Philippine politics couldn’t be more fascinating or discordant. Recent months have witnessed open legal warfare between the Benigno Aquino administration and its allies in the legislature, on the one hand, and the judiciary, on the other. The ongoing impeachment trial in the Philippine Senate against Chief Justice Renato Corona is part of an attempt by the government to purge allies of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from all key state institutions and eliminate widespread corruption in the bureaucracy.
However, intra-state bickering has spread to other issue areas as well. Thanks to escalating tensions in the South China Sea, and growing calls for a more robust Philippine-U.S. military partnership as America pivots to Asia, there seems to be a new front in the making.
Legislators from both houses of congress are pressuring the executive branch to re-assess the very wisdom of the Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951 by specifically focusing on the provisions as well as the implementation of the1998 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA),which governs the conduct of U.S. military operations in the Philippines.
The United States is not only a former colonial power in the Philippines, but also the Philippines’ most important political ally in its post-colonial history. Washington’s importance to Filipino security was made clear after the Philippine Senate, riding on a nationalist and post-Cold War frenzy, voted in 1992 to not renew the country’s basing agreement with the United States. Within four years, Manila was forced to contend with the grim reality of Chinese intrusions into its territories, culminating in the 1995 Mischief Reef incident. The experience awakened the country to its glaring lack of defense capabilities and the logic of balance of power.
In the years that have followed, Manila and Washington have hammered out a series of agreements that allowed for a non-permanent, non-direct, U.S. military presence in the Philippines. According to the current arrangements, as enshrined in the provisions of the Philippine Constitution and reflected in the VFA, American troops have neither the right to engage in direct combat operations on Philippine soil, nor the mandate to establish permanent bases in the Philippines. They are only legally allowed to train, inform, equip, and advise the Philippine military.
In December 2001, the Philippines became part of Operation Enduring Freedom, and thus a U.S. ally in Washington’s global “War on Terrorism”.The following year, the United States dispatched troops from its Special Operations Command Pacific to support operations in the Philippines, which at the time theNew York Timesdescribed, “[as] the largest single deployment of American military might outside Afghanistan to fight terrorists since the Sept. 11 attack.”Thus, the United States gradually moved towardsestablishing a permanent troop presence in Mindanao, wherein they provided logistical and intelligence support for the Philippine Military’s campaign against various “terrorist” groups including the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Abu Sayyaf, and the al-Qaeda regional offshoot, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).
In 2003, the U.S. Defense Department announced that the Philippines and United States would engage in a combined operation against Abu Sayyaf– which in practical terms meant that U.S. forces wouldn’t be merely a “support mechanism,” but a direct participant in kinetic operations on Philippine soil. The operation involved 350 U.S. special operations personnel who were logistically backed-up by 750 Americans in the regional headquarters in Zamboanga. In succeeding years, the Philippine shores would host notorious mercenary private contractors. In 2007, Anne Tyrrell, Blackwater’s spokesman said, “[w]e are no longer pursuing a facility in the Philippines.” However, in 2009, American investigative journalistWayne Madsen alleged that Satelles Solution, a Blackwater subsidiary, was using a “five-acre facility in the former United States naval base [Subic] to train operatives for secret U.S.-backed military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hotspots.” In many ways, during the Bush-Arroyo era the Philippines became a “training ground” for U.S. counterinsurgency (COIN) operations.
There’s no denying that the Americans played a pivotal role in many high profile COIN operations that severely undermined Philippine-based activities by groups such as the Abu Sayyaf and JI. The latest such high-profile operation was in Jolo, with Filipino officials claiming that three of the region’s most wanted terror suspects – namely, Singaporean Mohammad Ali (alias Muawiyah), Umbra Jumdail and Zulkifli Khir,who have all been blamed for coordinated attacks against American troops – had been killed.
During the course of Philippines-U.S. military cooperation, the U.S. troops are said to have not only provided tactical training and instructions, but also real-time, actionable intelligence for target-rich, time-sensitive operations. This has allegedly included high-resolution satellite imagery, trans-regional triangulated intelligence on terrorist networks, and even drones to support Filipino troop operations against common insurgent enemies.
