Paraphrasing an old Kenyan proverb, when hegemons clash, the peace-loving states suffer.
As a traditional American ally, the Philippines has been dragged into the protracted posturing between the United States and China concerning the West Philippine Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
When the US defense department announced the expansion of its Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement sites in our country, the Chinese Embassy promptly criticized the move as advancing the Americans’ anti-China political agenda. The four new locations on top of the five existing sites will allow the US to preposition its armed personnel and weapons in our military bases.
Ironically, the strengthening of the Philippine-US military alliance comes on the heels of President Marcos Jr.’s successful state visit to China last month. Even more ironic is that days after PBBM and President Xi Jinping agreed to handle the Spratly Islands dispute via friendly consultations, the Chinese Coast Guard drove away Filipino fishermen from the Ayungin Shoal.
These bilateral developments have given rise to several questions.
What are EDCA’s implications on our national interest and regional security? Does it signal a looming war between the two world powers over Taiwan? Will the Philippines be reduced to an intermediary of American warfare?
My social media followers have also asked if our foreign policy remains independent under the Marcos administration. The renunciation of war and the pursuit of an independent foreign policy are key provisions in Article 2 of the Constitution. I believe that the government is mindful of this in the conduct of our foreign affairs.
Likewise, I understand the administration’s calculated approach toward protecting our territorial integrity, sovereignty, and sovereign rights in the WPS. It comes from insecurity in the context of international relations. Militarily, we cannot afford a head-on confrontation with China. Thus, we can only invoke the Mutual Defense Treaty signed by the Philippines and the US in 1951.
Article 4 of the Treaty states: “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes…”
But when China annexed the Panganiban Reef in 1995 and Panatag Shoal in 2012 in the WPS, the US did not provide us with any military assistance. The Americans said they did not intervene in territorial disputes. They also needed congressional approval before they could come to our rescue. The lack of automaticity makes the Philippines vulnerable to external aggression from a superior power. Must we rely on a defense agreement where the US would only come to our defense if the situation aligns with the American interest?
When EDCA was signed in 2014, I was among those who petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the agreement constitutionally infirm because of major infringements. In Saguisag vs. Executive Secretary, we argued that EDCA must come in the form of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate as mandated under Article 18, Section 25, of our Constitution. The High Court, however, ruled that it was covered by the MDT and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement.
I have read commentaries from US policy and opinion makers favoring a US preemptive strike against China before the latter can attack Taiwan. These views contradict the one-China policy to which the US and most nations adhere. Under this principle, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.
Would this aggressive military posture from the US trigger the operation of the MDT and thereby involve the Philippines as a third-party war participant? I do not think so. The treaty does not apply if the US is the aggressor in a conflict. Participating in any war does not serve our national interest. We must never allow our territory to become a launch pad for an offensive attack against another state.
The world is still reeling from the social, economic, and political fallout from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We do not need another one that is so close to home.