Donald Trump: The Great American Alibi. (And more talk about America's Guns.)

Responses to Facebook chats.

OF course. Of course. Donald Trump is the alibi. That'd be the crux, center, and core of U.S. attention, at least until the end of 2028. Maybe even beyond. Because that's what The Narrative spoonfeeds us. Or forces us to swallow whole.

       I was a long-time Leftist until I blurred my paradigm in late 1990s when the Organized Left in the Philippines split into two (as funding went scarce as the Cold War ended). And then I moved to the U.S. and tried to work with Left-wing Filipinos and Left-wing mainstream (largely Americans). I felt alienated, confused, or lost. 

       I can say a lot more but I'll just say the Left that I knew is gone. I see a dismissive elitism that is hot and high on ideological purity and liberal overreach. I am sure whoever argues this is equipped with "cool insults" and correct crassness as response, almost the antithesis of how we were when we were groundworking communities and labor-organizing. 

       We persuaded, we shook hands, we gathered for fun, we discussed with those who disagreed. We never gave up until we recruited them. 

       Years ago, organizing and activism were committed projects. Tactical alliances were effective. These days, the Left believes it can advocate its cause via a juvenile meme that is shared 5,000x in 1 minute. 🏛🗽🏛

 <>IN a nutshell, per war (or America's obsession with guns), these will only heighten or exponentially spike, regardless of a POTUS with a foreign policy playbook that leans kind of dovish. 

       Mr Trump may favor trade-based deals over military brinkmanship but that doesn't mean he won't sell arms for the masters of war. America's 120.5 guns per 100 stays as the marquee. I just hinge my little ambitions to less war, end of wars and less mass shootings in our midst. 

       <>I have been unaligned since I left the Philippines in late 1990s. But it is easy to be judged as this side's apologist because I refuse to ride the hate Trump bandwagon over reading between the lines of his policies or other policies by other POTUSes .🏛🗽🏛

Media stuff and remembering a (real, not imagined) dictatorship.

Responses to Facebook chats.

IN a 20-year dictatorship that I lived through in my most active life as a journalist, the ruling power doesn't shut a major newspaper down or the media outlet that fights it. Why? How'd they know who is against them? LOL! 

       But seriously, the stronger reason: The dictatorship's benefactor, Washington, wanted to let the world know there's still democracy in countries that it controls. 

       I was a junior staffer for the alternative or progressive paper that battled Ferdinand Marcos Sr., which was raided but allowed to resume a few months after. The raid was provoked, not really because We Forum was anti-Marcos (activists called it then “sabwatang Marcos-U.S.”) but because the dictator was infuriated by our publication of a series of articles questioning his (WW2) war medals. We were warned after two or three articles but the editors ignored it, of course.

       I also wrote for the biggest anti-government daily (Philippine Daily Inquirer) and an all-opinion weekly (“Manila's best thinkers”), post-revolution. I did co-publish a “guerrilla-like” newsmagazine (Weekend Banner) that was constantly monitored by the military, LOL! Shut me up? Writers write. They don't spew yarns like we will be shut down, guys! 🏛🗽✍️

MEANWHILE, it is a different situation in a Communist government which "owns" its media. Russia's The Kremlin has Tass. China's CCP has People's Daily, Guangming Daily and PLA Daily and the English-language China Daily. 

       In America? Under Donald Trump? Close to the New York Times, you say? That's laughable. Why not just shut down Saturday Night Live? LOL! This is America, a global power that earns its “coolness” boss mojo by, you know, being democratic and a bastion of freedom and democracy? If The Times or Washington Post or Rolling Stone get shut down, how'd President Trump be able to convince the world that America is still #1? Then China is better. Xi Jinping has an English paper, not just Mandarin. 

       Seriously though, whoever POTUS, the issue is the advent of China and BRICS, which is expanding--that is Washington's utmost concern. The New Left in America is simply pissed that their bet lost, period. The thing is, even if Kamala Harris won last year, China remains as China. 

       In fact, two or three weeks after November 2020  while Joe was celebrating, China gathered 14 economies in the Asia Pacific (including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan) to form the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), the largest trade bloc so far. And then BRICS welcomed Egypt, UAE, Iran, Indonesia and Ethiopia. The EU's top trading partner: China. 

       Ergo, whoever sits in 2028, the geopolitical grid has changed since 2021. It is not the 19th or 20th century anymore. America has to unite rather than continually divide itself. And we should stop pointing at Mr Trump as THE alibi for this country's crumbling foundation. 🏛🗽✍️

MAJOR U.S. newspapers or media outlets, for whatever reason, can be sold or bought out or acquired or merged with another but will never be shut down, I believe. 