Ironically, although the VFA stipulates a “temporary” and “indirect” U.S. military presence in the Philippines, there’s a growing impression that the U.S. presence is not only “temporarily indefinite”, but also that it has been more direct in practice. There are concerns that U.S. troops do actually possess “bases” within Filipino bases, namely the Camp Navarro in Zamboanga, with foreign troops exercising de facto jurisdiction over such facilities. Also, there are reports that the Americans haven’t been confined to an advisory-supporting role, and instead have actually engaged in direct combat operations – from special force’s conducting kinetic operations to drone strikes – alongside their Filipino counterparts. For such reasons, legislators and civil society groups have voiced their growing discontent over the status of the VFA, with some raising the specter of constitutional violations to justify terminating the agreement. Currently, there are several pending bills in the legislature that propose abrogating and/or reviewing the VFA.
Simultaneously, however, China’s rise is fuelling a more explicit Filipino tilt toward the United States. Since June 2011, the two countries have intensified their strategic dialogue and military cooperation, with pledges to increase U.S. military assistance to the Philippines and intensify ongoing negotiations on enhancing the U.S. military presence in the country. Earlier this year, the two countries concluded their 2nd Bilateral Strategic Dialogue, with a joint statement promising to build a more robust military alliance.Earlier this month, Andrew Shapiro, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs, traveled to the Philippines to conduct discussions with senior government officials on issues like enhancing bilateral military cooperation on both traditional and non-traditional security issues and helping the Philippines to achieve “a minimum, credible defense-deterrence capability.” These negotiations continue to be ongoing with some reports claiming that Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert Del Rosario and Secretary of National Defense Voltaire Gazmin will travel to Washington between March and April to iron out a final deal. In response, hawkish elements within China have called for sanctions against the Philippines’ purported efforts to stoke tensions in Sino-American relations. There’s growing concern that the Philippines’ current efforts will pave the way for a “superpower-rivalry,” drawing Manila into an even bigger conflict.
In fact, many Filipino legislators from across the political and ideological spectrum have raised concerns about Manila’s plans to intensify U.S. military operations in the Philippines as a potential hedge against China’s territorial assertiveness and rapidly growing military capabilities. For instance, Congressman Walden Bello has raised concerns with the transparency of the ongoing negotiations between Manila and Washington, while other legislators have called for a more thorough and explicit discussion of how current negotiations and agreements with the U.S. serve the Philippines’ “national interest” – an unclear issue in itself.
It remains to be seen whether the legislature and the executive branches can reach a consensus on how to manage military relations with Washington. Yet the larger strategic issue is whether the Philippines can strike an appropriate balance between its relationship with the U.S. and China in order to defend its national interests.
Javad Heydarian is a Manila-based foreign affairs analyst focusing on international security and development issues. His articles have been featured or cited in Foreign Policy in Focus, Asia Times, UPI, the Transnational Institute and the Tehran Times, among other publications. He can be reached at: Jrheydarian@gmail.com.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Chad
Clearly, the issue here is the violation of Phil constitution, which clearly stipulates that the Americans do not have the right to neither establish a permanent base nor engage in direct combat operation on the Phil soil.
Bill Cleyntone
Does the US have a base in Phil? Have thay practiced direct active combat activities? All are speculations unless proven correct.
China is claiming the entire SCSea and refused a multi party resolution. They want bilateral resolutions with each weaker claimants so they can cut a deal. Logically, perhaps, taking half from each claimants which is pretty much taking everything. How can they possibly make cut? Indirect coersion if you will through military might. It’s no accident that China is aggressive and spending heaily in military.
Chad
That presumes to begin with when it comes to military operations – with a powerful partner – there is sufficient transparency and proper implementation of agreed upon rules. It is very naive, looking at the history of military operations across the world, to presume that all these smoke is simply a fog!
Adik
The writer provided an excellent evaluation of the love-hate relationship of the Filipinos with their former US colonial masters. In 1899, the Americans duped their Filipino allies and went behind their backs to purchase the islands from Spain, which then led to the Philippine-American War. As a result of that war, the Americans ruled the islands for the next forty years or so and kept heavy influence on the succeeding governments of the nascent Republic. The continuing American influence and presence on a supposedly independent country rankled the nationalists, which finally led to the closure of of Clark and Subic Bases after their lease were not extended by the Philippines Senate 20 years ago. However, it became painfully obvious that the country couldn’t defend itself from outside intrusions (e.g. Mischief Reef). The closure of the US bases was an emotional victory for the nationalists, but it came with a price – national security. The country had become too reliant on the security blanket provided by American presence. Now that the Chinese are becoming more aggressive with their claims to the whole South China Sea and the so-called Nansha Islands, the Philippines, too poor to defend itself, is left with no choice but to run back to the Americans for security. Filipinos are just being realists. Yes, their collective is hurt by not being able to defend themselves on their own, but what could they do?
