'West Philippine Sea' now visible on Google Maps without specific search
A Google Maps scan on Monday of the body of water directly west of the Philippines now shows a name once invisible to most users -- the West Philippine Sea.
The Philippine government's preferred name for the disputed waterway better known as the South China Sea was previously viewable only if specifically sought by name, according to AFP journalists who kept screenshots of earlier searches.
The name South China Sea remains visible to the north and west of the area newly identified as the West Philippine Sea.
Beijing claims the South China Sea almost in its entirety despite an international ruling that its assertion has no merit.
China has deployed navy and coast guard vessels in a bid to bar the Philippines from strategically important reefs and islands in the waterway, leading to a string of confrontations in recent months.
Philippine armed forces spokeswoman Francel Margareth Padilla welcomed on Monday "the inclusion of 'West Philippine Sea' on Google Maps".
"As defenders of national sovereignty, the (military) sees this as a valuable contribution to truthful representation and public awareness," she said in a statement.
Then-Philippine president Benigno Aquino issued a directive in April 2012 calling for the sea's renaming as a standoff over the Scarborough Shoal was heating up between Beijing and Manila.
The administrative order said the renamed areas specifically included "the Luzon Sea as well as the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group and Bajo De Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal".
AFP journalists who visited Google Maps last year discovered the name West Philippine Sea was visible only if searched by name but invisible to those who simply scrolled over the area otherwise.
Responding to an AFP query, Google did not say why the change was made.
"The West Philippine Sea has always been labeled on Google Maps. We recently made this label easier to see at additional zoom levels," a Google spokesperson said in a brief statement.
Messages to the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Chinese Embassy in Manila seeking comment were not immediately answered.
cwl/pbt/aha/sla/st
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Milei says Argentina to move Israel embassy to Jerusalem in 2026
Argentine President Javier Milei said Wednesday his country would in 2026 move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the status of which is one of the most delicate issues in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. "I am proud to announce before you that in 2026 we will make effective the move of our embassy to the city of west Jerusalem, as we promised," Milei said in a speech in the Israeli parliament during an official state visit. Argentina's embassy is currently located in Herzliya near the coastal city of Tel Aviv. This is Milei's second visit to Israel since being elected in 2023. His previous trip, in February 2024, was his first official state visit outside of Argentina. During that trip he announced plans to move Argentina's embassy to Jerusalem -- a controversial move that echoed US President Donald Trump's shock 2017 decision to unilaterally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Israel has occupied east Jerusalem since 1967, later annexing it in a move not recognised by the international community. Israel treats the city as its capital, while Palestinians want east Jerusalem to become the capital of a future state. Most foreign embassies to Israel are located in the coastal hub city of Tel Aviv in order to avoid interfering with negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Speaking ahead of Milei's address to parliament on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "the city of Jerusalem will never be divided again." Several countries, including the United States, Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras and Kosovo, have moved their embassies to Jerusalem, breaking with international consensus. - 'Stand firm' - In 2017, during his first term as US president, Trump unilaterally recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, sparking Palestinian anger and the international community's disapproval. The United States transferred its embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018. Milei, who has professed a deep interest in Judaism and studied Jewish scripture, is one of Israel's staunchest defenders. As Israel faces mounting international pressure over the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza after more than 20 months of war, Milei sought to express his support. "As a nation, we want to stand firm alongside you as you go through these dark days, we will not yield to criticism resulting from cowardice or complicity with barbarism," he said on Tuesday during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog. He also demanded the "unconditional return of the four Argentines still in captivity" in Gaza after Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the war. The Palestinian militant group's attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people on the Israeli side, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official figures. The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza says the retaliatory Israeli military offensive has killed at least 55,104 people, the majority civilians. The United Nations considers these figures to be reliable. Out of 251 taken hostage during the Hamas attack, 54 are still held in Gaza including 32 the Israeli military says are dead. lma-acc/ysm
