A Proposed Resolution for the Celebration of the International Day of Friendship

A PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FRIENDSHIP
by Renee Dominique C. Rodelas, Team Hegemon

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

International Day of Friendship, commonly known as World Friendship Day, is a United Nations (UN) proclamation that highlights friendship - between peoples, countries, cultures and/or individuals – as a fundamental idea to promote peace, unity, solidarity, mutual understanding and reconciliation between domestic and international communities while encouraging the youth, as future leaders, to get involved in activities that promote international understanding and respect for diversity.

Inspired by the friendship celebrations of some South African countries, World Friendship Day started out as a concept proposed by Dr. Ramon Artemio Brachio and his collegues while having dinner on the River Paraguay in 1958. The meeting resulted to a weeklong friendship celebration from 21 to 27 July 1958 with the entire community of Puerto Pinasco, then to Asuncion, Concepcion, Puerto Sastre and Puerto Casado. The following year, the week of Friendship was held from 24 to 30, with July 30 as the closing act of the celebration. This social impact led to the creation of the World Friendship Crusade in 1968, and the establishment of its branches in the Vatican, Canary Islands, Columbia, Tokyo, Jerusalem, United States, United Kingdom, Denmark, France, and Netherlands (History of the World Friendship Crusade, 2008). The Crusade began to lobby to UN for the recognition of World Friendship Day for years until finally, on 2011, the General Assembly decided to designate 30 July as the International Day of Friendship and invited all member-states to observe the International Day of Friendship in accordance with the culture and customs of their local, national and regional communities through education and public awareness-raising activities (UN General Assembly, 2011).

World Friendship Day is also intended to support the goals and objectives of the “Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace”, a UNESCO-proposed initiative that defines the values, attitude, and behavior that rejects violence and prevent conflicts throughout the globe. Adopted in 1999, the Declaration sets out area actions designed for individuals, nations, and communities in order for “culture of peace” to prevail, specifically the promotion of sustainable economic and social development, promotion of international peace and security, support for participatory communication and democratic participation, education, respect for human rights and gender equality, and advance understanding, tolerance and solidarity (UN General Assembly, 1999). This Day also supports the “International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World” proclamation, emphasizing the need for “culture of peace” and non-violence to emanate from adults and be instilled in children in order to the strengthen of international peace and cooperation (UN General Assembly, 1998).

Cebu is and always has been a catering of many cultures. With its strategic location being at the heart of the Philippines itself, Cebu has been a business hub for both local and international businessmen and traders. Historically speaking, Cebu has established economic ties with China, Malaysia, Japan, India, Burma and other parts of Asia even before the Spanish era. Currently, information technology (IT) has been one of Cebu’s economic drivers in the recent years, contributing 56 percent of Metro Cebu’s total economic output, with foreign BPO companies like call center agencies at the forefront of the business (Sicat, 2014). Since 2010, its export growth rate has averaged close to 20 percent, considerably higher than any other province in the Philippines. Its major hubs have helped increased economic activity within its peripheries while supporting the thousands of domestic and international employees, workers and businessmen in the area (Adarme, 2015). This lush attention of Cebu has not only attracted businessmen abroad, but has also fascinated foreigners with its culture and heritage. From old European to the traditional Chinese up to the modern Western culture, its rich collection of culture has made Cebu a well-distinguished cosmopolitan. Tourist arrival statistics to the Central Visayas is now 2.1 million, with Cebu’s tourist arrivals contributing 90 percent to the system (Cacho, 2015). Its famous tourist spots like the Sto. Niño Basilica, Magellan’s Cross, Fort San Pedro, and the old Jesuit House and museums positively impacted tourism in the province, thus hailed as the “Tourism Gateway for Central and Southern Philippines” (Adarme, 2015).

The objective of World Friendship Day is to promote unity and fellowship irrespective of religion, race, colour, class and creed. Despite the gritty and shady past between countries, the Philippines have continuously observe the celebration of its Friendship Day with Spain, Japan and the United States, among others, signifying camaraderie with their former colonizers. While friendship days are commemorations of ties established to celebrate, to remember and to reconcile with each other from a bitter past, the celebration of World Friendship Day can serve as a medium for Cebu to take advantage of its nature as having a mixture of culture, norms and heritages that individuals, regardless of nationality, can commemorate through sharing cultural practices.

