US lauds Philippines’ decision to delay termination of military deal

Mark Esper
Short Url
Updated 15 June 2020
Follow

US lauds Philippines’ decision to delay termination of military deal

  • It follows a U-turn by Manila on June 3 citing COVID-19 crisis as the core reason

MANILA: US Defense Secretary Mark Esper welcomed the Philippines’ decision to suspend the termination of a vital defense pact between the two countries, reiterating his support for a strong and enduring military alliance between Washington and Manila.

It follows a phone call between Esper and his Filipino counterpart, Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, on Friday, during which he greeted the latter on Independence Day and “expressed his support for the Philippines government decision ... to suspend the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) termination,” said a statement released by the Pentagon.

The two also discussed a range of regional security issues, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the South China Sea, counterterrorism cooperation, and the Philippines military’s modernization plan.

The Philippines’ Defense Department (DND) confirmed the conference call between the two officials on Sunday, adding that Esper “expressed his appreciation for (Lorenzana’s) support for the Philippine government’s decision to suspend the termination of the ... VFA.”

Esper also talked about the US making “very good progress” in the development of a COVID-18 vaccine, and Washington’s willingness to share it with US allies and partners, including the Philippines, once available.

Lorenzana, for his part, took the opportunity to share the Philippines’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic and expressed appreciation for the medical assistance and donations of medical supplies provided by the US government.

Both sides reiterated their commitment to sustaining dialogue amid the pandemic and strengthening cooperation between the two defense establishments.

On Feb. 11, the Philippines government informed the US Embassy in Manila of its intent to terminate the VFA on Aug. 9, 180 days from the date of notification.

President Rodrigo Duterte, who has long been critical of the US, announced the unilateral decision after the Department of State canceled the visa for one of his political allies, Senator Ronald Dela Rosa.

On June 3, the Philippines announced it was temporarily suspending the termination of the VFA, with Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. saying that the pandemic and “heightened superpower tensions” had prompted the presidential U-turn.

Signed in 1998 and entering into force in 1999, the VFA governs the legal status of US military forces operating in the Philippines and establishes rules by which US troops, vessels, and aircraft may enter the country.

The VFA, and all other bilateral military agreements and activities between the US and the Philippines are supplemental to the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951, which serves as the foundation for the bilateral security relationship between the two countries and requires each to come to the other’s aid if attacked by a third party.

A report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in March noted that “while the termination of the VFA would not abrogate the MDT, it would complicate the Department of Defence’s ability to fulfill its obligations under the treaty.”

Abrogation of the VFA “raises uncertainties about the future of US-Philippine military cooperation, an essential part of the US security posture” in Asia, according to the CRS.

“The Philippines is a US treaty ally, and the termination of the VFA would not change that status... However, broad aspects of US-Philippine cooperation, including military exercises and US access to Philippine military facilities could be made difficult or impossible without the legal protection of the VFA,” the CRS report said.

Admiral Philip Davidson, head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said in February that without the VFA, the US “ability to help the Philippines and their counter-violent extremist fight in the (Mindanao) [and] (US) ability to train and operate within the Philippines and with Filipino armed forces would be challenged.”


1 dead, others injured after London-Singapore flight hit severe turbulence, Singapore Airlines says

Updated 4 sec ago
Follow

1 dead, others injured after London-Singapore flight hit severe turbulence, Singapore Airlines says

  • The airline said the aircraft was a Boeing 777-300ER with a total of 211 passengers and 18 crew on board
BANGKOK: Singapore Airlines says a person has died aboard and others were injured when a London-Singapore flight encountered severe turbulence.
Singapore’s Flight SQ321 from Heathrow was diverted to Bangkok and landed at 3:45 p.m. local time at Suvarnabhumi Airport, the airline announced in its Facebook page. The airline said the aircraft was a Boeing 777-300ER with a total of 211 passengers and 18 crew on board.
Local emergency crews from Samitivej Srinakarin Hospital were on site to transfer injured people off the runway for treatment. Videos posted on the LINE messaging platform by Suvarnabhumi Airport showed a line of ambulances streaming to the scene.

Injuries, 1 death after 'severe turbulence' on flight from London: Singapore Airlines

Updated 2 min 2 sec ago
Follow

Injuries, 1 death after 'severe turbulence' on flight from London: Singapore Airlines

One person died and multiple people were injured on a Singapore Airlines flight that experienced "severe turbulence" while heading from London to Singapore before it was diverted to Bangkok on Tuesday, the company said.
"We can confirm that there are injuries and one fatality on board the Boeing 777-300ER. There were a total of 211 passengers and 18 crew on board," the airline said on Facebook.

Britain’s new protest laws unlawful, London court rules in rights group’s challenge

Updated 19 min 41 sec ago
Follow

Britain’s new protest laws unlawful, London court rules in rights group’s challenge

  • Civil rights group Liberty took the government to court over changes to public order laws made last year
  • Judge rules new regulations gave the police almost unlimited powers to shut down protests

LONDON: Britain unlawfully gave police wider powers to impose conditions on peaceful protests which cause “more than minor” disruption to the public, London’s High Court ruled on Tuesday.
Civil rights group Liberty took the government to court over changes to public order laws made last year, which it says gave the police almost unlimited powers to shut down protests.
The case was heard in February amid a wider crackdown on protest movements in Britain and across Europe, as environmental activists have used direct action protests to demand urgent government action against climate change.
Judges David Bean and Timothy Kerr ruled in the group’s favor on Tuesday, finding that the regulations granting the new powers were unlawful.
The High Court granted the government permission to appeal and suspended its decision that the new powers should be quashed pending the outcome of the appeal.
Liberty’s legal action focused on the Public Order Act, under which the police can impose conditions on a protest if it could cause “serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The law was amended last year, so police could impose conditions in cases where a protest could cause “more than minor” disruption, which Liberty said was unlawful.
Government lawyers argued that ministers were given express powers to amend the law on what amounted to serious disruption.
But the High Court ruled that the government exceeded its powers, which “did not extend to lowering the threshold for police intervention.”


