Philippines

Tonight, in Toronto.

Quote:

Workers: Makers of History
Part of the Maleta Project

Exhibition: Thursday May 10 - Sunday May 13, Free

Opening Reception: Thursday May 10, 7 - 9 pm
Beit Zatoun, 612 Markham Street

Maleta is the word for suitcase in the Philippine language of Tagalog. It also acts as a metaphor for Filipino migration to Canada, symbolizing what we carry, what we are forced to leave behind, and the method of our global movement. Bringing together Filipino-Canadian artists and community, Maleta crosses multi-disciplinary art practices, pushes and raises awareness of the impact of forced migration for economic survival by visually articulating the silent stories of one of Canada's fastest growing communities.

Maleta is a collaborative art project tackling the theme of migration that encourages us to examine neo-liberal globalization, Canada's need for cheap labour, historical changes in immigration, the search for "efficiencies," acts of austerity and the impact on all working class Canadians. Through a framework of community collaboration, critical engagement and developing art practice, the Magkaisa Centre engages the Filipino community and Canadian public to look deeper into the struggle of temporary migrants and recent immigrants as part of the larger working class struggle here in Canada.

Visitors are invited to share their "maleta stories" - their direct or distant stories of migration to Canada and contribute to the growth of the installation.

Presented by The Magkaisa Centre and lead artists Marissa Largo, Bryan Taguba, Reuben Sarumugam and Mervyn Mabini.

Presented by Mayworks Festival of Working People and the Arts

NO sympathy for Pacquiao from me because he got a gift decision in his last fight (vs. Juan Manuel Marquez) - now he knows how it is to get screwed over!  The fight, which we definitely thought Pac won, was nowhere near as one sided as was the commentary - more like 8-4 or 9-3 Pac.  The HBO crew, Jim Lampley in particular, has very close ties to the Pac camp and it shows in their commentary, where they gave no credit to anything that Bradley did and give Pac credit for shots that miss or are slipped.  Also, if Pac only fights 30 seconds or so per round, he only has himself to blame when the decision goes the other way.  If you want to see a real robbery, both Cloud - Campillo or, even more so, Rios - Abril were much worse decision this year.  If you go back a few years, see Martinez - Cintron, where Martinez knocked Cintron out (the ref waved the fight off), only for the fight to be restarted again for some mysterious reason and then for the fight to be scored a draw in what should have been a one-sided win for Martinez.

The "good" thing is that at least this time the bad decision went the way of the good guy in the ring and not the way of the misogynistic "congressman", who promotes an anti-women agenda.

Was he doing the "I coulda been a contendah!" speech on the drive home?

NorthReport wrote:

I wonder why China refuses to take the dispute to ITLOS.

They are worried they'd probably not get a favorable ruling?

So what's your opnion of China's claims in the South China Sea?

I think their a bit much (but nothing to fight over).

Ken Burch wrote:

That's the real issue to me...geography, not geopolitics, on what basis does China claim these islands when they are far closer geographically to the Philippines than to the PRC(or for that matter far closer to Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia)?  Were these islands EVER under Chinese sovereignty or control at any point in history?

This is a dispute that the governments of the area need to resolve.  The South China Sea is not the North Atlantic. The US and NATO are just sticking their noses into other nations  business, as usual. They have been in dispute for generations if not centuries but Hillary or Barack should be able to resolve it by threatening someone with violence. Bullies in the room never help in reaching any kind of negotiated settlement.

Quote:

MODERN CLAIMS

China, in 1902, and France, in 1931, were the first states to assert modern sovereignty rights over parts of the South China Sea. France, building on the earlier Vietnamese claim, substantiated its territorial claims by constructing buildings, erecting markers of ownership, stationing temporary garrisons, and the like. China protest- ed these actions, but did not take equivalent action itself. Japan, from the 1930s through World War Two, contested French claims and aggressively pursued its own claims to parts of this area.