Word Count: 796

PROPOSED RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, in recalling the United Nation Resolution 65/L.72 designating July 30 as the International Day of Friendship inviting all member-states to observe this celebration in an appropriate manner and in accordance to the culture and customs of their local, national and regional communities;

WHEREAS, the celebration of the Philippines’ bilateral relationships with countries such as Republic Act 9187 or the Philippine-Spanish Friendship Day, Proclamation No. 905 or the Philippine-Japanese Friendship Day, Proclamation No. 148 or the Philippine-Chinese Friendship Day, and Proclamation No. 811 or the Filipino-American Friendship Day, strengthened by its historical ties and shared cultures, values and traditions, signifies its commitment to unity and camaraderie;

WHEREAS, in reaffirming the statements mentioned above, the University of San Carlos Political Science majors of International Relations of Foreign Service (IRFS) and the Carolinian Circle of Young Diplomats (CCYD) shall partner with the Office of External Relations to celebrate the International Day of Friendship every 30^th of July;

WHEREAS, a World Friendship Day photo exhibit shall be displayed inside the premise of the University of San Carlos – Downtown Campus, showcasing the importance and significance of the celebration, as well as the efforts made by UN member-states in commemorating the event;

THEREFORE, the Carolinian Circle of Young Diplomats in its ___ Parliamentary session assembled and as moved by Rt. Hon. Renee Dominique C. Rodelas and seconded by ______

RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, to request the IRFS 141: Special Topics in International Relations to research the necessary information on the celebration as stated above;

RESOLVED FURTHER, to direct the Ministry of Documentation to furnish copies of this resolution to IRFS 141 Instructor and CCYD Adviser Atty. Archill Niña F. Capistrano, MInternatRel and to the CCYD Ministries for their information and guidance.

Submitted by:

Rt. Hon. Renee Dominique C. Rodelas, MP
Minister of Information and Communication

REFERENCES

Public Holidays. (2015). International Day of Friendship 2015 and 2016. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Public Holidays: http://publicholidays.global/global-observances/international-day-of-friendship/

History of the World Friendship Crusade. (2008, March 31). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Gral. Pablo L. Avila Online: http://cplavila.blogspot.com/2008/03/resea-histrica-de-la-cruzada-mundial-de.html

UN General Assembly. (2011, April 21). International Day of Friendship. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/65/L.72

United Nations. (n.d.). International Day of Friendship. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/events/friendshipday/

International Day of Friendship - Background. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/events/friendshipday/background.shtml

UN General Assembly. (1998, November 19). International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001–2010). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/53/25

UN General Assembly. (1999, October 6). Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/53/243

Cebu - Quick Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Province of Cebu Official Website: http://www.cebu.gov.ph/about-cebu/quick-facts/

Adarme, N. (2015, May 9). 5 Reasons Cebu’s Economy is Growing so Rapidly. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Megaworld: http://www.megaworldatthefort.com/blog/5-reasons-cebus-economy-is-growing-so-rapidly/

Sicat, G. P. (2014, May 21). Cebu is booming. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Philstar: http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/05/21/1325390/cebu-booming

Cacho, K. O. (2015, August 21). Central Visayas welcomed 2.1 million visitors this year. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Sun Star: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/business/2015/08/21/central-visayas-welcomed-21-million-visitors-year-425971

Proclamation No. 148, s. 2002. (2002). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/2002/01/24/proclamation-no-148-s-2002/

Proclamation No. 905, s. 2005. (2005). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/2005/08/30/proclamation-no-905-s-2005/

Republic Act 9187. (2002). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from House of Representatives: http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_12/RA09187.pdf

Proclamation No. 811, s. 1996. (1996). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from Official Gazette: http://www.gov.ph/1996/07/17/proclamation-no-811-s-1996/

Read More

Philippines and Japan over China

Philippines and Japan over China

by Patricia Piramide

China as a rising power is seeking and making its way to be at par with today’s considered hegemon, United States of America. But, unfortunately, China’s considered manner of reaching the top is mostly through aggression. Now, China is making an issue about their territorial claims that have already affected its relationship with other countries, such as Philippines and Japan. 