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget
A seismic shift has occurred in the Trump administration's new defense spending plan that is just emerging when it comes to the USAF's airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) predicament. The service's E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft are dwindling in number and rapidly aging into unsupportability. The proven and in-production E-7 Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737 and serving with multiple allies, was supposed to bridge the gap between the E-3's retirement and pushing the sending part of the mission to space-based distributed satellite constellations. You can read all about this here. Now, if the administration gets its wish, that won't happen. The E-7 will be cancelled and the E-2D Hawkeye, currently flown by the U.S. Navy, will step in to fill the gap. This major turn of events came to light today as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. John Caine, and Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. MacDonnell is Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and is currently performing the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Pentagon's Chief Financial Officer. In 2023, the USAF announced its intention to purchase E-7s, potentially as many as 26 of them, as replacements for a portion of the E-3 fleet. At the hearing today, the question of the current future of the USAF AEW&C force came from Sen. Lisa Murkowski late in the hearing. Murkowski is a Republican from Alaska, where fighters, tankers, and E-3 Sentry jets launch regularly to intercept foreign planes, primarily Russian fighters, bombers, and surveillance aircraft, over the vast arctic wilderness. Chinese H-6 missile carrier aircraft also appeared off Alaska last year for the first time, as part of a joint mission with Russia. Chinese air and naval presence in the region is only expected to grow in the future. China and Russia conduct joint air strategic patrol over Bering Sea on July 25. This marks the eighth air strategic patrol organized by the two militaries since from China PLA Air Force Weibo accounthttps:// — Ryan Chan 陳家翹 (@ryankakiuchan) July 25, 2024 With this in mind, just how big of an issue the age of the E-3 fleet has become was central to Murkowski's question. 'I have been concerned. We have E-3 capability up north, of course, but we were all counting on the E-7 Wedgetail coming our way. We're kind of limping along up north right now, which is unfortunate. And the budget proposes terminating the program. Again, the E-3 fleet [is] barely operational now, and I understand the intent to shift towards the space-based – you call it the 'air moving target indicators' – but my concern is that you've got a situation where you're not going to be able to use more duct tape to hold things together until you put this system in place. And, so, how we maintain that level of operational readiness and coverage, I'm not sure how you make it.' 'You know, the E-3 and the E-3 community have been really important to us for a long, long time, and I'll defer to the Comptroller, but I you know the Department has a bridging strategy through investing in some additional airborne platforms in order to gap fill while the space-based capabilities come online,' Kane replied in response to the senator's question. This is where the E-2D comes in. MacDonnell then added, 'Ma'am, we do have in the budget $150 million in FY26 [Fiscal Year 2026] for a joint expeditionary E-2D unit with five dedicated E-2Ds, and the budget also funds for additional E-2Ds to fill the near-term gap at $1.4 billion.' Currently, the only branch of the U.S. military that operates the E-2D is the U.S. Navy. The Alaskan senator then inquired, 'Can you tell me, will that have implications for what we're seeing up north in Alaska?' 'The answer is yes. I would. I would file this entire discussion under difficult choices that we have to make. But you know, the E-7, in particular, is sort of late, more expensive and 'gold plated,' and so filling the gap, and then shifting to space-based ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] is a portion of how we think we can do it best, considering all the challenges,' Hegseth responded. At a separate hearing before the House Appropriations Committee yesterday, Hegsteth had also described the Wedgetail as an example of a capability that is 'not survivable in the modern battlefield' and mentioned broad plans 'to fund existing platforms that are there more robustly and make sure they're modernized.' An annual assessment of high-profile U.S. military procurement programs from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, which was released today, offers additional insight into issues with the USAF's effort to acquire E-7s. The original plan was to acquire a pair of production representative prototype (or RP) aircraft ahead of production of examples in a finalized configuration, starting this year. The service had then expected to reach initial operational capability with the Wedgetail in 2027. 