Plot to bring down Marcos government cooked in a Hong Kong restaurant, whistle-blower claims
Philippine President
Ferdinand Marcos Jnr using illegal drugs was fabricated and spread online as part of a coordinated plot initiated at a
Hong Kong restaurant, by allies of former president
Rodrigo Duterte – including his former spokesman.
Advertisement
Vicente 'Pebbles' Cunanan, a political vlogger and
social media influencer known for her ties to pro-Duterte online communities, testified before a congressional panel on Tuesday, alleging that former presidential spokesman Harry Roque played a key role in a scheme to undermine Marcos Jnr.
Cunanan claimed that Roque boasted of his ability to 'bring down a government' during discussions about disseminating a doctored video intended to damage the president's credibility.
Roque, identified by Cunanan in an affidavit submitted to the 'Tri-Com' inquiry – a joint investigation by three congressional committees – denied the accusations to This Week in Asia on Wednesday.
Cunanan said the video – a manipulated clip supposedly showing Marcos Jnr sniffing cocaine – was first discussed during a July 2024 dinner in Hong Kong. The event at Yung Kee Restaurant in the city's Central district was attended by 16 supporters of Duterte, including Roque, former Executive Secretary Vic Rodriguez, and ex-press secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles. The gathering occurred after a 'Maisug' prayer rally – a movement loosely affiliated with pro-Duterte causes.
Advertisement
She also submitted a photo of the dinner to the Philippine House of Representatives as evidence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
5 days ago
- RTHK
UK police arrest scores of Palestine Action protesters
UK police arrest scores of Palestine Action protesters Lawmakers proscribed the group under an anti-terrorism law this month after some of its members damaged planes at an air force base. Photo: AFP British police arrested scores of supporters on Saturday of a pro-Palestinian protest group that was banned this month under anti-terrorism legislation. Police said they had arrested at least 41 people in London and 16 others in Manchester for showing support for the group Palestine Action. Campaign group Defend our Juries said 86 people had been arrested across the UK, with other protests held in Wales and Northern Ireland. British lawmakers proscribed the group under anti-terrorism legislation earlier this month after some of its members broke into a Royal Air Force base and damaged planes in protest against Britain's support for Israel. "Officers have made 41 arrests for showing support for a proscribed organisation. One person has been arrested for common assault," London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement on social media about the demonstration. After a similar protest in London last week, police arrested 29 people. Before Saturday's arrests in London, close to 50 protesters had gathered with placards saying "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" near a statue of former South African President Nelson Mandela outside the British parliament. The International Court of Justice in the Hague is hearing a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza war, which began after Palestinian militant group Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023. Israel has repeatedly denied committing abuses. The British government's decision to classify Palestine Action as a terrorist group places it in the same category as Hamas, al-Qaeda and ISIS. Membership now carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Opponents of the ban say using anti-terrorism laws is inappropriate against a group accused mainly of damaging property rather than harming people, although some members have in the past been charged with violence in clashes with police. Palestine Action generally targeted Israeli and Israel-linked businesses in Britain such as defence company Elbit Systems, often spraying red paint, blocking entrances or damaging equipment. In an unsuccessful court appeal against the ban, a lawyer for Palestine Action said the government ban was the first time Britain had proscribed a group which undertook this type of direct action. (Reuters)
RTHK
7 days ago
- RTHK
UK, France unveil migrants deal
UK, France unveil migrants deal UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron shake hands during a press conference in London. Photo: Reuters London and Paris unveiled a "pilot" programme on Thursday to return to France some of the migrants arriving in the UK on small boats across the Channel, as President Emmanuel Macron wrapped up his state visit. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the deal, hammered out during the French leader's three-day visit, "groundbreaking" and capable of stemming the record numbers of people who have embarked on the perilous journey so far this year. "This is groundbreaking, because this is a scheme intended to break the model, and to make it clear that if you cross in a small boat, then you'll end up where you started," he said in a joint press conference with Macron. "In exchange for every return, a different individual will be allowed to come here" in a safe manner, Starmer said, adding that the scheme would start within "the coming weeks". Although Starmer did not say how many people might be returned to France, media reports suggest it could initially total around 50 people a week. In comments likely to infuriate pro-Brexit groups, Macron said Britain's 2020 departure from the EU had worsened the situation in the Channel, cutting off legal migration routes and access to the bloc's own returns agreements. "So for people wanting to cross, there is no legal way, nor a way of sending people back after a crossing," Macron said. "This is a pull factor to attempt the crossing - exactly the inverse effect of what Brexit promised." Alongside migration, the two leaders used the visit to work on a raft of initiatives and shared concerns over defence, trade and culture. They included addressing the volatile situation in the Middle East, continued support for Ukraine and a "reboot" of defence ties, including joint missile development and nuclear cooperation. (AFP)
AllAfrica
04-07-2025
- AllAfrica
While not dead, US dominance is changing – and not for the better