Japan and China has its conflict due to their competing claims of the eight uninhabited islands and rocks known as Senkaku islands in Japan and Diaoyu islands in China. The islands have a total of 7 sq km in area and lie north-east of Taiwan, east of the Chinese mainland and south-west of Japan's southern-most prefecture, Okinawa.

Japan based its claim of the islands to that of January 14, 1895 when Japan erected a sovereignty marker and formally incorporated the islands into Japanese territory. And that prior to the establishment of the sovereignty marker, Japan says it surveyed the islands for 10 years in the 19th Century and determined that they were uninhabited.

On the other hand, China and based its claim when the said islands have been part of its territory since ancient times, serving as important fishing grounds administered by the province of Taiwan.

These eight inhabited islands and rocks: Senkaku islands as known in Japan and Diaoyu islands as in China matter because they are close to important shipping lanes, offer rich fishing grounds and lie near potential oil and gas reserves. Up to now, the territorial dispute between China and Japan is still unsettled.

Another unsettled conflict of China with that of another country, the Philippines, which also involves territorial dispute, is the claim of Spratlys or the South China Sea as known for China and West Philippine Sea for the Philippines.

China claims by far the largest portion of territory - an area defined by the "nine-dash line" which stretches hundreds of miles south and east from its most southerly province of Hainan. China also uses historical accounts to legalize their claim and to which they believe that its right to the area goes back centuries to when the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation, and in 1947 it issued a map detailing its claims.

Philippines invokes its geographical proximity based on UNCLOS 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone to the Spratly Islands as the main basis of its claim for part of the grouping. 

Some of the reasons why there are a lot of claimants of Spratly islands are due to its rich reserves of natural resources: hydrocarbons, abundance of marine resources such as fish. Also, due to commercial shipping purposes. 

Now, Japan and the Philippines teamed up against China during a regional security forum most probably because both Japan and the Philippines are undergoing territorial disputes with China. With their cooperation now, four sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters, a news agency company, that Japan was looking to offer three Beechcraft TC-90 King Air planes that could be fitted with basic surface and air surveillance radar.

Japan wants to give planes to the Philippines that Manila could use for patrols in the South China Sea, sources said, a move that would deepen Tokyo's security ties with the Southeast Asian nation most at odds with Beijing over the disputed waterway. Actually, Tokyo has no claims in the waterway, but is worried Beijing's new islands will extend Chinese military reach into sea lanes through which much of Japan's ship-borne trade passes.

To resolve these issues through peace talks and/or bilateral agreements should have been much better if only the Chinese government could have been more cooperative and open-minded in addressing and equally compensating each and everyone’s interests for the common good of all the parties concerned.

Word Count – 643

Read More

Rohingya

ROHINGYA

by Athena Cara Yauder

“There is a reason why violence, anger and war are spreading in this time when realpolitik has superseded humanity, when politics is perceived as oppression and when countries ally themselves around self- interest rather than love. The people of a country have for years been living under persecution and facing genocide before the eyes of theworld, and the world knows this, but still says nothing. This means the problem is one of conscience, not evidence.” -Harun Yahya

In the country of Myanmar (Burma), where majority of its people are Buddhists, Rohingya Muslims have always been considered as an ethnic Muslim minority. They form the largest single group of “stateless” people in the world; making them considered as the world’s most persecuted minority. Burma has numerous ethnic groups of which there are nearly 140 ethnic races are living within 60% of its area and Rohingya is one of them, which majority are living in Arakan. (Islam, 2006)

Atrocities and the practice of genocide against the Rohingya minority with manifest intention to destroy the Rohingya people from their ancestral homeland of Arakan/Burma have long been enduring. This large scale persecution through ethnic cleansing and genocidal action of the Myanmar/Burmese government against these people has caused them to flee the country to seek refuge against humanitarian abuses. According to a non- profit group Physicians for Human Rights, in their 2013, there have been human rights abuses committed by the Burmese military. Rohingya Muslims have been long denied evidently of their citizenship and freedom and worse, even of their basic rights such as of having food, access to medical treatments, right to family, education and right to movement. (BBC News, 2015) They have been forced to leave since Burmese independence in 1948 and are now mostly found in Burma’s neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and even in the lands of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand. There were unprecedented refugee influxes mostly in Bangladesh once in 1978 and the other in between 1991- 1992 with constant trickle of refugee exodus all along. (Islam, 2006) In search for better life, many relied on trafficking and smuggling networks with some of these countries. (The Guardian, 2015)

