By NAOJI SHIBATA
Asahi Shimbun
Asahi Shimbun
SPRATLY ISLANDS–Pag-asa (hope) Island looked like a historic battlefield when I chartered a fishing boat in August to visit this Philippine military outpost in the South China Sea.
I saw an airstrip eroded by waves and left unattended. I saw a tank submerged in a jungle, an anti-ship battery left to rust and a trench filled with graffiti on its walls.
Some 30 troops of the navy and the air force are stationed on Pag-asa Island, along with about 100 civilians. A town hall, a clinic and other civilian facilities have gradually been developed, but military establishments showed no signs of active renovations.
Pag-asa is located in the center of the Kalayaan, or “freedom,” group of islands, so named by a dictator 36 years ago.
In 1978, Ferdinand Marcos, then president of the Philippines, declared control over the waters surrounding the disputed Spratly (Nansha) Islands in the West Philippine Sea, known globally as the South China Sea, and began fortifying Pag-asa into an outpost.
The Marcos dictatorship collapsed in 1986, giving way to a return of democracy. Military spending of the Philippines remained at subdued levels compared with those of its neighbors, as the Cold War subsequently ended and the country’s economy remained lackluster. And Manila remained on friendly terms with Beijing until the mid-2000s.
Amid a string of coup attempts, the country allocated more of its budgets for improving the working conditions of its soldiers than on upgrading its arsenal.
MILITARY MODERNIZATION DRIVE
Philippine President Benigno Aquino III proudly said July 1 that fighter jets will be deployed by the end of next year.
“The air force seemed to have failed to take off from decades of anomalies, abuse and neglect,” Aquino said in a speech marking the anniversary of the Philippine Air Force. “But we can again defend our territory in a more effective way.”
The air force had a maximum fleet of 34 F-5 fighters during the 1990s, but they were all decommissioned due to aging and obsolescence in 2005. The country has since remained aerially unarmed for a decade, until it decided to acquire 12 FA-50 fighters as a centerpiece of a military modernization program, which kicked off last year.
The program also features a shopping cart of long-distance warning aircraft, combat helicopters, anti-submarine helicopters, frigates, airborne radar apparatus and other equipment. The country plans to spend 85.3 billion pesos ($1.94 billion, or 200 billion yen) over five years.
Military spending by the Philippines began to soar from around 2010, and rose 16.8 percent year on year in 2013, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. The surge is attributed partly to less austere state coffers, as the country has enjoyed one of the highest economic growth rates in Asia over the past three years or so.
But before everything, it is intended to prepare against an offensive by China, which continues to expand its presence in the South China Sea.
Manila’s neighbors are also expanding their military spending under similar circumstances.
Vietnam has placed an order with Russia for six submarines. The country said in July it would spend $540 million to acquire 32 coast guard patrol vessels.
Indonesia’s and Cambodia’s military expenses grew 26.5 percent and 10.3 percent, respectively, year on year in 2013.
The IISS said Asia’s military spending surpassed Europe’s in 2012 for the first time in modern history and rose to $321.8 billion in 2013, up 23 percent from 2010. The continued arms race in Asia has partly been attributed to the absence of a collective security framework of the sort that exists in Europe.
MANY LIVING BELOW POVERTY LINE
One simple question has stuck in my mind.
All the aforementioned countries are “developing nations,” which have yet to reach the status of “more developed nations.” Many in those countries are living below the poverty line and are being forced to find work abroad.
Is it appropriate, my question goes, to have fighter jets and submarines take precedence over improving the living standards of the people?
The story would be different if the acquisition of weapons was enough to block China’s invasion. But in 2013, Beijing’s official military expenditures alone stood at $112 billion, whereas Manila’s, at only $2.2 billion, was obviously no match for that.
Leonor Briones, a professor of public administration at the University of the Philippines, said she was skeptical.
Weapons acquisitions could “give a psychological boost to Filipinos who are feeling bullied by China to show that we are preparing,” Briones said. “But, of course, in reality, any sensible person will know that we are not in a position to fight China.”
But Yasuhiro Takeda, a professor of comparative politics at Japan’s National Defense Academy, said the weapons modernization program by Manila, which signed a new defense agreement with Washington in April, is significant on its own.
“If you stayed unarmed, the U.S. military will do nothing for you,” he said. “Washington may do something for you if there are attacks on your fighters or vessels. If nothing takes place, it will be assumed you have no intention of putting up resistance.”
Fermin De Leon, president of the National Defense College of the Philippines, also emphasized that just because a nation is no match militarily for China, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t need armaments.
“An air force without a plane is not an air force,” he said. “An army without guns is not an army. A nation without an army is not a nation. Defense is a duty of a state to protect and defend people.”
Let us set aside weighing military spending against social security and education expenditures. Still, the same military expenditures are being spent on acquiring spanking new weapons, whereas soldiers stationed on the Spratly atolls are left without refrigerators or TVs.
Are we supposed to accept such an imbalance as something that can’t be helped in a developing nation?
I have the impression that military spending tends to put keeping up appearances for the nation and its senior officials ahead of the actual benefits.
And Japan is not totally out of the picture even when it comes to the armed forces of other nations. I had that idea refreshed in my mind when one senior Philippine military official spoke to me in a low voice.
He asked if the Philippine Navy could use the 10 patrol vessels that Tokyo plans to provide to the Philippine Coast Guard out of its official development assistance budget.
The official said he feared that would make the coast guard more powerful than the military. His question, although it was not clear whether it was meant as a joke or not, was in reference to the state of an ill-equipped navy that is still in the process of modernization.
“How could that be possible?” I almost responded, but I held my tongue.
The administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is reviewing the country’s ODA guidelines, which ban assisting the armed forces. How could I say for sure the day will never come that a vessel donated with Japan’s ODA is transferred to the navy and ends up confronting China?
By NAOJI SHIBATA/ Correspondent
By NAOJI SHIBATA/ Correspondent
No comments:
Post a Comment