ICHRP On Trump-Marcos Meeting: Peace Must Be Based On Justice, Not Deterrence
The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) considers the Trump-Marcos Jr. meetings taking place from July 20 to 22 in Washington, DC as anything but a meeting of equals. The purpose of the visit as described by the Philippines is to discuss how the two countries can further deepen their security and economic engagements, including what Philippine Ambassador Romualdez has called 'peace through deterrence.' In reality the meeting represents the subservience of the GRP to the US, and the development of the 'peace through deterrence' strategy will only bring more war and destruction to the Filipino people.
This meeting follows the growing trend of increasing militarization in the Philippines. The US and its allies have ramped up preparations for war against China, boosting mutual defence agreements, and conducted large-scale combat exercises in the Philippines, with increasing frequency.
These recent moves include the February 2023 agreement to place four more US military bases in the Philippines – three of them oriented towards Taiwan – under the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Arrangement (EDCA). In April 2024, the US military began deploying in Northern Luzon a new offensive intermediate-range land-based missile system known as Typhoon, which is capable of reaching large population centres in mainland China. In June 2025 the US House appropriations committee announced the intention to establish a forward-based munitions factory and storage facility at Subic Bay, Philippines, and this July the US announced plans to build two new ship repair facilities near the disputed West Philippine seas.
'The US military build up in the Philippines is not defensive nor geared towards peace, but aggressive war preparations that put the Filipino people at risk to be collateral damage in a war with China. The Filipino people don't want to be a battlefield for a great power war,' said ICHRP Chairperson Peter Murphy. 'ICHRP urges all nations in the region to deescalate the frightening military buildup towards war,' said Murphy.
The Marcos-Trump meeting takes place following intensive attacks from Trump against poor and working Filipinos, both in the Philippines and in the US. On July 9, the White House announced a 20 per cent tariff taking effect on August 1st of this year, which disproportionately impacts peasants and workers in the Philippines. Within the United States, the Trump administration continues an all out attack on migrants including the detention, inhumane and illegal treatment of Filipino migrants. The imposition of tariffs, the maltreatment of Filipino migrants — unchallenged by Marcos Jr — and the increasing US military presence in the Philippines will further plunge the most marginalized in Philippines society into poverty.
Due to the major socioeconomic issues of the Philippines, the country remains embroiled in a long-standing civil war. But the US, Australia, Canada, Japan and other Western allies ignore gross violations of human rights and International Humanitarian Law occurring in the Philippines in favour of deepening military cooperation and arms sales to the Philippines as part of their broader preparation for war against China.
Peace in the Philippines and the Asia Pacific region will not come through the US 'deterrence' strategy. Genuine peace must be based on justice which necessitates the undoing of the unequal US-Philippines relationship most characterized by US economic coercion and military dominance of the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
EU backs potential counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros of US goods
The European Commission says its primary focus is to achieve a negotiated outcome to avert 30 percent US tariffs that US President Donald Trump has said he will apply on 1 August. Photo: AFP The European Union's member countries have voted to approve counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros (US$109b) of US goods, which could be imposed should the bloc fail to reach a trade deal with Washington, EU diplomats say. The 27-nation bloc's executive European Commission had said on Wednesday (local time) its primary focus was to achieve a negotiated outcome with Washington to avert 30 percent US tariffs that US President Donald Trump has said he will apply on 1 August. The commission said it would press on in parallel with plans for potential countermeasures, merging two packages of proposed tariffs of 21b euros and 72b euros into a single list and submitting this to EU members for approval. No countermeasures would enter force until 7 August. So far the EU has held back from imposing any countermeasures, despite Trump's repeated announcements of tariffs, the broadest of which have been postponed. EU member states authorised the first package of countermeasures in April, but these were immediately suspended to allow time for negotiations. The EU and United States appear to be heading towards a possible trade deal, according to EU diplomats, which would result in a broad 15 percent tariff on EU goods imported into the US, mirroring a framework agreement Washington struck with Japan. Trump would still need to take any final decision. Under the outlines of the potential deal, the 15 percent rate could apply to sectors including cars and pharmaceuticals and would not be added to long-standing US duties, which average just under 5 percent. There could also be concessions for sectors such as aircraft, lumber as well as some medicines and agricultural products, which would not face tariffs, diplomats said. Washington does not, however, appear willing to lower its 50 percent tariff on steel. - Reuters