The situation in Myanmar has gotten worse as its government had just recently (last 2010) transitioned from a military- led government to a somewhat “more” democratic system; causing violence against Muslims in its worst form. Despite the effort of the Rohingya Muslims to seek for help from these countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia; initially, they did not approve for any extension of help the refugees, claiming that they are financially unable to accept these unfortunate people. It was only last 2012 that the world became more concerned with their situation following the violent attacks and acts of arson to the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State. The United Nations last 2012 have finally advocated for the protection of the rights of the Rohingya Muslims, on April 2013, the Rakhine State Conflicts Investigation Commission has strengthened security actions in Rakhine, and also there has been a help from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), helping local authorities provide assistance to the migrants. Malaysia and Indonesia have finally opened their doors to accept the migrants for one year, or until they can be resettled or repatriated with the help of international agencies. (Rappler, 2015) With the intervention of the from the international community (Association of the South- East Asian Nations, and United Nations), the Myanmar government had somehow taken some action plan to also create a resolution to the escalating conflict and restore back the peace and harmony within its territory, through ensuring justice and communal coordination. However, just as what Yahya (2014) noted in his article from what Phil Robertson, deputy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch has expressed, the plan is extremely disconcerting; the fact that whichever of the two options in the resolution they have introduced to the United Nations, still it will give the Rohingya no rights whatsoever and make them helpless prisoners.

Despite the country’s transition of its government ruling, anti- Muslim chauvinism is unfortunately still very evident indeed. The way they have been treating people have given many reasons to be more prone to humanitarian abuse and violence; leading them to submit to any kind of transaction without considering the legality, just to survive, giving advantage to criminals to profit from them, knowing that these hopeless people no longer have any option. Despite some actions from the members of ASEAN, it is believed that there are actually no sanctions being imposed directly on the Myanmar government, afraid that it might alter and risk commercial and even economic relations. 740

SOURCES:

BBC News. (2015, June 19). BBC. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from BBC News Website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-12990563

BBC News. (2015, June 10). BBC. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from BBC News Website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33007536

Islam, N. (2006, October 5). Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO). Retrieved August 21, 2015, from ARNO: http://www.rohingya.org/portal/index.php/learn-about-rohingya.html

Rappler. (2015, May 27). RapplerIQ Newsbreak. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from Rappler.com: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/93786-fast-facts-rohingya

The Guardian. (2015, June 14). The Guardian. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from The Guardian Website: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/14/un-concern-at-bangladesh-plan-to-move-thousands-of-rohingya-to-flooded-island

Yahya, H. (2014, December 1). Defeaning silence over Rohingya Issue. Retrieved August 21, 2015, from Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO): http://www.rohingya.org/portal/index.php/scholars/68-harun-yahya-/1096-deafening-silence-over-rohingya-issue.html

Read More

Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement

Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement

by Daniel Orin Levi Alatraca

Brief Background

                The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) is an economic partnership agreement concerning bilateral investment and free trade agreement between Japan and the Philippines. It was signed by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and former Filipino President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in Helsinki, Finland on September 9, 2006.

                JPEPA is a comprehensive bilateral trade and investment agreement between Japan and the Philippines aimed at increasing trade and investment opportunities between the two economies. It is the first bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) for the Philippines after 50 years. Other than the Philippines, Japan signed Free Trade Agreements with other economies (Singapore, Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Brunei) and is on various phases of FTA negotiations with three other economies (South Korea, Vietnam, and India).

Trade and Investment with Japan

Japan is the second largest trading partner of the Philippines next to the US. The leading Philippine exports to Japan consist of electronic products, woodcraft furniture, and ignition wiring sets, fresh bananas, and iron ores. Our exports to Japan are asparagus, bananas, papayas, nata de coco, mangoes, chicken, shrimps and prawns, and yellowfin tuna. The leading Philippine imports from Japan consist of electronic products, industrial machinery and equipment, transport equipment, iron and steel and electrical machinery.

