WHAT WILL BE, WILL BE

A number of us mistake building credible deterrence to mean itching for a war. Nothing is farther from the truth.

Briefly, beats me. The situation’s uncertain because we’re standing on soft ground. Economically, South Asia’s booming; ASEAN’s steadily growing; America’s and Japan’s are gradually improving; the Middle East’s slowly recovering; South America’s, Europe’s, Africa’s, and China’s are shaky. That puts things on murky territory.

Geopolitically, the world could potentially be under a new set of political leaders and managers. President Rodrigo R. Duterte just completed his first 6 months in office of a six-year term. The US is under new management and is expected to turn inward to regroup and regain its economic and military strength. It’s expected to cut deals with its principal rivals to give it time to reboot.

China’s Xi Jinping’s campaign for a second five-year term will begin this year and culminate early next year. Europe will have four general elections this year — France, Germany, Hungary and the Netherlands. A number of Asian (East Timor, India, Kyrgyztan, Mongolia, South Korea, Singapore), African (Kenya, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia), Middle Eastern (Iran and Lebanon) and South American (Chile and Ecuador) countries will also have general elections.

The situation’s fluid and competitive pressures usually come to a head during transition periods raising the bar for potential armed conflict. Militarily, the West and the East are at odds: flashpoints are Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Korean Peninsula, Japan, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. The US is feuding with Russia and China. North Korea incessantly beats the war drums as it tries to improve its nuclear strike capability. Iran is suspected of building a nuclear capability on the sly.

What’s relevant to us is the potential clash of arms among our top three strategic trading partners — the US, Japan and China. Will the US and China clash over Taiwan or the South China Sea or both? Will it spill over to the East China Sea? If and when they do, our national security will be at grave risk because we haven’t been able to build sufficient capacities to shield our people, strategic infrastructure, economy, territory and resources from predatory attack.

When we speak of credible deterrence in regard to national security, I’m referring to legal, diplomatic, trade, law enforcement, military and cyber defense shields. For example:

1) How do we go about mobilizing the international community to assert itself and enforce the Arbitral Tribunal’s ruling through legal, diplomatic, and military means?

2) Are we expanding our markets to spread out trade risks?

3) Are we investing in cybersecurity to deter any attack and mount our own counterattack if necessary?

4) Do we have enough law enforcement assets to protect our natural resources 360 degrees in our EEZ?

At this late stage, 25 years after the US dismantled its bases, can we confidently say that we’re now smartly building our military to uphold national policy and honor, and protect our people, territory and resources

from harm? To accomplish that, the imperatives are:

a) Identify the national interests that should be defended.

b) Craft a national security strategy.

c) Develop defense industrial parks.

d) Amend the Procurement and Reservist Laws.

e) Invest in integrated combat support systems and vital infra.

f) Adopt R&D / O&M mind-sets.

g) Create a basket of sustainable funding options.

A number of us mistake building credible deterrence to mean itching for a war. Nothing is farther from the truth. What it means is building a defensive shield against attack from any threat as described above. It’s holistic and not confined to the military realm. Our strategic goal should be to prevent war, balanced by credible means to deter war. Failing that, we must have the capability to engage with an alliance.

A few days ago, I came across this news reporting quoting the

Global Times, which is believed to represent the thinking of hawkish members of the Communist Party of China.

It warned the US of a nuclear war if the Trump administration puts meat into a statement made by incoming State Secretary Rex Tillerson that China should be prevented from occupying artificial islands they built in parts of the South China Sea.

In its editorial, the Global Times warned Tillerson that “it would set a course for devastating confrontation” and to better “bone up on nuclear power strategies” if he forces a nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories. Whether that view will change or not when the Trump administration assumes office bears close watching.

The nuclear war bluff is PsyOps for now, but there are dark clouds in the horizon as experts foresee an escalation of tensions between China & US in coming months. We need to keep sharpening our calculus as time marches on the probability of more verbal acoustics; acts of brinksmanship; a limited clash; and open hostilities. We need to be able to look for and read the signs, and anticipate.

Here at home, our economy is a picture of health and growth. We’ve had 71 quarters of consecutive growth with better increments ahead. Expected inflation this year is 3%. We have mitigants in place to counter external pressures, e. g., interest rate and oil price hikes. Forex reserves are equal to 9 months of our monthly import requirements. External debt is now down to 25% of GDP compared to 37% in 2009.

The political situation is dynamic, made difficult by entrenched corruption in government and society that has enabled drugs and other syndicated crime to spread with impunity. Tough measures are being resisted mainly by those affected, hobbled by a damaged criminal justice system that badly needs reforms. The onus is equally on society to lessen its passiveness or participation in lawlessness.

I think the dust is beginning to settle down in the foreign policy front. The situation is becoming clearer now to all sides. We need to constructively engage by expanding our diplomatic and economic horizons without sacrificing our alliances. But where our top three strategic trading partners are seen headed for a clash over troubled waters, the imperative is for us to engage in preventive diplomacy to avert a war where everyone loses.

Situational awareness is crucial for risk management. Preparedness is key to crisis management. Vigilance is the price we pay for survival.