Japan renounced its claims in 1951. France let its claims lapse in the 1950s.    In 1946, the Republic of China occupied Itu Aba (Taiping Island), the largest of the Spratly Islands, and placed a garrison there. However, it did not permanently occupy the area. Since this period, a whole series of other claims have been made, or reiterated, by Vietnam (North, South, then unified), the Peoples Republic of China, The Republic of China (Taiwan), the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. In 1974, the PRC attacked the South Vietnamese Navy in the Paracels, killing Vietnamese sailors, and establishing control over the Paracels. Since then, there have been numerous incidents. The most serious clash occurred in 1988, leading to 74 Vietnamese deaths. In recent years, there have been an extensive number of low-level conflicts. Most have involved fishermen or exploration vessels, but a minor incident involved an Indian warship visiting Vietnam that transited an area claimed by China in August 2011.

CONTEMPORARY CONFLICTS AND HISTORY

Today, most analysts assume that resources, especially oil and gas, lie at the heart of most claims to the South China Sea. Yet this is not the gut issue that animates Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, or Filipinos, to name the most active claimants since the 1950s. It is nationalism, combined with a sense that traditional rights to use parts of the South China Sea are being violated. The Chinese and Vietnamese publics, and sometimes their governments, have been the most ardent. This issue is not novel. Generations of children have grown up thinking that this area is “theirs.” On Google Earth, Chinese posters deface Vietnamese claims to islands with their own. “Vietnamese communists will be punished,” reads one tag. On YouTube, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Filipinos post dueling videos about the Spratlys. Such actions underline a key point: while Southeast and East Asia are integrating in many ways, identity politics can force them apart.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CFg...

"They refuse at their own peril."  Bullying is such a progressive trait.  

I prefer posters that bang casseroles not ones that bang the drums of war.

The problem is that it is China which is rejecting a multilateral solution, and instead opting to work on its neighbours (including warning India against any agreements with Vietnam) one-by-one. 

And South China Sea svereignty is not just about resources, but also over one of the most-travelled sealanes in the world. 

And as for basing any final decision on territorial claims, that can be a rather unfair approach, giving the advantage to those who see land as property, and those who have the means to mount expeditions to claim it. Personally, I think territorial proximity makes a bit more sense.

Don't we have another thread on this exact issue still open somewhere? 

(edit)

Yes, still open, though just waiting for the door to shut:

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/diplomatic-resol...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The problem is that it is China which is rejecting a multilateral solution, and instead opting to work on its neighbours (including warning India against any agreements with Vietnam) one-by-one. 

Could you give some examples of successful multinational agreements over resource sharing and development when the same area has been contested by opposing imperial powers?

Was Norway wrong in pursuing a country to country agreement with Russia to settle a border dispute over their contested areas in the Arctic Ocean?  Canada, the US, Norway, Russia and Finland all are making claims and they are not following the procedure that is touted as the only proper course for the South China Seas.  As for using military presence to emphasis a countries claims how about Norway's new military command centre? It seems that in the Arctic it is just expected that the various NATO powers and Russia will are all bulking up their war making machinery.

Damn that China they are THE PROBLEM.

Quote:

It may be summer in the northern hemisphere, but Norway is not the only country turning its military’s attention to the frozen north. Russia’s defence ministry announced plans last week to create two army brigades to defend its polar territory, and Canada is sending more than 1,000 troops to the region in August for its biggest Arctic military exercise yet.

 

The build-up is fuelling fears of conflict in a region estimated to hold up to a quarter of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas. US diplomatic cables released recently by Wiki-leaks quoted Russia’s ambassador to Nato saying his country would “not be defeated” in the “fight for resources”.

Yet, despite the location of its military headquarters, Norway insists the web of competing Arctic territorial claims can be settled peacefully and points to its recent maritime border treaty with Russia as a model for co-operation.

The two countries last year ended a four-decade dispute involving 175,000 sq km of the Barents Sea by agreeing to split the contested area in half. The pact was ratified last month and comes into force on Thursday, clearing the way for each country to start exploring for oil and gas in their respective zones.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e3e51388-a671-11e0-ae9c-00144feabdc0.html...

Lucky Philippines they were liberated from the Spanish by America over a hundred years ago and then 60 years ago from the Japanese.  Great model for the world and a true testament to how America helps the countries it liberates achieve prosperity for all.