Japan is the Philippines’ largest source of foreign direct investments (FDI) in 2005, but slipped to third place behind the United States and Korea in 2006. Under JPEPA, the Philippines and Japan agreed to accord national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment to investors of each Party. This basically means that Japanese investors in the Philippines would be accorded the same privileges and rights as Filipino investors in economic sectors where they are allowed and vice-versa. Furthermore, Filipino nationals would be allowed to practice their profession in Japan subject to certain conditions. The list of professions included are: legal services, accounting and taxation services, architectural and engineering services, computer-related services, advertising and management consulting services, translation and interpretation services, services incidental to agriculture, Audio-visual services, higher education services, tourism and travel services, entertainment services (theatre, live bands), and maritime transport services.

Issues

                One of the main concerns regarding JPEPA is the possibility of having Japan export their waste products and hazardous materials to the Philippines. Such products are included in Article 29 of the agreement, which defines "originating goods”. Under Article 18 of the agreement, both Japan and the Philippines shall either "reduce or eliminate its customs duties," "eliminate other duties or charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with the importation," and take part in "improving market access conditions" for originating goods. JPEPA’s stipulations on the trade of goods and services also set tariff lines between the two countries. The agreement provisions also eases the market access of Philippine products to Japan, boasting that semi-conductors and electronics industry, automotive parts, furniture, and garments industry will benefit the most with the ratification of the agreement. Environmentalists also cry foul over this provision, stating that various laws are bound to be violated if the agreement pushes through.

Aside from local laws, one international treaty is also said to be a direct contradiction to the JPEPA. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was ratified in 1989 by 133 countries and is currently adopted by 170 countries, including Japan and the Philippines. It is the most comprehensive global environmental treaty on hazardous and other wastes, addressing cleaner production, hazardous waste minimization and controls on the movement of these wastes.

References:

Agreement Between the Republic of the Philippines and Japan for an Economic Partnership. Full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. The Daily PCIJ. Accessed on 15 April 2008. Retrieved from http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Japan-Philippines_Economic_Partnership_Agreement_(JPEPA). 24 August, 2015

Alecks P. Pabico (25 October 2006) JPEPA to encourage trade in hazardous and toxic waste. The Daily PCIJ. Accessed on 16 April 2008. Retrieved from http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Japan-Philippines_Economic_Partnership_Agreement_(JPEPA). 24 August, 2015

https://philforeignpolicy.wordpress.com/issues/

Read More

Cebu City Sister-City Relations

Cebu City Sister-City Relations

by Dinah Joy Oro

The City of Cebu has been having sister-city relations with other cities for many years already. It has created relations with cities in the Philippines and international cities as well.  Sister city relations are formed to promote friendship among cities and to establish cultural and economic exchanges. This strengthens ties and encourages cooperation between and among cities.  This also lets Cebu City learn new and perhaps more effective means in improving the condition of the city and its people.

Within the country, Cebu City has signed sisterhood agreements with Manila City; Santa Josefa, Agusan del Sur; Calamba, Laguna; Burgos, Ilocos Sur; Angeles City, Pampanga; Tangub City, Misamis Occidental; Ormoc City; Talisay City; Lapu-Lapu City; Mandaue City, Palayan City, Toledo City and Laoag City.

For the international cities, the city has established relations with Haarlemmermeer, the Netherlands; Kaohsiung City, Taiwan; Yeosu City, South Korea; Xiamen, China; Honolulu City, USA; Chula Vista, California, USA; Paramata, Australia; Kitchener, Canada; Salinas City, California; Kortrijk, Belgium; Vladivostok, Russia; Barcelona, Spain; Brisbane, Australia; Rio de Janiero, Brazil; Yokohama, Japan; Sabrosa, Portugal; Thessaloniki, Greece.

Among the mentioned international sister-cities, six or seven of these are active. These cities include Haarlemmermeer, Yoesu City, Xiamen, Paramata, Kortrijk, Yokohama, and Sabrosa. The other cities are considered dormant. This is according to Ms. Sheida Henry, the Executive Assistant of Councilor Cuenco.