J.H
I think the implication was quite clear:
1. Be more subtle about your cooperation with America
2. Avoid pissing off the Chinese
3. Focus on a rule-based, regional approach
4. Avoid being dragged into a China-US rivalry
5. Diversify you security-strategic relations by reaching out to Middle Powers, from Indonesia to India.
The main question is whether China is irrational enough to create a whole regional and international backlash by engaging in direct combat with US allies and ASEAN members? I don’t think so. But if we keep on pissing off the Chinese, then the Hawks might take the upper-hand. What happens next is anyone’s guest.
We might be walking ourselves into war if we keep on cynically prioritizing a ‘security approach’ over a ‘diplomatic approach’. After all, the problem in the South China Sea is ‘territorial’ and therefore legal. Political and military variables should not undermine the main thrust of Philippine’s (purported) approach: namely, diplomacy.
Cyrus14
We are doing a rule based approach, we are working on a Multi-Party talks on the disputes preferrebly with other ASEAN States that has interest in the area, we have also asked China if they would put their claim to test in the UN.
They do not one either one and would prefer a bilateral talks, which is not to our best interest ans they could exert their will.
Bill Cleyntone
Back in 1800s the US and Phil has no alliance,so your history of “duped” is inaccurate. Phil was under Spain and Spain didn’t want to lose the Phil for nothing, so they sold it. Phil, basically, in imperialism term, was Spain’s property.
Also what I don’t get with the strong US objection in the Phil is that the US has brought more in 40 yrs than Spain in 400 yrs. go figure why? I know these are coming from a minute number of people but sure they spread that hatred like wild fire. I wonder how they never have that strong hatred with Spain after all. No sarcasm intended, just really wondering why really. I think the Phil has benefited with the US greatly in that shorter time than with Spain. Right? After all, the glory days golden days that many Filipino refer to was during common wealth with the US. Yes, the Phil is nostalgic about that period and wish to achieve that again. But like I said that was common wealth. So I don’t know why there’s that strong hatred with the US more so than Spain. I don’t understand.
Cyrus
First is because there was an Agreement between Aguinaldo and a US Consul in Hong Kong, thus the “dupe”. Aguinaldo also purchased Fire Arms in Singapore through a US Consul and US did not complete the delivery.
Secondly, most Filipino’s doesn’t feel hatred towards the United States in fact many Filipino’s have families in the States. We consider the United States as friend, what you are seeing are the Leftist Organizations and in fact is a Legal Fron of the CPP-NPA. They are against the United States because namely the Communist Struggle was thwarted by the CIA via the CIA installed President Magsaysay.
Since the biggest ally of the Republic of the Philippines is the United States then it is to their best interest to create a rift between the GRP and the USA.
Alpha
The logic (or lack of it) runs like this: there are possibly some criminals in a particular neighborhood. So, as to avoid further crime, just eliminate the entire neighborhood per se. A preposterous calculation akin to Bush’ doctrine of 1%. If we are going to act (or overreact) on every perceived or real shred of threat, then we end up overstretched, paranoid, or completely out of loop.
The reason ASEAN countries are no longer supporting Phil’ diplomatic push’ – i.e. the compartmentalization of areas of dispute and pushing for a more binding COC – is precisely they feel that we are no longer as committed to diplomacy, but instead we have resigned to the security option.
Cyrus
That does not hold true, they are not as supportive because of Chinese influence and Chinese Trade.
Alpha
There is no mutual exclusivity. The ASEAN countries – having their own interests with China – could very well use our tilt to America as an excuse to marginalize our diplomatic efforts. Assuming you are right, they having strong economic ties with China just makes them more interested in using our renewed military alliance with US as an excuse to push us to the sidelines.
Cyrus
“after nine weeks of fighting not even a small amount of aid has reached us from the United States. Help and assistance have been sent to other belligerent nations,… but seemingly no attempt has been made to transport anything here…. [T]he United States has practically doomed the Philippines to almost total extinction to secure a breathing space.” – Pres. Manual Quezon
One of the reason’s of the anti-American feeling and the question if the United States would really help the Philippines.
