Month: February 2023

With this deal, Washington has stitched the gap in the arc of US alliances stretching from South Korea and Japan in the north to Australia in the south.

The missing link had been the Philippines, which borders two of the biggest potential flashpoints, Taiwan and the South China Sea, or the West Philippine Sea as Manila insists on calling it.

The US already had limited access to five sites under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) – the new additions and expanded access, according to a statement from Washington, will “allow more rapid support for humanitarian and climate-related disasters in the Philippines, and respond to other shared challenges”, likely a veiled reference to countering China in the region.

The statement came after Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin met Philippine President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr in Manila on Thursday.

The US hasn’t said where the new bases are but three of them could be on Luzon, an island on the northern edge of the Philippines, the only large piece of land close to Taiwan – if you don’t count China.

The deal, which in part reverses the US’ departure from their former colony more than 30 years ago, is no small matter.

“There is no contingency in the South China Sea that does not require access to the Philippines,” says Gregory B Poling, director of the Southeast Asia programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“The US is not looking for permanent bases. It’s about places, not bases.”

That is, it is seeking access to places where “light and flexible” operations involving supplies and surveillance can be run as and when needed, rather than bases where large numbers of troops will be stationed.

In other words, this is not a return to the 1980s, when the Philippines was home to 15,000 US troops and two of the largest American military bases in Asia, at Clark Field and nearby Subic Bay.

Then in 1991 the Philippine government called time. The Filipinos had recently overthrown the hated dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, and sending the old colonial masters home would further cement both democracy and independence.

The Vietnam war was long over, the Cold War was winding down, and China was as yet a military weakling. So, in 1992, the Americans went home – or at least most of them did.

Roll forward 30-odd years and another Marcos is back in the Malacañang Palace.

More important, China is no longer a military weakling, and it’s knocking on the Philippines’ front door. Manila has watched – horrified but powerless to intervene – as Beijing has set about redrawing the map of the South China Sea. Since 2014 China has built 10 artificial island bases, including one at Mischief Reef, deep inside the Philippines’ own exclusive economic zone or EEZ.

Up to then relations between Manila and Beijing had been free of major problems, says Herman Kraft, a political science professor at University of the Philippines.

“We had a live and let live situation in the South China Sea. But in 2012 they tried to seize control of Scarborough Shoal. Then in 2014 they began building the islands. The land grab by China changed the relationship.”

“We have very limited capability against the threat from China,” says former Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Cuisia Jr.

He says the Chinese have repeatedly broken promises not to militarise their new South China Sea bases.

“The Chinese have militarised those features and that puts more of our territory under threat. Only the US has the power to stop them. The Philippines cannot do it alone.”

But this time there will not be thousands of US marines and airmen filling the red-light districts of Olongapo or Angeles city again.

The history of violence and abuse by US troops in the Philippines is still a sensitive subject. There are an estimated 15,000 children left with their Filipino mothers when their American fathers went home.

“We have a long history of inequality in our relationship,” says Renato Reyes, secretary general of New Patriotic Alliance, a left-wing group. “The Philippines has been forced to shoulder the social costs. There’s a history of rape, child abuse, and of toxic waste.”

The US’ return to the Philippines is strongly opposed by the country’s left-wing groups.

While there won’t be as many troops as earlier, Washington is now asking for access to several new locations, some facing the South China Sea, others facing north towards Taiwan. Unofficial reports point to options in Cagayan, Zambales, Palawan and Isabela.

The first one faces Taiwan, the second the Scarborough shoal, and the third the Spratly Islands. Any new US facilities will be inside existing Philippine bases. US troops will come in small groups and on rotation.

The aim, says Mr Poling, will be to deter further territorial expansion by China in the South China Sea, while also providing a place for the US to watch Chinese military movements around Taiwan.

“The Philippines has no way to deter China outside this alliance,” he says. “It’s buying BrahMos missiles from India. The US would like to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles. Together they can hold Chinese vessels.”

