COLUMN: OPINION ON PAGE ONE- A ‘treaty of neutrality’ with China? – By Francisco S. Tatad
DEFENSE Secretary Defin Lorenzana’s call for a stronger Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States may have sailed into a strong current of presidential indifference, and an even stronger current in support of China. Sources sympathetic to President Rodrigo Duterte’s pivot to China seem to believe Lorenzana’s proposal is now passé—for them, the time is past to be talking of a strong military alliance with the US; the real need is for a solid economic, political and military partnership with China. No one is saying China has won or is about to win the race against the US for dominance in Asia, but some straws in the wind suggest this has entered the world of fiction, in anticipation of future reality.
.
ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.
.
Life imitating art?
A young analyst has called attention to the fact that on Netflix, a fictional drama series (“Pine Gap”) talks of Australia secretly discussing a “treaty of neutrality” with China, while relations between the US, Australia’s primary ally, and China head for the rocks. In this series, Australia and the US jointly operate “Pine Gap,” said to be one of the three huge satellite surveillance facilities upon which the US relies for global intel gathering, the two others being,Buckley Air Force Base in Denver, Colorado, and Menwith Hill in Harrogate, Yorkshire.
Australia’s secret conversations with China form part of the background of developments in the US-Chinese front. President Kerr, the fictional US president, orders a strike on Hughes Reef, one of China’s fortified islands in the Spratlys, and China retaliates by targeting a US F-16 with a surface-to-air missile. The pilot successfully ejects but goes missing for the next so many hours. A standoff develops after he is found safe and unharmed, but China makes it clear they will not allow the US to use force in the rescue operations. This compels the US to seek a diplomatic solution: a Chinese frigate picks him up, brings him to Beijing, where he is handed over to the US embassy.
.
ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.
.
DU30’s record
The series has earned a number of bad reviews, but our young analyst believes the “thriller’s” reference to a treaty of neutrality with China could be an interesting contribution to the politics of the region. President DU30 might find the idea worth exploring, he said. There are enough reasons for it. DU30 has refused to assert the Philippines’ rights over its maritime domain in the Spratlys, even after the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague had ruled in favor of the Philippines and declared China’s claim under its so-called nine-dash line without any legal basis.
He has also shown complete equanimity in the face of China’s continued fortification and militarization of the islands and other maritime features claimed by the Philippines; the fortification includes the building of runways on some of the islands, and the installation of missiles. On his state visit to China in October 2016, DU30 announced his military and economic “separation” from the US, and his acceptance of $24 billion in pledged aid and investments from the Chinese government.
Although he has done nothing to implement his so-called “separation,” just as the Chinese have done nothing to implement their multi-billion economic pledges, he has not withdrawn his announced separation either. Lorenzana has tried to soften DU30’s anti-US stand, and his proposed review and strengthening of the MDT may be an attempt to force DU30 to walk back from his announced “separation”; but Malacañang’s total silence on the matter is hardly encouraging.
.
ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.
.
Can Teddyboy help?
Perhaps Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr., who partly shares DU30’s famous political vocabulary, is just the official to provide Lorenzana the much-needed public support, given his long exposure to the US, and his present position. But we have not heard from him. Would Locsin risk his current standing with the President by going all out for Lorenzana’s demand for an automatic MDT retaliatory clause in case the Philippines is attacked, not only within its “metropolitan territory” but even in the contested maritime areas? I sincerely doubt it.
What about the Senate, which shares the President’s treaty-making powers — are there any senators willing to weigh in, in support of Lorenzana’s bid for stronger US defense commitments to the Philippines? From the very beginning, US forces in the Philippines were meant to serve American interests rather than the protection of the Philippines. During the 1898 debates on the acquisition of the Philippines, the American consul Charles Denby argued in his article, “The evident fitness of keeping the Philippines,” that the main reason for acquiring the Philippines was to establish a gateway to the unlimited market of China.
In 1969, Sen. William Fulbright told the Stuart Symington hearings in the US Senate that the US bases were in the Philippines (from 1947 to 1991) not really to protect the islands, but solely to maintain a US forward position against China. In 1973, the War Powers Resolution of the two Houses of the US Congress reaffirmed the US government’s determination not to get involved in any foreign wars anymore (“No more Vietnams). It however got enmeshed in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. On December 19 this year, President Donald Trump withdrew all of the US’ 2,000 men in Syria to the dismay of his own defense establishment and allies. He also pulled out half of the American 14,000 contingent in Afghanistan.
.
ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.
.
Pissing off the Chinese
This is hardly the correct setting for the US increasing its defense treaty commitments to the Philippines. Whatever the possible US response to it, it is likely to infuriate the Chinese. But our young analyst believes that if DU30 or any of his aides have been watching “Pine Gap” on Netflix, there is an even chance they would be hospitable to a “treaty of neutrality” or a “non-aggression treaty” with China as a necessary geopolitical move.
I cannot imagine such an idea catching fire among the common people, the bureaucracy, the local government or the Armed Forces. But if we could allow China to build a four-lane bridge in Intramuros with its historic two-lane streets and risk the destruction of one of our famous world heritage sites, I don’t see how President DU30 could resist the idea of having a treaty with the Chinese. The year 2019 could bring us a lot of unbelievable surprises.
.
ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.
.
All photographs, news, editorials, opinions, information, data, others have been taken from the Internet ..aseanews.net | [email protected] |.For comments, Email to :D’Equalizer | [email protected] | Contributor
