Personally, when I hear about child soldiers, there's pity and anger. Pity to those innocent children who are being deployed to war and anger to those foolish people who uses children as combatants and human shield.
I pity the children because they are deprived of many rights. They have rights such as the right to education, the right to enjoy childhood and most importantly, they have the right to live freely. These child soldiers are used as military men and I just don't think it is right in any angle. They risk their lives to fight for what? I don't even think that most of them know what they are fighting for. As young as their minds, they are being brain washed to fight in wars and die,so they actually think it's normal. Unfortunate reality.
I am angry with the foolish and selfish people who uses children to achieve their interests. What then s the value of one life to them?
Sounds very emotional. During the talk about child soldiers, we were enlightened about its process and the actual role of these child soldiers. There are concepts that are to be understood to analyze more. Like the definition of Child. as for the Philippine Constitution, the age of the majority is at 18 but for the muslims, as a child reaches its puberty stage, he or she is already considered part of the age of the majority. This is how it differs in the perception and views of the government and the people.
One of the speakers shared his experience about his encounter of child soldiers during the Iraq war. He mentioned that it was hard for them to identify if the one they are shooting is a child or not due to the distance. Both difficult for the side of the innocent children and the one opposing them.
The talk was informal but informative specially with the local scenario discussed by one of the speakers. At the end of the day, these children have human rights to be respected.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Public Diplomacy Seminar
"Public Diplomacy: the strategic planning and execution of informational, cultural and educational programming by an advocate country to create a public opinion environment in a target country or countries that will enable target country political leaders to make decisions that are supportive of advocate country's foreign policy objectives." (http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/45.htm)
The aforementioned definition of public diplomacy seem to be complicated. Right? During the seminar on Public Diplomacy, we were enlightened by the personnal experiences of the speaker about public diplomacy. His talk was informal but very informative. One of the lines that struck me is that "The number one ambassador of your country is you". My classmates would agree with me with this. After what happened in the Manila hostage crisis, Filipinos all around the world are down and being discriminated by the different nationalities. But because of that certain line, at least those who are in the seminar are enlightened and the burdens were kind of lifted. After all, it is not the end the world. Maybe one of our fellow citizens have made this mistake and our authorities were not able to perform their duties well, it is not the end of the world. The young administration is faced with this big problem but if we will act as a nation and stop blaming another, we will be able to surpass this. I believe that once we are able to solve this issue with pride and dignity, our country will be strong enough to face any other challenges that involves this kind of issue.
I believe that as a country rich in resources and values that are liked by many, we are advantageous in public diplomacy. We have a lot to offer and be proud of. As the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Tourism take the lead in making our country stand out using public diplomacy, we, the citizens of this country must also help them and take part in making things possible. We have to be proud of our country and help in promoting the country's bests. If this happens, surely the economy of the country through tourism will boost.
The aforementioned definition of public diplomacy seem to be complicated. Right? During the seminar on Public Diplomacy, we were enlightened by the personnal experiences of the speaker about public diplomacy. His talk was informal but very informative. One of the lines that struck me is that "The number one ambassador of your country is you". My classmates would agree with me with this. After what happened in the Manila hostage crisis, Filipinos all around the world are down and being discriminated by the different nationalities. But because of that certain line, at least those who are in the seminar are enlightened and the burdens were kind of lifted. After all, it is not the end the world. Maybe one of our fellow citizens have made this mistake and our authorities were not able to perform their duties well, it is not the end of the world. The young administration is faced with this big problem but if we will act as a nation and stop blaming another, we will be able to surpass this. I believe that once we are able to solve this issue with pride and dignity, our country will be strong enough to face any other challenges that involves this kind of issue.
I believe that as a country rich in resources and values that are liked by many, we are advantageous in public diplomacy. We have a lot to offer and be proud of. As the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Tourism take the lead in making our country stand out using public diplomacy, we, the citizens of this country must also help them and take part in making things possible. We have to be proud of our country and help in promoting the country's bests. If this happens, surely the economy of the country through tourism will boost.
Arguments in the Visiting Forces Agreement
The Visiting Forces Agreement or the VFA of the Philippines and the United States is supposed to be an agreement to benefit both countries but ever since it was established, there are a lot of issues that are to be addressed for the side of the Philippines. In the article "What's wrong with the Visiting Forces Agreements", there were several point mentioned saying that this agreement is not fair and is considered a burden for the Philippines. This paper will counter these arguments by the advantages that the agreement brings to the Philippines.
Argument # 1:
"It is an affront to our (Philippine) constitution"
This argument in the article is being supported by an article in the constitution that said "The Philippines is consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory". The article is saying that this part of the constitution was reduced in the agreement for there is a lack of inspection form the side of the Philippine government when it comes to the nuclear-capable aircraft and naval vessel of the U.S when entering the territory of the Philippines.
The VFA will not require the military vessels in the exercises to be conducted here to carry nuclear weapons. Most of the exercises are conventional in nature and do not all involve training in biological, chemical, or even nuclear warfare. Conducting war games with US forces is important in upgrading the capabilities of Filipino soldiers in land, sea and air operations, which the Americans have perfected. War games, in fact, constitute a transfer of technology; and the Armed Forces of the Philippines can only benefit from the infusion of sophisticated military know-how from the troops of a country that just happens to be the planet's sole, undisputed superpower.