The most recent agreement that Cebu City has signed is with Thessaloniki, Greece. It is stated in its resolution that “The establishment of a sister city relationship with the government of Thessaloniki, Greece is favorable to the development of the city of Cebu in the launching of programs of cooperation that promotes contact and exchange of experiences, good practice measures and information by both parties”. It is also said in the agreement that “both parties will strive to the utmost to develop their mutual potential, with the aim of achieving greater, effective, egalitarian, and mutually beneficial cooperation.”

Also last April 2015, the city government of Cebu and the city of Yokohama, Japan renewed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which expired on March 2015. The MOA is effective for another three years, March 2015 to March 2018. This renews the Technical Cooperation for Sustainable Development in which the parties executed a city-to-city cooperation wherein Yokohama City shall provide advice for promoting the eco-city development of Cebu City.

Hopefully, these sister-city relations that Cebu City has will truly flourish. These collaborations would help in the development and success of all the parties involved. Cities with different backgrounds and cultures would be able to understand, learn, and support each other.

To get more information on the sister-city relations of Cebu City, one can communicate with the office of Councilor James Anthony Cuenco who is the chairman of the Cebu City council’s committee on tourism, local and international relations, and arts and culture. Another way is through the Sister City Commission under former congressman Tony Cuenco. Their offices are located at the Cebu City Hall. 

INTERNATIONAL SISTER CITIES:

1. Haarlemmermeer, The Netherlands
·         Resolution No. 1706
·         Resolution 995 (December 2, 1992)
2. Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
·         Resolution No. 229 (February 6, 1969)
3. Yeosu City, South Korea
·         Resolution No. 652 (October 23, 1996)
4. Xiamen, China
·         Resolution No. 914 (April 1983)
5. Honolulu City, United States of America
·         (May 12, 2008)
6. Chula Vista, California, United States of America
·         Resolution No. 00-3325
7. Seattle City, Washington, United States of America
·         Resolution No. 110
8. Paramata, Australia
·         Resolution No. 3295
9. Kitchener, Canada
·         Resolution No. 2203
·         Resolution No. 2164
10. Salinas City, California
·         Resolution No. 1213 (June 24, 1991)
·         Resolution No. 287 (May 1997)
 11. Kortrijk, Belgium
·         Letter of Partnership
Signed on May 17, 2005
12. Vladivostok, Russia
·         Resolution No. 174
·         Resolution 713 (September 6 1995)
13. Barcelona, Spain
·         Agreement of Friendship and Cooperation
·         (November 6, 2008)
14. Brisbane, Australia
·         Protocol of Intent
·         Resolution No. 1111
15. Rio de Janiero, Brazil
·         Protocol of Intent
·         Resolution No. 738
16. Yokohama, Japan
·         (March 2015)
17. Sabrosa, Portugal
·         Sister-City Agreement
(October 2, 2014)
18. Thessaloniki, Greece

(Source: Ms. Sheida Henry, SP Cuenco’s Office, Cebu City Hall, Cebu City)

Read More

ASEAN Political Security Community

ASEAN Political Security Community

by Felippe Victor Rafael Baricuatro

The ASEAN Political Security Community or the APSC is second of what comprises the ASEAN integration. It aims to inform ASEAN citizens as to what political security is, what it holds and the problems that are challenging it. While ASEAN has  been well off in the economic and socio-cultural aspects of its integration, ASEAN faces recent problems in its security, both in terms of traditional and non-traditional security.

First is its recent issue of the Rohingya crisis. The Rohingya people are a Muslim ethnic minority group residing in the Rakhine state, formerly known as Arakan. The Rohingya people are considered “stateless entities”, as the Myanmar government has been refusing to recognise them as one of the ethnic groups of the country. For this reason, the Rohingya people lack legal protection from the Government of Myanmar, are regarded as mere refugees from Bangladesh, and face strong hostility in the country—often described as one of the most persecuted people on earth. Once again ASEAN was criticized for its handling of the crisis. While other ASEAN states provided humanitarian assistance such as the Philippines offering to shelter 3,000 "boat people" from Myanmar and Bangladesh and Thailand's effort to give humanitarian assistance to the Rohingyans, it is ASEAN's failure to address it to it's core which is Myanmar's discrimination and hostility against this minority that prevents this crisis from cooling down.