'Air Force officials said that they now plan to begin production by the second quarter of fiscal year 2026 before completing the E-7A RP MTA [Middle Tier Acquisition] rapid prototyping effort by initiating a separate, concurrent program on the major capability acquisition pathway,' according to GAO. 'They said that it was necessary to begin production concurrently with the E-7A RP rapid prototyping effort to offset the lead time associated with the build and subsequent modification of the aircraft.' 'The program definitized its contract with Boeing since our last assessment. After the contract was definitized, Boeing delayed the first flight test by 9 months to May 2027,' the report adds. 'According to Air Force officials, the delay was due to a late-breaking, required critical security architecture change that affected the procurement of parts, qualification testing, and modification of the airframe.' 'The program stated that the Air Force definitized the MTA rapid prototyping effort contract in August 2024 to deliver two operationally capable E-7A prototype aircraft in fiscal year 2028,' GAO's new assessment further notes. 'The program added that the total acquisition cost increase of 33 percent resulted from updated methodologies to include additional scope related to non-recurring engineering, with the primary drivers being software and air vehicle subsystems.' Last year, the Air Force had been very open about the difficulties it was having finalizing a contract with Boeing for the RP jets. The two parties ended up agreeing on a deal valued at nearly $2.6 billion. A contracting notice the service put out earlier this year also pointed to significant expected differences between the RP aircraft and the full production examples, including the possibility of a new radar. Existing versions of the E-7 in service elsewhere globally today are equipped with Northrop Grumman's Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar. The USAF's move to drop the E-7 and leverage the E-2D, which is already in the Pentagon's stable, prompts many questions. For instance, just how many of these aircraft will the USAF end up with? As of 2024, the USAF's E-3 fleet stood at 16 aircraft. Above all else, there are major capability trades here. The Hawkeye is a much smaller aircraft than both the Sentry and the Wedgetail. It is extremely capable, but it is also optimized to exist within the confines of carrier operations. The crew size is just five individuals. This limits the amount of shear manpower to perform highly complex operations and other tasks beyond traditional AEW&C. The E-2 also has less range and is far slower than both the E-3 and E-7. This means longer transit times, and the aircraft doesn't fit in as seamlessly with the jet-centric operations for the counter-air mission the service currently enjoys. The E-2D's AN/APY-9 radar from Lockheed Martin is hugely capable, but many of its other advanced data fusion and relay systems are unique to the Navy. These systems would either be stripped or just left unused for USAF-focused operations. It's also possible that other systems will replace them, but this will cost money and take time to integrate and field. Hawkeyes, being turboprop aircraft, also operate at lower altitudes, giving their radar, radio systems, and electronic surveillance suites reduced line-of-sight, limiting their range and fidelity at distance for some targets and surveillance application, in some cases. Then there is the aerial refueling issue. The E-2D has gained this ability relatively recently, which expands its endurance. Typical missions can now last over seven hours. However, the aircraft uses the Navy-preferred probe-and-drogue refueling method, not the boom and receptacle one favored by the USAF. The USAF's KC-46 tankers do have a hose and drogue system and some of the service's KC-135Rs have podded hose and drogue systems. Otherwise, they require a basket attachment to their boom, often called the 'Iron Maiden' or 'Wrecking Ball,' due to its rigid metal frame and potential to smack into and damage airframes. This system makes the KC-135R useless for refueling receptacle-equipped aircraft when it is fitted. The E-2D also refuels lower-and-slower than jet aircraft. All these issues are not 'show-stoppers,' but they are ones that will impact operational planning and flexibility. The E-2D, being already a highly upgraded and a much smaller airframe, also lacks the same capacity for future expansion compared to the E-7. This could include adding more personnel for various non-traditional functions, including using its advanced radar to scan the surface more extensively or for unique battle management needs, such as controlling future drone swarms, or even for more extensive passive intelligence collection and exploitation and data fusion operations. High-bandwidth datalinks can possibly make up for some of the manpower differentials, allowing folks on the ground to execute critical functions in near real time as part of a distributed crew arrangement, but there are downfalls to this concept, as well. On the other hand, having commonality with the Navy's AEW&C aircraft should help reduce costs for both services and accelerate the type's entry into USAF service. It could also benefit the future evolution of the E-2D as more money will be flowing into the program. It's also a very capable and well-proven