Just six months after Donald Trump's return to the presidency in the United States, it feels like there has been a sharp break with America's post-war diplomatic legacy. The Trump administration has been steadily making announcements that upset the established order, including reviving a proposal to purchase Greenland without ruling out military action. American officials have publicly spread pro-Russian narratives and have escalated protectionism by introducing tariffs, often announced unilaterally and suddenly, which fluctuate according to the president's moods. What do these developments tell us about the American ability to structure the international order in light of the fact that the US has been the dominant player in the global system in recent decades? As a researcher at France's ENAP specializing in international relations theory, I believe that it marks a significant step in the emergence of counter-hegemonic powers and, by extension, that it signals a weakening of American power. Many see Trump administration's recent choices as a sign of the 'beginning of the end' of American hegemony. But there is nothing new about this discourse. The idea of a US decline has been circulating regularly in academic and strategic circles since the Cold War. As early as the 1980s, British scholar Susan Strange challenged this 'declinist' view, insisting that the true strength of the US lay not just in its economic or military power but in its central role within major international institutions and strategic alliances. It was this structuring role — rather than material superiority alone — that guaranteed its dominant position on the world stage. After the end of the Cold War, the question of decline was largely set aside: French Minister Hubert Védrine declared the US a 'hyperpower' for the way it concentrated all the means of global domination. Since the mid-2000s, the debate on the decline of American hegemony has returned with a vengeance, fueled by the rise of countries such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, Iran and South Africa. However, since then no consensus has emerged within the academic community about the nature of the international system (unipolar, bipolar, or even multipolar). American hegemony has been weakened in certain regions of the world. Political science professors Douglas Lemke of Pennsylvania State University and Suzanne Werner of Emory University have shown this in their work on regional systems. However, no candidate for counter-hegemony (not China, India, Japan or even the European Union) has so far managed to match the US on one key point: its ability to forge strong and lasting alliances and occupy a central position in major international organizations. This role of conductor, which goes beyond the simple accumulation of material power, echoes Strange's reflections on 'structural power.' This aligns closely with research by Daniel Nexon, professor at Georgetown University, and Thomas Wright, director of the US-Europe Center at the Brookings Institution. They distinguish between two main types of hegemony: Classical or imperial hegemony is based on coercion, threats and unbalanced bilateral relations. A country with this type of hegemony imposes its preferences without submitting to shared rules. Liberal hegemony is based on shared and binding institutions, to which even the dominant power agrees to submit in exchange for more stable and legitimate co-operation. From this perspective, the US-led international order since 1945 clearly falls under the second model. During the Cold War, its hegemony was exercised mainly in the western world. But after the fall of the Soviet bloc, this influence spread globally. The US came to embody a form of institutional hegemony, supported by networks of alliances like NATO and the G7 and multilateral institutions that include the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. This made American domination more acceptable, less brutal, and above all more difficult to compete with. Even though the American position was weakened in certain areas, it remained central because it guaranteed stability and predictability that its rivals — including China and Russia, who favored a more coercive approach — could not offer. It was precisely this liberal/constitutional model of hegemony that slowed the emergence of real global counterpowers. Through its numerous statements and decisions, the Trump administration is breaking with the liberal hegemony that has structured the international order for decades. In its place, a more authoritarian, unilateral stance is emerging, close to what researchers call classic hegemony. This change is clear enough that some analysts consider certain developments worrisome. Olivier Schmitt, professor and specialist of alliances at the Royal Danish Defence College, raised the possibility a few months ago of a 'Warsawization' of NATO, a scenario in which Washington would transform the organization into a kind of counterpart to the Warsaw Pact, with a rigid and asymmetrical structure based on fear rather than co-operation. This return to a form of coercive hegemony is problematic because it's based on a very short-term view of international relations. Unlike China or Russia, which both apply a form of authoritarian hegemony but with a certain strategic consistency and predictability, the Trump administration acts as if international relations were a non-iterative game, in the sense of game theory — in other words, a game in which refusing to co-operate is the most winning strategy. It adopts a strategy where each move is played without concern for future retaliation or the long-term impact on its reputation. However, other countries and partners remember and adjust their behaviour based on precedents. By acting in this way, the US projects the image of an opportunistic and unstable entity whose commitments no longer have lasting value. This change in posture erodes trust and undermines the stabilizing role that the US had once successfully embodied. Europe and some of its partners are embarking on what looks like a new 'Western schism,' positioning themselves as a liberal counter-model to Trump's America. But the outcome of this dynamic will largely depend on the ability of Europeans to be agents of change rather than mere spectators. Nevertheless, the conditions are now in place for the emergence of genuine counter-hegemonies. This dynamic will continue even if the Democrats return to power in 2029: the Trumpist interlude will have provided America's allies with proof that an alliance with the US is only reliable when the White House is Democratic, and that it immediately becomes precarious as soon as a Republican occupies it. Conditions are now in place for the emergence of genuine counter-hegemonies. This dynamic will continue even if the Democrats return to power in 2029: the Trumpist interlude will have provided America's allies with proof that an alliance with the US is only reliable when the White House is Democratic … This uncertainty will fuel mistrust and push for the consolidation of counter-hegemonic strategies. Even a partial restoration of the liberal order will probably not be enough to stem the fragmentation of the international system that is already underway. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Trump administration is only just beginning its term: unless there is a reversal in the midterm elections in November 2026, it will still have considerable margin for maneuver until January 2029. In other words, the current trajectory is likely to continue. In this sense, Trump's second term does not simply mark a shift, but a lasting break. The slogan 'Make America Great Again' now seems even more misguided: instead of restoring American power, this policy is accelerating its decline. Laurent Borzillo is a visiting researcher at the CCEAE of the University of Montreal and an associate researcher at CESICE of the University of Grenoble, École nationale d'administration publique (ENAP) . This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
