”  Asia Pacific, 2 April 2015.

Reuters. 2015. “China: Changing position on sea dispute would shame ancestors.” GMA News Online, 27 June 2015.

Torode, G. 2015. “’Paving Paradise’: Scientists alarmed over China island-building in disputed sea.” Jakarta Globe, 26 June 2015.

Uy, V. 2013. “Scarborough Standoff a year later: Don’t take the US side and other tips from a Chinese expert.” InterAksyon.com, 10 April 2013.

  • Primary sources

Ackermann, M. 2014. “China’s Rise to Power: An Examination of Domestic, Regional and Global Impacts.”  Master’s thesis, Johns Hopkins University.

Colberg, C. M. 2014. “Catching Fish with Two Hands: Vietnam’s Hedging Strategy Towards China.” Master’s thesis, Stanford University.

Cruz, E. S. 2015. “In Defense of the Spratly Islands: The Philippines’ Bilateral Defense Policy against a Looming China”. International Studies Capstone Research Papers. Paper 2. http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/international_studies_capstones/2 (Accessed 4 July 2015).

Garcia, Z. 2014. “China’s Military Modernization, Japan’s Normalization and its Effects on the South China Sea Territorial Disputes.” FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1315. http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/1315 (Accessed 19 July 2015).

Hendriks, J. T. 2015. “Rebalancing great power politics: a new cold war between the US and China.” Master’s thesis, Leiden University.

Lum, T. and Dolven, B. 2014. “The Republic of the Philippines and U.S. Interests—2014.”  Congressional Research Service, US Congress.

Mahan, T.J. 2013. “Allies of necessity: U.S.-Philippine strategic relations, 1898-2013.” Honors thesis, Texas State University-San Marcos.

  1. Online sources

Amadeo, K. 2015a. “China’s Economy.” http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/China_Economy.htm (Accessed 19 July 2015).

Amadeo, K. 2015b. “U.S. Debt to China.” http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/What-Is-the-US-Debt-to-China.htm (Accessed 19 July 2015).

Amadeo, K. 2015c. “The U.S. Debt and How It Got So Big.” < http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm> (Accessed 19 July 2015).

Harding, R. 2014. “The Lack of Geostrategic Vision in the Philippines’ China Policy.” https://medium.com/@renyharding/the-lack-of-geostrategic-vision-in-the-philippines-china-policy-726ba0506c22 (Accessed 5 July 2015).

Remo, A. 2015. “China urges PH: Let’s talk instead.” Inquirer.net 23 July 2015 < http://globalnation.inquirer.net/126484/china-urges-ph-lets-talk-instead>. (Accessed 23 July 2015).

Swaine, M. 2015a. “The Real Challenge in the Pacific.” Foreign Affairs May/June 2015. (Accessed 19 July 2015).

Timaraos, N. 2015. “U.S. Annual Budget Deficit Remains Near 7-Year Low in June.” Wall Street Journal 13 July 2015 < http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-annual-budget-deficit-remains-near-7-year-low-in-june-1436810691> (Accessed 19 July 2015).

U.S. Treasury. 2015. “Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities.” http://www.treasury.gov/ticdata/Publish/mfh.txt (Accessed 19 July 2015).

[1] Li (2014) compares China-Vietnam and China-Philippine relations and concludes that from a conflict management perspective, China and Vietnam have sought to manage their border disputes through the establishment and development of a system of talks.  This approach has resulted in both formal settlement of land border and Gulf of Tonkin disputes and in better management of disputes in the South China Sea.  In contrast, between China and the Philippines, attempts were made to establish mechanisms for conflict management in the 1900s and 2000s but they have not been sustained, and in recent years the absence of such mechanisms have led to frosty relations.