Thai minister quits over legal complaint seeking PM’s dismissal

Updated 21 May 2024
Follow

Thai minister quits over legal complaint seeking PM’s dismissal

  • Pichit Chuenban says his resignation would allow the country ‘to move ahead and not impact the administrative work of the prime minister that needs continuity’

BANGKOK: A Thai minister at the center of a pending legal complaint seeking the dismissal of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin resigned on Tuesday, in an effort to insulate the premier from possible repercussions.
A group of 40 senators lodged a complaint to the Constitutional Court last week against Pichit Chuenban, 65, saying his appointment last month as minister to the prime minister’s office breached the constitution, as he has a criminal record.
The court was due on Thursday to decide whether or not to accept the case, which could lead to Srettha’s suspension.
“Even though I have been vetted and honestly believe that I am qualified by law, this matter is linked to the prime minister,” Pichit said in his resignation letter, shared with media by Srettha’s office.
He said his resignation would allow the country “to move ahead and not impact the administrative work of the prime minister that needs continuity.”
It was not immediately clear whether the resignation would have any impact on the complaint submitted to the court.
Pichit was jailed for six months in 2008 for contempt of court after an alleged attempt to bribe court officials with 2 million baht ($55,000) hidden in a paper grocery bag.
His law license was suspended for five years by the Lawyers Council of Thailand after the incident. The government has said it carefully vetted Pichit’s qualifications and was confident it could defend his appointment before the court.
Pichit becomes the third minister to quit Srettha’s cabinet, after his foreign minister and deputy finance minister resigned following a cabinet reshuffle last month.
The senators, whose term has ended, are currently lawmakers in a caretaker capacity pending the selection of a new chamber. They have accused Pichit of lacking integrity and ethical standards to hold a ministerial post.
Government critics say Pichit was appointed due to his close relationship with a client, ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who returned to Thailand last year after 15 years in exile. Thaksin, an ally of Srettha, still wields considerable political influence, despite officially being retired.
The government has insisted Pichit was appointed due to his capabilities.


Arab Americans reject Biden, Trump reelection: Survey

Updated 21 May 2024
Follow

Arab Americans reject Biden, Trump reelection: Survey

  • President gets 7%, predecessor 2% support because of Gaza ‘genocide’
  • Much higher backing for third-party candidates Jill Stein, Cornell West

CHICAGO: A national survey of Arab Americans released on Monday shows that most respondents overwhelmingly reject the reelection of both President Joe Biden and his predecessor Donald Trump.

Conducted by the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Truth Project on May 17 and 18, the survey shows support for Biden at 7 percent and Trump at 2 percent.

Arab and Muslim voters played a significant role in helping Biden defeat Trump in several key swing states in the November 2020 presidential election.

After taking office in January 2021, Biden responded by unveiling “A Plan for Partnership” with the Arab-American community that was to help strengthen ties with his administration.

But Biden’s unequivocal backing of Israel, including helping to approve more than $40 billion in military aid for the country’s alleged genocide in Gaza — which has taken more than 35,000 Palestinian lives — has all but erased that support and his edge over Trump in key swing states, according to the survey organizers.

“Since the start of the genocide many have speculated about who Arab Americans would vote for — Biden or Trump. The answer is neither, with third-party candidates getting substantial support,” ADC National Executive Director Abed Ayoub said in a statement to Arab News.

Third-party candidates Dr. Jill Stein and Dr. Cornell West received much higher support among Arab Americans.

Stein, who is Jewish and with the Green Party, received 25 percent support while West, who is African American, received 20 percent.

Not mentioned in the survey was leading third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His views have varied from calling for peace and recognition of Palestine to rejecting accusations that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. Kennedy has declined repeated requests from Arab News for interviews.

Five national polls released in March and April from Quinnipiac University, Fox News, Marquette Law School, NBC News and Marist College showed Kennedy with 13 percent support for his independent presidential bid. Stein and West received only 3 percent each in the national polls.

As the presidential election approaches, “it is evident that Arab-American and allied voters are supporting candidates that are listening to our concerns and demands,” ADC said.

In its survey, 19 percent of Arab Americans said they were “undecided” and 3 percent said they would not vote in November.

ADC said support for Stein and West is based on the two running on an anti-genocide platform.

Stein has been a “strong and vocal supporter of Palestine” throughout her career, ADC noted, adding that West has also adopted this stance.

Arab, Muslim and other voters have shown significant opposition to Biden’s reelection in more than 30 state primaries, including five key swing states where he won by slim margins over Trump.

The primary election campaigns have been led by the #AbandonBiden movement, which told Arab News that it is considering hosting its own “Presidential Convention” in the autumn to galvanize Arab, Muslim and “progressive” voters to consider alternatives to Biden.

The ADC / Truth Project survey is based on outreach to 36,139 Arab Americans and “allied voters” who were asked one question: “Who are you voting for in November?”

Over the two days, 2,196 (6 percent) responded. ADC said this was “a high level of enthusiasm” in the presidential election race.

The Truth Project is a social welfare body committed to uniting a diverse coalition of Americans and organizations who support justice and equality in Palestine.

ADC has a large national grassroots membership base, and was founded in the 1980s to fight for civil and Arab-American rights.