1News
5 hours ago
- 1News
US intelligence director attacks Trump's foes over Russia probe
As the national intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard is responsible for guarding America's secrets and discovering threats from overseas. But when she made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room on Thursday, her targets were President Donald Trump's political enemies. Escalating her attempts to undermine the long-settled conclusion that Russia tried to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton for the presidency nearly a decade ago, she unspooled what she called unshakable proof that then-President Barack Obama and his advisers plotted nothing short of a coup. 'They conspired to subvert the will of the American people,' she said, claiming they fabricated evidence to taint Trump's victory. Little of what she said was new, and much of it was baseless. Gabbard said her investigation into the former Democratic administration was designed to stop the weaponisation of national security institutions, but it spurred more questions about her own independence atop a spying system intended to provide unvarnished intelligence. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who ran for president herself before joining Trump's idiosyncratic political ecosystem, seemed prepared to use her presentation to burnish her own standing. She was trailed by her cinematographer husband, who held a video camera to capture the moment. ADVERTISEMENT And Trump, who had previously expressed public doubts about Gabbard's analysis of Iran's nuclear programme, appeared satisfied. He posted a video of her remarks, pinning them at the top of his social media feed. It was a display that cemented Gabbard's role as one of Trump's chief agents of retribution, delivering official recognition of Trump's grievances about the Russia investigation that shadowed his first term. The focus on a years-old scandal also served Trump's attempts to shift attention from the Jeffrey Epstein case and questions about the president's own association with an abuser of underage girls. Gabbard touts her latest release During her White House remarks, Gabbard said she has referred the documents to the Justice Department to consider for a possible criminal investigation. Hours later, the department announced the creation of a "strike force" to investigate the findings. Obama's postpresidential office declined to comment on Thursday but issued a rare response a day earlier. "These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction," said Patrick Rodenbush, an Obama spokesman. The White House rejected questions about the timing of Gabbard's revelations and whether they were designed to curry favour with Trump or distract attention from the administration's handling of files relating to Epstein. Still, Trump was quick to reward Gabbard's loyalty this week, calling her "the hottest person in the room". ADVERTISEMENT On Thursday, she released a report by the Republican staff of the House Intelligence Committee produced during the first Trump administration. It did not dispute that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but cites what it said were trade craft failings in the assessment reached by the intelligence community that Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the election because he intended for Trump to win. Gabbard went beyond some conclusions of the report in describing its findings from the White House podium. She, along with the report, also seized on the fact that a dossier including uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia was referenced in a classified version annex of an intelligence community assessment released in 2017 that detailed Russia's interference. The dossier was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to try to undercut the broader probe. Timing of Gabbard's intel reports prompts questions Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House (Source: Associated Press) Gabbard said she didn't know why the documents weren't released during Trump's first administration. Her office did not respond to questions about the timing of the release. Responding to a question from a reporter about Gabbard's motivations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused journalists of looking for a story where there wasn't one. ADVERTISEMENT "The only people who are suggesting that she would release evidence to boost her standing are the people in this room," Leavitt said. Trump, however, has said he wants the media, and the public, to focus on Gabbard's report and not his ties to Epstein. "We caught Hillary Clinton. We caught Barack Hussein Obama ... you ought take a look at that and stop talking about nonsense," Trump said Wednesday. CIA Director John Ratcliffe served briefly as director of national intelligence during Trump's first term but did not release any of the information declassified by Gabbard. The CIA declined to comment on Gabbard's remarks. Trump and Gabbard's evolving relationship Gabbard told Congress in April that Iran wasn't actively seeking a nuclear weapon, and Trump dismissed her assessment just before US strikes on Iran. "I don't care what she said," Trump said in June on Air Force One when asked about Gabbard's testimony. ADVERTISEMENT Gabbard recently shared her findings about the Russia investigation in an Oval Office meeting with Trump, according to two administration officials who requested anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Afterwards, one of the officials said, Trump expressed satisfaction that Gabbard's findings aligned with his