Argument # 2:
"It grants extraterritorial rights to Americans"
This argument is strongly supported by saying that the Philippines, as a sovereign country must have full jurisdiction for its territory but due to this agreement, this right was being reduced because Americans were given lenient rules in entering the country.
Maybe we should see it as a necessity to grants rights for the Americans in entering the country with more lenient rules but this does not mean that we are actually granting extraterritorial rights to them. It is part of making things easier for both sides. It is just that, the Philippine authority should make sure that the ones entering the country are really for the military service and will not go beyond what is stated in the agreement. Besides, the VFA would provide the guidelines for determining the legal status of American soldiers in the Philippines during joint military exercises provided under the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). Also, Philippine military personnel can travel to the US in emergency cases without passports or visas. While in the US, they will be allowed to import articles and send these back to the Philippines free of duties and taxes.
Argument # 3:
"It can involve us in unnecessary international conflicts"
Due to the "vagueness" of the agreement, specifically in the parts of America's activity in the Philippine territory, there is a possibility that the country could be involved in the international conflicts just because the Americans are staying here.
During the 9/11 attack, the Arroyo administration strongly supported the United States and the fight against international terrorism and offered that the Clark Air Field and Subic Bay Naval Base for use by the International Coalition Against Terrorism as transit points or staging areas for troops fighting the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. And in return, the Bush Administration promised President Arroyo that the United States would give the Philippines US$92.3 million in military equipment to bolster not only its ability to counter terrorism but also to increase its wherewithal to fight local insurgents. This is a clear manifestation that even though the agreement is supposed to be "vague", the Philippines still gets benefit from it to strengthen our own military.
Also, if the agreement is considered to be vague, what the government could have done is strengthen our national authorities in implementing the specific articles of the agreement. After all, even if this agreements give the Philippines benefits, it will always have its flaws.
As a Filipino I am actually more concerned with the Filipino citizens who are not aware of what this agreement could bring. I am fortunate enough to have a knowledge about this agreement but in reality, even if I know things about this, will I be able to do anything to stop or amend this if I have strong arguments on why to abolish this? Also, before anything is to be done, we have to consider the things that we will lose in case we drop this agreement. It would be a challenge for a new and young administration to drop this agreement and be able to stand on our own but if not today, when will we learn to be truly sovereign? I am not saying that having relationships with other countries is a negative thing, in fact we need it to survive in this century but before having bilateral or multilateral agreements, I believe that our officials must always take the interest of our country as a priority.
Argument # 1:
"It is an affront to our (Philippine) constitution"
This argument in the article is being supported by an article in the constitution that said "The Philippines is consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory". The article is saying that this part of the constitution was reduced in the agreement for there is a lack of inspection form the side of the Philippine government when it comes to the nuclear-capable aircraft and naval vessel of the U.S when entering the territory of the Philippines.
The VFA will not require the military vessels in the exercises to be conducted here to carry nuclear weapons. Most of the exercises are conventional in nature and do not all involve training in biological, chemical, or even nuclear warfare. Conducting war games with US forces is important in upgrading the capabilities of Filipino soldiers in land, sea and air operations, which the Americans have perfected. War games, in fact, constitute a transfer of technology; and the Armed Forces of the Philippines can only benefit from the infusion of sophisticated military know-how from the troops of a country that just happens to be the planet's sole, undisputed superpower.
Argument # 2:
"It grants extraterritorial rights to Americans"
This argument is strongly supported by saying that the Philippines, as a sovereign country must have full jurisdiction for its territory but due to this agreement, this right was being reduced because Americans were given lenient rules in entering the country.
Maybe we should see it as a necessity to grants rights for the Americans in entering the country with more lenient rules but this does not mean that we are actually granting extraterritorial rights to them. It is part of making things easier for both sides. It is just that, the Philippine authority should make sure that the ones entering the country are really for the military service and will not go beyond what is stated in the agreement. Besides, the VFA would provide the guidelines for determining the legal status of American soldiers in the Philippines during joint military exercises provided under the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). Also, Philippine military personnel can travel to the US in emergency cases without passports or visas. While in the US, they will be allowed to import articles and send these back to the Philippines free of duties and taxes.
Argument # 3:
"It can involve us in unnecessary international conflicts"
Due to the "vagueness" of the agreement, specifically in the parts of America's activity in the Philippine territory, there is a possibility that the country could be involved in the international conflicts just because the Americans are staying here.
During the 9/11 attack, the Arroyo administration strongly supported the United States and the fight against international terrorism and offered that the Clark Air Field and Subic Bay Naval Base for use by the International Coalition Against Terrorism as transit points or staging areas for troops fighting the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. And in return, the Bush Administration promised President Arroyo that the United States would give the Philippines US$92.3 million in military equipment to bolster not only its ability to counter terrorism but also to increase its wherewithal to fight local insurgents. This is a clear manifestation that even though the agreement is supposed to be "vague", the Philippines still gets benefit from it to strengthen our own military.