Adik
C’mon, Bill. Let’s not argue on historical facts here. The Americans used the services of the Filipino revolutionaries and discarded them after they were already dispensable. Let’s get back to the issue at hand: South China Sea. China refuses to discuss this at the multilateral level. ASEAN can’t be expected to have a unified stance on this issue as there exists other claimants from the same grouping, who in turn have varying degrees of linkages with the Chinese economy. The Philippines and Vietnam are probably in the same boat here as they have been at the receiving end of aggressive Chinese actions. It’s realpolitik. We have a Mutual Defense Agreement with the US, hence we will use it to our own advantage to counteract an emerging world power that refuses to see us eye to eye.
Chad
U should we even choose between the US and China? we should stop being a volleyball, and instead work on a more independent course. It is risky, hell yeah! but the more we stick to our old ways, the more we repeat history.
Cyrus
That simply is because we are not capable of defending ourselves and China making a claim to a sea 50km from Palawan Mainland is a THREAT no matter how you make of it.
Alpha
Then y not just push your point to it’s logical conclusion and be subsumed by America or whoever is your preferred master? Even Machiavelli – the ultimate realist – warned against tiny countries aligning to a bigger power when it’s at lloggerheads with another big power? He talked of tiny Italian states vis-a-vis Franco-Spanish rivalry. The best thing is to bring the force if international law and regional arrangements upon China, then work on some minimum surveillance and patrolling capacity, then have a more subtle cooperation with US but strengthen ties with other powers and countries who are as concerned with the Chinese. Tilting to US only gives the hawks in China m
Cyrus
I understand that Alpha but we need choose one because UN cannot help us if war breaks out. Why so? Because Municipal always takes precendence over International Law.
China and the US has veto powers and it would cripply any effort by UN to stop a war happening. The Proximity of Guam with the Philippines and the Presence of the 7th Fleet in the Pacific works wonders in dettering China from any ontowards aggression against the Philippines.
“The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not.” and the time clearly shows that we need to choose one or the other.
Alpha
You think the Chinese are that dumb to provoke not only Philippines and Vietnam but the whole region?
Sure there are hawks within China and since communism is no longer working they are using popular nationalism to score points with their people.
The fact is China is no where near to challenge the U.S. or take on US’ allies, because it knows that there will be a total regional backlash if it does so. Case in point, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Last thing China needs is to compromise its entire economy and relations with America and reverse two decades of ‘charm offensive’.
Cyrus
It still is best to be perfectly sure, besides the US is a treaty Ally and worst comes to worst we are still with the United States.
Patriot
@ Fu Man-chu: I am an average Filipino. And, yes, Cyrus14 speaks the truth. I’d say 90% of Filipinos would side with US over China any time. I’d say we’d even side with India over China. We love FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, and we’re not going to hand that over to you, Chinese.
Leonard R.
There is only one nation in SE Asia that is a strategic imperative for the US. That is the Philippines.
If that archipelago falls to the PRC, Guam is not safe. The Marshalls are not safe. Even Hawaii is not safe.
I’m glad the US military knows how to read a map. Next step, teach the diplomats & the politicians
how to read one. Wen Jiabao can provide a map on request. It will have a large cow tongue-shaped
line that runs from Hainan to Indonesia & back. The Philippines and Vietnam lose their coast lines
on that map.
This article is thorough. The writer seems to have an axe to grind with the US though.
He misrepresents Walden Bello as some sort of harbinger of a grass roots uprising.
I doubt it. Bello has always had an axe to grind with America. He was educated at UC Berkeley.
It’s only natural he would hate the US.
Kimbo Y. Laurel
@ Leonred R. Yeah, Walden Bello does have grudge on the US yet it is funny that he studied in the US. For me , it will not make any differences in the world if the US is no longer superpower for there always be countries try to impose its interest against another. I prefer the US because we know that US more that the PROC plus PROC is not transparent with its policies.
Cyrus14
May I add that Bello is a well known Communist. Though I had to agree on his stand regarding Spratly, if he wants Americans to stay out of the Philippines he should advice the CPP-NPA to lay down their arms and join the fold of the government help increase defense spending so that we can defend our own territories against any aggressors not only the Chinese.
