It is quite obvious that our government truly believes that the newly signed Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States has given more teeth to our existing Defense and Security alliance. This after all was the object of the exercise - To the get the United States firmly on our side with regards to our ongoing dispute with China.
But did we really get what we want? It is early to say. Foreign Secretary del Rosario is one of the most vocal supporters of EDCA even going to the extent of saying that the newly signed agreement will thwart the ambitions of China in the South China Sea.
Unfortunately however, there is nothing in the three agreements, Mutual Defense Treaty, Visiting Forces Agreement and now the EDCA that categorically says so. In the Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1951, it calls for retaliation in case our Metropolitan areas are attacked and only after complying with constitutional processes which is a tedious process.
The EDCA has many critics. One of them is my good neighbor Harry Roque who never tires of pointing out that there is nothing in EDCA that will require automatic response on the part of the United States in case our military assets are attacked by foreign countries in this case China in the South China Sea. He believes also that the United States got a lot more in this new agreement and the Philippines nothing.
Critics also point out that EDCA is only obligating the country to fight with the United States in case the US goes to war with an enemy not necessarily ours. We therefore have not seen the end of the debate. The agreement will be questioned in the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality and the Senate foreign relations Committee will open a hearing on EDCA.
President Obama when he was here said that the United States will standby treaty allies. But whether the United States will come to our aid in our South China Sea standoff with China has not been clarified by him. His statements on this in fact could be interpreted either way and this is what is happening.
During his visit, he took pains to point out that we are the oldest treaty ally of the United States in Asia. But history is very instructive on how the United States has handled its relationship with us in times of war that date back to the Second World War.
When war drums were beginning to grow louder in 1941, President Roosevelt on July 26, 1941 recalled to active duty the retired General MacArthur who was then head of the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines. On that same day, Roosevelt incorporated the Commonwealth Army into the United States Army Forces in the Far East.
In 1941, the Second World War was already 2 years old but even before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States and the United Kingdom have been meeting on several occasions to formulate joint strategies. One of these is that if the United States entered the war, the first priority would be to defeat Germany. The Philippines never knew these meetings.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchhill, the UK Prime Minister rushed to Washington to ensure that there would be no change in strategy and in fact there was none. The Europe First Policy was reaffirmed in what was called the Arcadia Conference in Washington held from December 22, 1941 to January 14, 1942. This tells us that the United States was willing to give up its possession, the Philippines, to what it viewed as a more important objective.
By Christmas of 1941, Roosevelt, and Stimson, the Secretary of War has written oft the Philippines as a lost cause even while promising the Philippines and MacArthur that help was on the way. By 1944, when Japan was already losing the war, Roosevelt met with his Pacific Commanders in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on July 26, 1944 to discuss strategy.
In that conference, the United States Navy wanted to bypass the Philippines for an invasion of Taiwan. It was MacArthur who argued that the Philippines with 300,000 Japanese troops were too large to bypass and that the Philippines was a US possession and could not be abandoned. It was only on August 9, 1944 that it was finally decided to invade and liberate the Philippines.
Strategic priorities change over time and depend on perceived national interests. Before the Second World War, Japan was the perceived threat to US interests in Asia. Today, China a huge giant is the threat to US interests in the Pacific.
It is safe to say that our geographic location makes us very important to the US. The EDCA gives the US a lot more backbone and teeth in its pivot to Asia. But if there is really a pivot to Asia, the US is spending a lot of time and effort elsewhere.
Let us compare: the US has just given the go signal to deliver about 6 apache attack helicopters to Egypt which just sentenced more than 1200 of its citizens to death for protesting. Egypt gets over $1 B in military aid from the US annually.
And here we are salivating with the increased $50M in aid to our country. Our leaders are putting too much faith in the US to come to our defense when we need it. Let us hope that their faith is not misplaced.
Alliances are not necessarily bad and one sided. Alliances can be beneficial to both parties but it really depends on how well we can extract concessions that will benefit us. I am a bit pessimistic on EDCA but willing to reserve my final judgement.