Also, if the agreement is considered to be vague, what the government could have done is strengthen our national authorities in implementing the specific articles of the agreement. After all, even if this agreements give the Philippines benefits, it will always have its flaws.
As a Filipino I am actually more concerned with the Filipino citizens who are not aware of what this agreement could bring. I am fortunate enough to have a knowledge about this agreement but in reality, even if I know things about this, will I be able to do anything to stop or amend this if I have strong arguments on why to abolish this? Also, before anything is to be done, we have to consider the things that we will lose in case we drop this agreement. It would be a challenge for a new and young administration to drop this agreement and be able to stand on our own but if not today, when will we learn to be truly sovereign? I am not saying that having relationships with other countries is a negative thing, in fact we need it to survive in this century but before having bilateral or multilateral agreements, I believe that our officials must always take the interest of our country as a priority.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Group Work || OFWs in ASEAN Countries
For how many decades now, the Philippines has been sending nationals to the different parts of the world as human capital or as Overseas Filipino Workers. According to the Labor Code Provisions on Overseas employment, workers are those members of the labor force employed of unemployed. Any citizen then that is considered in the definition can be considered an OFW whether or not the purpose of migration is for work or not. It is the responsibility of the government to protect its nationals wherever they may be in the world. Protection of Nationals will be efficient only if the laws are enacted well from the very start of the process, before even one can go out of the country. The formulation of the group’s foreign policy however, will only focus on implementation of laws and protection of nationals in countries which are member states of the ASEAN.
Philippines is one of the pioneer countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) together with Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. As of today, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Lao DPR and Vietnam are already part of ASEAN. The organization aims to promote economic integration, social progress and cultural development within the member states. In general, the ASEAN aims to promote peace and stability within the region.
Considering the aims of the regional group, the Philippines is expected to have a good relationship with the member states of ASEAN and vice-versa. The friendly relations should then cover the respect for domestic laws of each country especially on overseas employment. Major questions would be: Are Philippine laws when it comes to overseas hiring/recruitment properly implemented? Are countries in ASEAN aware of the laws? Are the embassies in the countries of ASEAN able to trace violations of Philippine laws when it comes to labor employment? Article 18 of Philippines’ Labor Code says that “No employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employment except through the Boards and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic corps, international organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.” However, according to research, in general, this hiring law would not work due to several reasons. One major consideration would be, Filipinos do not need visas (good for two weeks) in able to visit countries in the ASEAN as it is part of an agreement. How then will the government know the genuine purpose of one in visiting a country in ASEAN? Will they automatically know of a person has extended his/her stay? Giving a concrete situation: When a Filipino “tourist” visits an ASEAN country and decides to work there after a company offers a good salary; will the Philippine government know that such thing happened and it is considered direct hiring? The main rationale of Article 18 says that “direct hiring affords no protection to OFWs – there is no joint and solitary liability between the recruitment agency and the employer, no POEA-approved contract containing the required minimum standards, and there was no bond posted by a recruitment agency.”
Due to issues on laws that are supposed to be properly and strictly implemented and the danger it gives to our nationals, the group has decided to have this foreign policy:
“Labor Code Provisions on Overseas Employment specifically Article 18 will be given emphasis to help the government protect Philippine nationals from further crimes and human rights violation.”
Philippines is one of the pioneer countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) together with Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. As of today, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Lao DPR and Vietnam are already part of ASEAN. The organization aims to promote economic integration, social progress and cultural development within the member states. In general, the ASEAN aims to promote peace and stability within the region.
Considering the aims of the regional group, the Philippines is expected to have a good relationship with the member states of ASEAN and vice-versa. The friendly relations should then cover the respect for domestic laws of each country especially on overseas employment. Major questions would be: Are Philippine laws when it comes to overseas hiring/recruitment properly implemented? Are countries in ASEAN aware of the laws? Are the embassies in the countries of ASEAN able to trace violations of Philippine laws when it comes to labor employment? Article 18 of Philippines’ Labor Code says that “No employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employment except through the Boards and entities authorized by the Secretary of Labor. Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic corps, international organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.” However, according to research, in general, this hiring law would not work due to several reasons. One major consideration would be, Filipinos do not need visas (good for two weeks) in able to visit countries in the ASEAN as it is part of an agreement. How then will the government know the genuine purpose of one in visiting a country in ASEAN? Will they automatically know of a person has extended his/her stay? Giving a concrete situation: When a Filipino “tourist” visits an ASEAN country and decides to work there after a company offers a good salary; will the Philippine government know that such thing happened and it is considered direct hiring? The main rationale of Article 18 says that “direct hiring affords no protection to OFWs – there is no joint and solitary liability between the recruitment agency and the employer, no POEA-approved contract containing the required minimum standards, and there was no bond posted by a recruitment agency.”
Due to issues on laws that are supposed to be properly and strictly implemented and the danger it gives to our nationals, the group has decided to have this foreign policy:
“Labor Code Provisions on Overseas Employment specifically Article 18 will be given emphasis to help the government protect Philippine nationals from further crimes and human rights violation.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)