Another issue it faces which is now more in the hard security side of things is China's extensive claim and occupation on the South China Sea. China has been alarmingly and aggressively occupying islands that supposedly are territories of some ASEAN states, namely the Philippines and Vietnam.  While China has been at the door step of each affected country, ASEAN has only recently taken action on this crisis. It has expressed its stance on China's aggression and has urged China to settle things diplomatically. While it has expressed its stance, a clear form of action is yet to be seen.

Since ASEAN moves by consensus decision making and values the norm of sovereignty, this only paralyzes ASEAN from making any valid action on crisis such as this. Truly, this is a challenge for ASEAN as it is steering near into becoming a regional community. It is only a challenge for ASEAN as to how it should properly address problems that stretch out to its community whose origins happen to be very domestic(originated from a member state's internal affair) in nature. As it is already in its process of integration, it is then a question. Should ASEAN continue to pursue its traditional norms and values or should it try out new norms that would probably fit more in its phase of integrity? This is a question that can only be answered once we've already reached that point. At this point, ASEAN has to prove to the world that it can take care of its security problems and that it is ready to take itself to a grander scale.

Read More

A Brief Discussion on the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community and a Reaction on its Discussion

A Brief Discussion on the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community and a Reaction on its Discussion

by Gabrielle Marie Alfon

The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community represents the human dimension of the ASEAN cooperation, which is more often than not more popularly thought of as merely a regional economic cooperation. While the three communities of ASEAN, namely the Economic Community, the Political Security Community, and the Socio-Cultural Community all come together to create a well-integrated regional cooperation, the Socio-Cultural Community brings the personality, unique culture, and most importantly the people of the region to the forefront. It is concerned with the peoples’ development and protection as a whole, focusing on the individuals of the community. In fact, according to its blueprint, the ASCC envisions the following characteristics: Human Development; Social Welfare and Protection; Social Justice and Rights; Ensuring Environmental Sustainability; Building the ASEAN Identity; and Narrowing the Development Gap.

            This vision of the ASCC is not an easy one to accomplish, considering the varying identities, states of development, and overall circumstances that define each of the ten member states. It is not only the diversity of the aforementioned countries that will surely be an obstacle in achieving the ASCC’s vision, but the scope of this vision as well. When one hears the phrase ‘socio-cultural’, one may unintentionally assume it to refer to merely cultural and identity issues, but the societal issues are just as, or even more, important. The ASCC has leaps and bounds to go through in this regard, such as the promotion of decent work, human resource development, poverty alleviation, and ensuring environmental sustainability to name just a few. The ten member states of the ASEAN will definitely need to cooperate with one another to achieve these ambitious goals.

            Last August 7, Miss Danica Fernandez kindly gave us her time to discuss the ASCC from her perspective and in relation to her thesis which was entitled, “Internationalizing the Sub-National: Prospects for Intra-Regional Sister-City Relations in Fostering the ASEAN Regional Identity”. She discussed how the ASCC Community can not only be localized, but brought down to the individual and his interaction with other individuals in the region. In an increasingly globalized world, even something as simple as playing an online game can foster ties and friendships across the seas and with our fellow ASEAN citizens. I appreciated that Miss Fernandez emphasized that bridging the gap between our cultures did not have to be done at such a formal arena such as conferences, but in informal arenas as well such as social media, competitions, and traveling. It made me realize that everyone can be a diplomat in his or her own way; Miss Fernandez called this ‘citizen diplomacy’. This was refreshing because in International Relations, much of the literature centers on states and non-state actors. In my opinion, this way of thinking is very medieval. In our day and age, which is the technological age, states are not the only means of interaction across borders anymore. Neither is this interaction limited to economic interaction. Now, a tourist from the Philippines can very well shape the views and opinions of locals about Filipinos in general.

            Miss Fernandez did not broach the societal half of the Socio-Cultural whole, but nevertheless, her discussion allowed me to view the ASCC in a different way. I have learned that each and every one of us has a critical part to play in the new ASEAN regional environment.

           

References:

http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-socio-cultural-community

http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-19.pdf

http://www.asean.org/news/item/the-asean-socio-cultural-community-ascc-plan-of-action

http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/association-southeast-asian-nations-asean/

Read More