       Part of New York Times’ current investors is the powerful BlackRock; Carlos Slim used to be a major shareholder. Of course, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post years ago. In 2018, Patrick Soon-Shiong bought the LA Times and two other publications. Warren Buffett used to own 30 newspapers and 49 weeklies, which he sold to Lee Enterprises (which currently publishes 72 newspapers in 25 states). Etc etcetera. 

       These U.S. media giants aren't like tiny mouthpieces that a POTUS can just erase. And as I said, the U.S.' marquee ego of "character of greatness" to the world, whoever sits in White House, can't just do a "dictatorial" trick like what its underlings elsewhere in the globe do. But shutting down a newspaper isn't that easy as SDO (standard dictatorship operation). 🏛🗽✍️

The U.S. and China. And More Tariff Talk.

Responses to Facebook chats.

THE tariff pitch is a "chip" as trade emissaries of the U.S. and China talk leading to a signed agreement or the 2nd phase of Mr Trump's trade pact with Xi Jinping (the first phase was inked in January 2020). 

       Fact: From 2021 to 2024, the U.S. (foreign policy) playbook obviously changed as China went to "work" quietly, groundworking other economies beyond the U.S. Hints: Just 2 weeks after Nov 2020, China gathered 14 Asia Pacific economies to form the RCEP, currently the world’s largest trade bloc. Check China's new FDIs in MENA. And of course BRICS expanded (add Egypt UAE Iran Indonesia Ethiopia) in those years. The impact of trade in Europe also shook as the Ukraine war exploded and Russian energy imports to the region halted or lessened. 

       The Chinese are very shrewd or cunning traders. As news focuses on or obsessed with every Trump move, the CCP makes deals in the backyard and side-streets. Look back how China bought lands NSEW of the Great Wall from the time of Deng Xiaoping to the 21st century as the U.S. was busy with “cold war'ring” with Russia. Parallel with while Joe was busy pissing off Vlad, Xi was tossing FDIs and loans all over. 

       As these tariff dramas are played up by the media like a doomsday missile, corporations take advantage by jacking up prices. Of course media is also owned or linked profit-wise with those who sell. Fact: The US is world's #1 consumer market and market influencer. Of course China knows that but China is not a top FDI or investor or landowner in the US (Japan and Canada are) yet the US buys a lot of raw materials or pertinent minerals from China like silicon (think Nvidia) and 8,600+ American companies (think Apple and Microsoft and GM) are active in China. Etc etcetera. 🏛🗽🏛

Democratic Republic of Congo.

Previously posted on my Facebook page. Not updated. 

NEWS: “Anti-U.N. Protests in Congo Leave 15 Dead, Including 3 Peacekeepers.” And adds: “Demonstrators have accused international forces of failing to deter armed groups responsible for a wave of deadly attacks.” Mayhem seems to shroud Africa the most these days. Congo is no different. Too bad for its 90 million, who are hungry, poor, and beleaguered by nonstop violence and ailment.

       Yet the fact/s: DRC could be the world’s richest country when it comes to natural resources, with massive untapped deposits of minerals including cobalt, copper, diamonds and gold amounting to approximately $24 trillion. Add ample coltan, zinc, tin, and tungsten. Congo also possesses extensive rainforest reserves and boasts one of the highest hydroelectric power capacities in Africa and globally.

        Other chief industries are consumer products (including textiles, plastics, footwear, cigarettes, processed foods, beverages), metal products, lumber, cement, and commercial ship repair. Sadly, most people in DRC have not benefited from this wealth.

        The DRC's main trading partners are the European Union, chiefly Belgium and France, followed by China, South Africa and the United States. 🇨🇩🇨🇩🇨🇩

GDP growth rate rebounded from 1.7 percent last year to 6.2 percent this year, which is well above the 4.5 percent rate in sub-Saharan Africa. To cash in on this trend, Congo’s leadership has to stop the violence, which exacerbates the not so good 5.4 percent unemployment rate.

       What confounds me is—why despite DRC’s rich promise of economic goodness, the country doesn’t attract U.S. investments. After a peak in 2014, foreign direct investment (FDI) in Africa from the United States dropped to $44.81 billion in 2020, yet it slightly picked up in 2021. Africa receives lower FDI inflows than any other region, although China seems interested in putting in some money.

       As ever, Washington’s interest in Africa is political rather than economic. Yet relations with Congo have always been shaky since the country’s most radical Congolese-Marxist period, 1965–77. The U.S. Embassy reopened in 1977 with the restoration of relations, which remained distant until the end of the socialist era.