But did we really get what we want? It is early to say. Foreign Secretary del Rosario is one of the most vocal supporters of EDCA even going to the extent of saying that the newly signed agreement will thwart the ambitions of China in the South China Sea.
Unfortunately however, there is nothing in the three agreements, Mutual Defense Treaty, Visiting Forces Agreement and now the EDCA that categorically says so. In the Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1951, it calls for retaliation in case our Metropolitan areas are attacked and only after complying with constitutional processes which is a tedious process.
The EDCA has many critics. One of them is my good neighbor Harry Roque who never tires of pointing out that there is nothing in EDCA that will require automatic response on the part of the United States in case our military assets are attacked by foreign countries in this case China in the South China Sea. He believes also that the United States got a lot more in this new agreement and the Philippines nothing.
Critics also point out that EDCA is only obligating the country to fight with the United States in case the US goes to war with an enemy not necessarily ours. We therefore have not seen the end of the debate. The agreement will be questioned in the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality and the Senate foreign relations Committee will open a hearing on EDCA.
President Obama when he was here said that the United States will standby treaty allies. But whether the United States will come to our aid in our South China Sea standoff with China has not been clarified by him. His statements on this in fact could be interpreted either way and this is what is happening.
During his visit, he took pains to point out that we are the oldest treaty ally of the United States in Asia. But history is very instructive on how the United States has handled its relationship with us in times of war that date back to the Second World War.
When war drums were beginning to grow louder in 1941, President Roosevelt on July 26, 1941 recalled to active duty the retired General MacArthur who was then head of the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines. On that same day, Roosevelt incorporated the Commonwealth Army into the United States Army Forces in the Far East.
In 1941, the Second World War was already 2 years old but even before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States and the United Kingdom have been meeting on several occasions to formulate joint strategies. One of these is that if the United States entered the war, the first priority would be to defeat Germany. The Philippines never knew these meetings.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchhill, the UK Prime Minister rushed to Washington to ensure that there would be no change in strategy and in fact there was none. The Europe First Policy was reaffirmed in what was called the Arcadia Conference in Washington held from December 22, 1941 to January 14, 1942. This tells us that the United States was willing to give up its possession, the Philippines, to what it viewed as a more important objective.
By Christmas of 1941, Roosevelt, and Stimson, the Secretary of War has written oft the Philippines as a lost cause even while promising the Philippines and MacArthur that help was on the way. By 1944, when Japan was already losing the war, Roosevelt met with his Pacific Commanders in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on July 26, 1944 to discuss strategy.
In that conference, the United States Navy wanted to bypass the Philippines for an invasion of Taiwan. It was MacArthur who argued that the Philippines with 300,000 Japanese troops were too large to bypass and that the Philippines was a US possession and could not be abandoned. It was only on August 9, 1944 that it was finally decided to invade and liberate the Philippines.
Strategic priorities change over time and depend on perceived national interests. Before the Second World War, Japan was the perceived threat to US interests in Asia. Today, China a huge giant is the threat to US interests in the Pacific.
It is safe to say that our geographic location makes us very important to the US. The EDCA gives the US a lot more backbone and teeth in its pivot to Asia. But if there is really a pivot to Asia, the US is spending a lot of time and effort elsewhere.
Let us compare: the US has just given the go signal to deliver about 6 apache attack helicopters to Egypt which just sentenced more than 1200 of its citizens to death for protesting. Egypt gets over $1 B in military aid from the US annually.
And here we are salivating with the increased $50M in aid to our country. Our leaders are putting too much faith in the US to come to our defense when we need it. Let us hope that their faith is not misplaced.
Alliances are not necessarily bad and one sided. Alliances can be beneficial to both parties but it really depends on how well we can extract concessions that will benefit us. I am a bit pessimistic on EDCA but willing to reserve my final judgement.
No comments:
Post a Comment