With increasing concern about a conflict over Taiwan, the Philippines could offer a “rear access area” for US military operations, or even a place to evacuate refugees.

“People forget there are between 150,000-200,000 Filipinos living in Taiwan,” Mr Poling says.

But Manila is not about to become a full-blown member of an American alliance to challenge or resist China’s rise, Professor Kraft cautions.

“The Philippines is not doing those things like Australia and Japan, directly challenging Chinese interests in the South China Sea or East China Sea. President Marcos wants good relations with the US. But he also wants good relations with China for economic advantage.”

Beijing too has indicated that it does not intend to allow a new base agreement between Manila and Washington to disrupt its relations with its neighbour.

In an editorial published to coincide with the arrival of the US defence secretary in Manila, China’s state-run Global Times accused the US of “setting a trap for the Philippines” and “trying to push the Philippines to the frontline of confrontation with China”.

“We are once again being caught in the middle,” says Mr Reyes, who believes China is just as much a capitalist imperialist power as the US.

“The Philippines still has a colonial mentality – it looks to the United States as its big brother.”

Ministers tell us privately they expect Rishi Sunak’s deputy, Dominic Raab, to be the next senior figure to be shown the door by the prime minister.

The deputy prime minister and justice secretary has a senior lawyer crawling over his conduct in three government departments.

He is the subject of eight formal complaints.

The trade union the First Division Association, which represents civil servants, has said it understands dozens of people are involved in those complaints.

Mr Raab has repeatedly denied being a bully or breaking the ministerial code.

Plenty of people who have worked with Mr Raab speak highly of doing so, although even those that do often describe him, as one minister did, as “robust.”

Others, like the senior figure quoted above, are much more critical.

Right now, all of this is being looked into by Adam Tolley KC, the lawyer appointed by the prime minister to interview witnesses and write a report about what has happened.

The inquiry, which is speaking to witnesses right now, means people, including those with the strongest views and most arresting personal experiences of working with Mr Raab, are very reluctant to talk publicly about it.

But we wanted to share with you what people who have worked for Mr Raab, serve alongside him in government and in the Conservative Party are saying to us privately.

And explore why it is that the prime minister appears to have a persistent human resources problem: a party chairman sacked, a loyal supporter in Sir Gavin Williamson, a former minister, resigning over bullying allegations he said he refuted, and now this.

One source said, of a department in which Mr Raab had worked, “everyone knew”.

“Everyone in Westminster, I mean everyone, has known about this for ages. It’s no secret. And anyone who says they haven’t has chosen not to listen,” said another minister, adding, “He should have gone ages ago.”

It raises the question of how much Mr Sunak ought to have known at the point he appointed Mr Raab last October.

The prime minister has always insisted, as he did here under repeated questioning in a BBC interview in November, that he didn’t know of any “formal” complaints about Mr Raab when he appointed him his deputy.

Months later, it is this formulation that he is leaning on once again.

Incidentally, following the interview in November, a series of formal complaints were made, after Mr Sunak publicly encouraged them to be, and the inquiry by Mr Tolley was set up.

Is it credible Mr Sunak knew nothing whatsoever of Mr Raab’s reputation? Was he sufficiently curious?

Mr Raab has told the BBC he is confident he has “behaved professionally throughout” but made “no apologies for having high standards”.

His allies insist he’s not going to step down, he is “cracking on with the day job” and he “will answer anything in the fair and formal setting” of his expected interview with Mr Tolley.

Mr Raab was the most loyal ally during Mr Sunak’s first – and doomed – attempt to become prime minister.

Was Mr Sunak blinded by a desire to repay Mr Raab’s loyalty? Or is it right that he puts real weight on formal complaints, rather than the ever vibrant currency of Westminster gossip?

The simple truth is that after a few weeks of Nadhim Zahawi’s fate being the government’s oxygen snatcher, the fate of Mr Raab has now taken its place.

And that is prompting irritation.

“There isn’t much sympathy for him, but due process must be followed,” a senior minister says.