       The most that the U.S. could do is a recent additional aid of $13 million, in addition to its current election support of $10.65 million, to support transparent, credible, and inclusive political processes in the country. That amount is simply spare change to what other allies get, which are in the billion$ range. 🇨🇩🇨🇩🇨🇩

THE United States doesn’t care much though. But China is. (Remember, Beijing’s only overseas military base is in Africa, in Djibouti).

      During the souring of U.S./Congo relations due primarily to the latter’s socialist leanings then, China quietly entered. Diplomatic and economic relations started in 1971, although ties go back to 1887, Congo Free State established contacts with the Qing dynasty then ruling China.

       The DRC upholds the One-China policy, as it recognizes the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China rather than the ROC/Taiwan.

       In the 21st century, Chinese investment in the DRC and Congolese exports to China have grown rapidly. The DRC joined the Belt and Road Initiative in 2021. That year, the two countries sat down to talk about a $6 billion deal that’d allow a consortium of Chinese companies to invest in mining and infrastructure projects in DRC.

       In 2000, a Sino-Congolese telecommunications company (China-Congo Telecom) was set up. Trade between China and the DRC greatly increased between 2002 and 2008. This is largely due to massive growth in the DRC's exports of raw materials to China, especially cobalt, copper ore and hardwoods.

       What concerns the U.S., of course, is China’s commitment in providing assistance for Congo’s military. That’d be another story. 🇨🇩🇨🇩🇨🇩

Universal Power Balance.

Responses to Facebook chats.

UNIVERSAL balance by race? The U.S. has the biggest title on the marquee. Europe (or the UK, France, Germany) isn't a "perfect" counterweight to America since Europeans are pretty much like majority Americans (whites). Same Caucasian lineage. 

       Russia was an ally then (Boxer Rebellion of 1899-1901 versus China; 1941-1945 to defeat Nazi Germany). Or in a way, after the 1991/Cold War's SALT, although the wounds of the Cold War were already deep that hardcores on both sides have already closed the door to mutual coolness. 

       Yet per racial lines, some of Europe (Scandinavia and Western part) still got Kievan Rus blood and vein. Yet when China emerged or its global trade expansionism really got going as the 21st century strode in (after the trade pact with the U.S. in 2000 and entry to WTO in 2001) and the CCP hooked up with the Kremlin on mostly trade agenda, the scale wobbled. And so BRICS was born in 2009, the US and Russia animosity got back albeit more economic jealousy (that pumped up the political competition). 

       Meanwhile, Russia was admitted to the WTO in 2012, mostly because Moscow "left" North Korea. Fact was, BFF China took over as the main benefactor of Pyongyang though Russia didn't really "leave." (Note the recent Kim Jong-un/Vladimir Putin meetings.) 

       China's advent is more the counter balance to the U.S. power because the Chinese are very different from America or Europe. The West has failed to break the Chinese, militarily or economically. Of course, the West hasn't defeated the Russians either. But this rivalry (in the absence of another world war) has to exist to sustain that universal balance. 

       Yet the rivalry somehow accentuates America's #1 stature because there is a China/Russia to compare itself with. Or gauge its might or coolness. Even if China gained #1 stature in economy, media will still say it is the U.S. as numero uno because the world will never believe China is their #1 rock star. But China likes it that way. Russia likes it that way. 

       DonaldTrump, I reckon, somehow believes that, too. But he also believes (and I believe) that China and Russia or BRICS per se have to sell their raw materials and manufacturing force to the U.S. to keep America up there. (Yes, the U.S. will probably have manufacturing back but mostly FDIs.) 

       Fighting "rivals" militarily is a waste of money and energy and lives. Better engage them in trade. Mr Trump's tariff tactic is a (trade) chess game directed at China to level the (economic) playing field (that China gained from the West). It may work, it may not. But he is looking for trade pact 2. 

       In Ukraine, The D wants the "rare earth," regardless if the next prez is a Russian bear or U.S. avatar (but Mr Zele has to go). In the Middle East, Israel still gets its arms burgers from the U.S. but trade will be the playbook trick. UAE, Egypt and Iran have joined BRICS as China expands in MENA and Tehran's oil goes to Beijing with no or less trouble in the Strait of Hormuz or the Gulf or Red Sea. 

       Iran has got to put the leash on the Houthis in Yemen. (Hence the Trump Threat to Iran as he avoids bombing Yemen.) Meanwhile, Gaza industrializes and Saudi Arabia and Qatar play more soccer and golf and tennis + hold more MMA, pro boxing and rock n roll. But the Arabs, Russians and Chinese stay "uncool" so that Americans will live forever and ever as humanity's coolest animal. LOL! 🇺🇸🇨🇳🇷🇺

More Stuff. Political Stuff, of course.