platform, lowering risk. Above all else, joint service E-2Ds could be absolutely critical to the USAF's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine that will see its forces distributed to remote forward locales and constantly in motion. The E-2D's turboprop performance, robust landing gear, and arrested landing capabilities mean it can be pushed far forward to very austere operating locations with limited runway length. And it can do this without sacrificing the quality of the data it collects or the efficacy of its use as a battle manager. This is something a 707 or 737 platform simply cannot match and could prove decisive in a major peer-state contingency. TWZ highlighted these exact benefits after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released a video last year showing a Navy Hawkeye refueling from a USAF HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue aircraft, which can act as a probe-and-drogue tanker, primarily for helicopters and Osprey tiltrotors. A @USNavy E-2D refuels inflight from an @usairforce HC-130 over the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. — U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) August 6, 2024 While the USAF's move away from the E-7 is certainly surprising, and it will result in shortfalls in some areas, it also unlocks new capabilities, some of which are arguably more applicable to tomorrow's wars. It also buys down additional risk, which is looming very large as it isn't clear at this time, at least publicly, how far along the Pentagon's persistent space-based aircraft sensing constellation development actually is. All of this still has to make it through congressional approval, which could be a challenge considering the special interests involved. But as it sits now, the flying service is pivoting big once again when it comes to its increasingly dire AEW&C needs. Contact the author: Tyler@
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Trump Is Losing His Trade War
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Donald Trump's trade war is fast turning into a fiasco. When the president started the war, Team Trump advertised it as certain to be fast, easy, and cheap. Trump would impose tariffs. The world would yield to his will. The tariffs would do everything at once. They would protect U.S. industry from foreign competition without raising prices, and generate vast revenues that would finance other tax cuts. Americans could eat their cake, continue to have the cake, and trade the same cake for pie—all at the same time. 'There's not going to be any pain for American workers,' Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, vowed in April. The advertising rapidly proved false. The U.S. economy is slowing because of the Trump tariffs; China's is thriving in spite of them. Team Trump falsely promotes vague five-page outlines with alienated former allies as big deals; China is successfully wooing some of its former rivals, such as Vietnam. America's standing in the world is measurably sinking; China's is measurably rising. Courts are ruling that Trump's tariffs are illegal; public opinion mistrusts the tariffs, regarding them as expensive and unproductive. The promise of huge flows of painless money from tariff revenues is evanescing as the fantasy it always was. Oh, and the country's largest chain of Halloween retailers canceled its traditional summer grand opening because of Trump-caused supply disruptions. What comes next, as things go wrong? Trump's first instinct is to blame the targets of his economic aggression for not cooperating with his wishes. On May 30, Trump accused China of violating an imaginary agreement with him. On June 4, he complained that Xi Jinping was 'extremely hard to make a deal with.' But Trump seldom chooses to quarrel with foreign dictators, saying in the same breath, 'I like President Xi of China, always have, and always will.' Today, in all-caps emphasis, Trump announced that a deal had been done, declaring that his 'RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT' with the Chinese president-for-life. The lack of details in the announcement strongly suggests that Trump yielded more and gained less than his publicity apparatus wants Americans to believe. That's because, in reality, Trump's global trade war has always been subordinate to his domestic culture war. Trump much prefers to vent his rage against enemies within. Get ready for him to blame the failure of his trade war on fellow Americans who did not support him enough. The Trump tariffs will be ballyhooed as an act of patriotism, a necessary sacrifice to be laid on the altar of the nation. One of Trump's television talkers reminded viewers that Americans melted down their pots and pans to win the Second World War. If the president needs to ration dolls and colored pencils, how dare any true American raise a contrary voice? The coming call for national solidarity with Trump's Great Patriotic War against imported Halloween costumes deserves all the scoffing it will get and more. Trump ordered the nation into economic warfare. He did not do any of the things necessary to create any hope of success in that war. The impending defeat is his personal doing, entirely his own fault. [Jonathan Chait: The good news about Trump's tariffs] Recall the classic Norm Macdonald bit in which the comedian marvels that in the 