own beliefs. Other recent releases on the Russia investigation Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard walks to the podium to speak with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House (Source: Associated Press) On Saturday, Gabbard's office released a report that downplayed the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election by highlighting Obama administration emails showing officials had concluded before and after the presidential race that Moscow had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in Trump's favour. But Obama's Democratic administration never suggested otherwise, even as it exposed other means by which Russia interfered in the election, including through a massive hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails by intelligence operatives working with WikiLeaks, as well as a covert influence campaign aimed at swaying public opinion and sowing discord through fake social media posts. Earlier this month, Ratcliffe released a report criticising aspects of the intelligence community assessment and suggesting the process had been rushed. The report did not address multiple investigations since then, including a report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 that reached the same conclusion about Russia's influence and motives. Democrats call for Gabbard's resignation ADVERTISEMENT Lawmakers from both parties have long stressed the need for an independent intelligence service. Democrats said Gabbard's reports show she has placed partisanship and loyalty to Trump over her duty, and some have called for her resignation. "It seems as though the Trump administration is willing to declassify anything and everything except the Epstein files," Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement Thursday. Warner predicted Gabbard's actions could prompt US allies to share less information for fear it would be politicised or recklessly declassified. But Gabbard enjoys strong support among Republicans. Representative Rick Crawford, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and Ratcliffe were working to put the intelligence community "on the path to regaining the trust of the American people". Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence panel, said Gabbard hasn't offered any reason to ignore the many earlier investigations into Russia's efforts. "The Director is free to disagree with the Intelligence Community Assessment's conclusion that Putin favoured Donald Trump, but her view stands in stark contrast to the verdict rendered by multiple credible investigations," Himes said in a statement. "Including the bipartisan report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee."
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
U.S. Court Agrees Trump Administration's ICC Sanctions Likely Violate First Amendment Rights Of Fortify Rights CEO
(Bangkok, July 23, 2025)—A U.S. federal court last week granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by Fortify Rights CEO Matthew Smith and human rights advocate Akila Radhakrishnan challenging the Trump administration's executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and banning advocates from communicating with the ICC under threat of criminal prosecution. The court issued the order on July 17 and concluded that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of speech. The preliminary injunction prohibits the administration from punishing the two advocates for their work related to the ICC while the litigation is pending. 'I'm grateful the court recognized the serious threat this executive order against the ICC poses to fundamental freedoms and to our ability to pursue accountability for mass atrocity crimes,' said Matthew Smith. 'This case is not only about our rights — it's about safeguarding the space for all human rights defenders to advocate for justice, speak truth to power, and demand international accountability without fear of reprisal.' Both Smith and Radhakrishnan are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—a leading American organization that defends and promotes individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. As the lawsuit explains, the sanctions violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting Smith, Radhakrishnan, and other Americans like them from speaking with the ICC's Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. 'Preventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we're heartened that the court saw that as well,' said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. 'The First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.' Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who have devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities — like the genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban — could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude — including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes — when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC's founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC's critical work on a wide range of matters. 'Fighting this order isn't only a defense of the work I do, or the court itself,' wrote Matthew Smith in an op-ed published June 6 in the New York Times. 'It's also a statement about what kind of country we want to be.' On Friday last week, the New York Times referred to the court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction 'a striking, if tentative, blow to the president's efforts to penalize and isolate the world's highest criminal court.' For more information about the lawsuit, please see the ACLU's webpage devoted to Smith v. Trump.