Responses to Facebook chats.

ALL the drama! The European Union sources 63 percent of its aluminium from Guinea, 41 percent of its manganese from South Africa, 35 percent of its tantalum from DRC etc etcetera. Copper, lithium and cobalt from Zambia as well go to the E.U. and the U.S. 

       What about American and European oil giants in Nigeria? Etc etcetera. Natural resources to the West! All these have been happening in Africa yet annually 6 million die out there from various diseases (including the Covid years). The West doesn't really care as long as they get what they want. WHO? Who what? 

       Should we talk about "arms for oil" deals in the Middle East since discovery of oil in the desert or since the birth of Israel in 1948? A war has to happen so they can get the oil in exchange for arms? That is why U.S. arms manufacturers dominate the Top 10. Until the region got rich, the Arab Spring shuddered and some of them joined BRICS. 

       Then suddenly Donald Trump shook the table with his aggro tariffs and then news said, whoa?!? I mean, are we talking about how evil America is now because Mr Trump shook the glade? Sure, Donald's tariff trickery is meant to rock the chess board versus China, whose trade expansionism carries on and holds the global economic leverage since 2001 when it joined the WTO, hoping that some US manufacturing goes home. They will not. 

      Some of the 8,600+ US companies in China may even expand to India. What will happen is these countries that are hit with U.S. tariffs will instead toss FDIs to the US (South Korea's Hyundai, Taiwan's TSMC, and Japan's SoftBank are early new investors) although their global money remains. 🏛🗽🏛

MEANWHILE, the U.S. is still #1 consumer market and marketing showroom. Meanwhile, nearly 50 out of 90+ hit by The D's tariffs expressed willingness to negotiate with the U.S. as China matches the cards on the table of course. 

       This is why we need to renegotiate. Shake the trade table. Not a reset via wars or regional armed hostilities or military dares via military aid. Aid giving must be reviewed and cut the quid pro quo that only motivated government corruption among recipient countries. Push the import/export redo. 

       Sure, the US economy will suffer some but, come on, we in America buy anything! Can't we pull back a bit? And save the money or credit cards till renegotiation is over? Till the U.S. and China sit for a second trade pact? In fact a trade war between these titans is good for others. Refer to Trump I's trade war with China (2016 etc) which, for example, benefitted Vietnam et al. Etc etcetera. 🏛🗽🏛

Tariff Talk and more talk tariff.

Responses to Facebook chats.

[ ] ALL THE BLAH. As though tariffs are new. Examples: Franklin D. Roosevelt's Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934 enabled him to liberalize U.S. trade policy around the globe. LBJ's tariff spikes per trade quarrel with Germany (chicken and vans). 

       Fast forward: When China joined the WTO in 2001 (Russia in 2012) tariff tactics had to be reworked. China and Russia and their BRICS partners got the raw materials and APIs. (The BRICS trade bloc was formed in 2009.) The Chinese are the shrewdest of these BFFs. The merchant who talks less but deals more. 

       Meanwhile, Japan is the #1 FDI country in the U.S. and #1 host of US troops overseas (#3 is South Korea). Recently, Taiwan's TSMC and SK's Hyundai expressed willingness to upgrade investments here; Japan's SoftBank as well. Etc etcetera. 

       These are giant corporations playing mahjong on a weekend as they talk business. Tariff talks. But the media wants our clicks so here we go. 

• 
  

[ ] THE PHILIPPINES. The U.S. has controlled Philippine economics since 1898. Why is this so big a deal now? Yet as the 21st century strode in, China loomed as the Philippines' top trading partner. So why don't Filipino farmers and workers turn to the BRICS bloc in the case of Washington's Donald Trump “messing things up.”

       The (Western) media tells us that because of Mr Trump's tariffs (which is not new in history) the world now suffers. Because of the U.S.? So whatever the U.S. does, the Philippines and the world simply abide? Or crashes like domino tiles? 

       Donald Trump's reasons are Very American Reasons per its economic competition with China. But China's global trade expansionism isn't about to stop. So why not sit with the Chinese, Russians, Indonesians, Brazilians etcetera? We got leverage. The Philippines' strategic position in the South China Sea is integral to Washington's military/security paranoia. We once junked the U.S. bases, we can do that again. 

       But then again, the Philippines' hatred for Trump almost equals its hatred for China. What do we really want? Weird kind of colonial mentality? LOL! 💸🏢💸