20th century, Germany decided to go to war with 'the world,' twice. That was meant as a joke. Trump adopted it as his actual strategy. Trump's rationalizers invoke anxiety about China as his justification. Yes, China numbered among the targets of Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs. But so did Australia. So did Brazil. So did Canada. So did Denmark. So did Egypt. And on and on, through the whole alphabet of American allies and trading partners. The United States is by far the planet's strongest national economy, producing slightly more than one-quarter of the planet's goods and services. Including its historic and recent partners, the United States could potentially lead a group of nations sufficiently influential to write economic rules that everybody would need to take into account. That fact underpinned the Trans-Pacific Partnership concept of the Obama years: Form a large-enough and attractive-enough club, and China will have no choice but to comply with the founding members' terms. Trump's alternative concept is for a quarter of the world economy to cut itself off from the other three-quarters, and then wait for the three-quarters to beg for mercy from the one-quarter. Unsurprisingly, that concept is fast proving a stinker. But suppose the president sincerely believed that the U.S. had no choice: The one-quarter must fight the three-quarters as a matter of national survival, or 'liberation,' from the tyranny of foreign goods and services, foreign fruits and vegetables. Crazy, but suppose he did. What would follow? A rational president would grasp that a U.S. economic war against the rest of the world would be a big, protracted, and painful undertaking. Such an enormous commitment would require democratic consent from a large majority of the public, all the more so because the United States is starting the war itself. Trump's trade conflict is very much a war of choice. The president must explain why he chose it. A rational president determined to fight an economic war would try to mobilize broad support from the public and from Congress. He would seek allies in Congress, and not only from his own party. He might, for example, compromise on some of his other goals. If he also wanted to tighten immigration at the same time as waging a global trade war, or to roll back DEI programs, or to cut taxes for the wealthy, or to relax anti-corruption measures, or to pardon the crimes of his violent supporters, or to plan any other ambitious but divisive project, he might think twice about pursuing them. You can't ask your opponents to pay more and do without if you won't forgo even a scrap of your partisan agenda. You can ask anyway, but don't be shocked when they answer with a Bronx cheer. That president would also lead from the front. A president seeking to inspire Americans to endure hardship for the greater good would certainly not throw himself a multimillion-dollar birthday parade at public expense. He would not accept lavish gifts from foreign governments, would not operate a pay-for-access business that collected billions of dollars for himself and his family from undisclosed favor-seekers. While asking other Americans to accept less, he would not brazenly help himself to more. He certainly would not troll, insult, and demean those who may not have voted for him, but whose cooperation he needs now. This president has, of course, done the most egregious version of every item above. His economic war is adjunct to his partisan culture war. He did not seek broad support. He gleefully offends and alienates everyone outside his base. Which works for him as long as times are prosperous, as they were in the first three years of his first administration. Allow things to get tough, though, and it's a different story. Trump cannot ask for patience and trust, because at least half the country has unalterably judged him as untrustworthy and out only for himself. [David Frum: The ultimate bait and switch of Trump's tariffs] Trump bet his presidency on the theory that trade wars are 'good and easy to win,' as he posted during his first term. His second-term trade war, however, is proving not so easy, and not so good, either. He is fighting it alone, without global allies or domestic consent, because that's his nature. It's now also his problem. In the 1983 movie WarGames, a computer thinks its way through dozens of terrifying nuclear scenarios and concludes: 'The only winning move is not to play.' In other words, the only safe way to conduct a nuclear exchange is never to have one. The same could be said of trade wars, at least when fought by one nation, however big and rich, against all the others, all at once. Trump decided he did not care about Americans' support for his economic war. He did not ask for their backing. He did not make any effort to win it. He willfully alienated at least half of the public. Now that he's losing, his supporters want to scold the country because it rejects the whole misbegotten project as stupid and doomed. Don't listen to their reproaches. This is Trump's war, and his alone. The only way to win now is to end Trump's trade war as rapidly as possible. And then end the excessive, unilateral trade powers of a corrupt president who blundered into a pointless and doomed conflict without justification, plan, or consent. Article originally published at The Atlantic
