Problem-solving. The dismissive answer of Natl Maritime Council chair Bersamin on Q&A that the ramming-boarding- knife-macheté attack against Ph Navy by China is not an armed attack on a Ph public vessel, should NOT be considered a binding interpretation of any treaty provision involving the Philippines and of its rights under UNCLOS, the UN Charter, and principles of intl law

Daily writing prompt

How do you waste the most time every day?

ANSWER: Solving problems. The dismissive answer of National Maritime Council chair Bersamin on impromptu media Q&A that the ramming-boarding- knife-macheté attack against the Philippine Navy rubber boat by China is not an armed attack on a Philippine public vessel, should not be considered a binding interpretation of any treaty provision involving the Philippines and of its rights under UNCLOS, the UN Charter, and principles of international law.

And…

In the long term, to achieve a rule-based conduct in the South China Sea and to avoid a full-blown war, please consider that: As long as China sits at the table of the South China Sea Code of Conduct negotiations, ongoing, and without the Philippines caucusing (caucus the ASEAN minus Cambodia, minus China, caucus nga, hiwalay, hindi yung buong ASEAN), or without the Philippines taking any lead role or making any effort to caucus with Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia, separately, in a separate caucus (caucus nga, minus China and minus Cambodia) to strengthen their hand, the Philippines, facing rough South China Sea hostilities and being goaded by Global North warmongers, will always be on the brink of war with China …

gets mo na po?

Also, even the broad right to freedom of navigation excludes intentional ramming, boarding, machete attacks, without provocation, against another state’s navy vessel