Right now we need to be a realist and reality says that we aren’t capable of defending our country by ourselves especially against China. So only thing we could do is to look up to the United States for defense unless we can have a plausible defense set up we can never be able to stand on our own without the United States.
Major Lowen Gil Marquez, Phil Army
The Chinese fisherman getting inside the WESTERN PHILIPPINE SEA is just an advance reckoning party of the communist government of China in order to invade in creeping mode every shoal and islet of the Spratley Island under the Province of Palawan, fisherman they said seeking a shelter from the storm is just a communist propaganda, there are no storm in Palawan Province, its a communist provocation of civil invasion by the communist..
eyedrd
Chinese Navy Hegemony Continues to Bully Unarmed Fishing Boats: Are the acts of Pirates or of a Navy?
Let’s take a look at a situation where a navy ship heavily equipped with guns and missiles saw small fishing boats,unarmed, wandering into the water that the navy ship was guarding.
What would that navy ship should act or behave toward those small fishing ships looking for shelter due to the big wind? In a civilized maritime law, the navy ship should have come into the rescue of the small ships in danger and then direct those ships out of their turf.
Instead, this navy ship shot at unarmed fishermen and beat them up and confiscated all of the catches, worth of $25,000. Is it a normal conduct of a navy? or the behavior of the navy ship was just like any pirates using force to brutalize unarmed people and rob their catches.
Cyrus14
If you look at the broader spectrum of the Philippine Society besides the communist everyone has no objections to Military Presence in the Philippines. If you take not of the protest in the US Embassy regarding its troops on Philippine soil have been consistently Leftist Organizations which has link to the CPP ie Akbayan, Anakpawis, Gabriela, Bayan, BayanMuna, etc.
This only proves that only a small portion of Philippine Society is against such moves, majority of the Filipino’s are friendly with the Americans as there are a number of Filipino’s living in the US.
Fu Man-chu
Cyrus1BigZero, you talk as if leftist and “communists” are not Flipinos or humans, and therefore no rights.
I cannot see the difference bewteen your mentality and Bashar Al-Assad’s mentality, nor Gaddafi, Ben-Ali, Marcos, Suharto, Mahathir, Gen. Prayuth Chan-Ocha, Myanmar’s generals before Thein, Idi Amin, Arroyo, Stalin, Tojo, etc…
You don’t speak for the average Filipinos I am sure.
Watcher
Communist means a left wing extremist just like a Nazi is a right wing extremist. Communist policies are in effect a way to supress the people and stagnate/destroy economic development. Look at all communist regimes. China today does not practise communism (to trict people like you they call it “Communism with Chinese characteristics”).
All over the world Communism as a bad word that means failed policies. Somehow you have not opened your eyes yet.
In my country the Labour party broke with the communist after World War 2. Seeing Stalin and Mao they had the evidence and officially called it evil. They are still socialists though. Communists have no more than 1% of the population. Extremists..
Cyrus14
You must look into it in Philippine Context. The Communist has waged a war of attrition since 1946, they have been banned from participating in the elections because of their use of force and intimidation vis a vis New People’s Army.
If they want to participate in the Political Protest’s legitly then they must first lay down their arms and come to the fold. They can do a change of government through ConCom or ConAss, and if the people agree with them then it will be approved.
Yes, I do the CPP participated in the 1987 Elections because then the late President Corazon Aquino allowed them to do so, they fared badly and rather than accepting defeat gracefully went to the mountains and continued the insurgency.
Now, do I speak for majority of the Filipino? If we based it in the 1987 Elections the will of the Filipino People is clear democracy is here to stay in the Philippines, if majority of the Filipino’s preferred COMMUNISM to DEMOCRACY then the Republic of the Philippines would had long been ousted.
As we could see it is not so and therefore it shows that the will of the Filipino People are with the Republic and that if you also see the context of the Protest against the Americans you can clearly see it is the Communist and it is well known to average Filipino’s and especially the Military who had gathered intelligence from such groups.
Why were they not persecuted? Because they do not bear arms, I cannot say the same in China as anyone speaking against the Government is severely punished.
Cyrus14
Well for your information Bello is a communist and is ofcourse expected to resist the US Presence in the Philippines as it will undermine the Communist Insurgency in the Country.