That due process is likely to last a few more weeks yet.

“I’ve never seen this side to his personality. He’s always been courteous to me,” another minister reflects before adding, “While I am surprised by it, it clearly can’t be ignored, given the alleged scale of it.”

Many are also privately pondering how different this investigation is compared to the one into Mr Zahawi, which took less than a week.

That was about establishing a paper trail, or the lack of one, about how much, or little, he’d told various bosses about his tax affairs.

The inquiry into Mr Raab rests much more on how behaviour is perceived.

One figure who would like to see the back of Mr Raab fears it is a big leap from someone who might be difficult to work with to bullying.

Others are more confident.

“Bullying is going to be the next MeToo,” one Conservative MP says, in reference to the widespread and worldwide revelations of sexual harassment in recent years.

“It’s going to be massive. And all this has such an inevitability about it.”

Weather watchers said more than a month of rain had fallen in 24 hours, affecting roads and rail, as the region reels from deadly floods last week.

Four people were killed and thousands of homes were damaged by the heavy downpours on Friday.

Residents in vulnerable areas had been told to prepare to evacuate if needed.

A precautionary state of emergency has been lifted in Northland, the country’s northernmost region, where “unprecedented” rainfall was expected.

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown said the predicted heavy rainfall “could be more dangerous than Friday’s” due to backlogged storm water systems across the region.

Overnight, motorways were once again flooded and several motorists were stranded on streets and forced to abandon their vehicles.

New Zealand weather forecaster MetService said that although the situation has now calmed, thunderstorms and heavy downpours were still possible in elsewhere until late Wednesday afternoon.

The situation in Coromandel and Bay of Plenty, where a heavy rain red warning remains, is currently the main concern.

Physical attendance at Auckland schools had already been suspended last week until 7 February in anticipation of further bad weather and the need to keep roads clear to repair critical infrastructure.

The country’s new prime minister, Chris Hipkins, addressed the extreme weather, saying it was the result of climate change.

He told local outlet 1News: “Climate change is real, it’s with us.

“We are going to have to deal with more of these extreme weather events in the near future; we need to be prepared for that and we need to do everything we can to combat the challenges of climate change.”

Under existing rules, energy suppliers pay the highest price for wholesale electricity no matter how it is made.

Gas-fired generation is the most expensive and only makes up about 40% of all electricity made for UK homes.

If an average price was used the UK’s bill could be much lower, the not-for-profit climate think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative said.

The BBC has asked the government for a comment.

Charging an average price for wholesale electricity would have made the bill in the two years from 2021-22 £7.2bn lower, the Carbon Tracker Initiative said.

Under the existing rules, energy retailers – the companies that supply electricity to firms and households – are forced to pay the highest price for wholesale electricity, no matter how it has been generated. That cost is then passed on in bills.

That means they have been paying for all their wholesale electricity at the price of gas-fired generation, which only represents about 40% of all electricity generated for the National Grid.

Because of elevated wholesale gas prices, that type of electricity generation has been much more expensive than nuclear power and up to three times as expensive as renewables such as wind farms.

That’s also meant windfall profits for renewable energy generation, which have been paid much more for their power than it costs them to generate – one reason the government has imposed a windfall tax.

The CTI analysis finds that if suppliers had instead paid closer to the average cost of generation across all forms including renewables, the cost to energy retailers would have been much lower. That would have meant lower bills.

Senior analyst Jonathan Sims, who wrote the CTI report, said the findings showed how the global gas market over the last two years had skewed British power prices.

He said these prices did not reflect the different technology the UK now uses to generate electricity.

The analysis takes into account the need for sources of power that can be fired up immediately such as gas-fired or nuclear, whereas wind power for example is weather-dependent.

When calculated this way, the cost to energy suppliers of buying all the power they needed in the two years from 2021-22 would be £7.2bn lower, the CTI found.

The analysis also suggested Europe’s most gas power dependent countries, the UK and Italy consistently paid the highest spot prices during the recent period of high gas price volatility.