Flunking history

 

 

As a student of history, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III gets a failing mark.

 

Recently, President Aquino compared China’s conduct of foreign relations on the simmering South China dispute with Hitler’s acquisition of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938. Aquino said the Sudetenland “was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War II.”



Philippine President Benigno Aquino III. Photo by AFP.

Aquino’s statement was only partly correct insofar as the European powers at that time, Great Britain and France, agreed to let Czechoslovakia give up the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in order to avert another war in the continent. This was against the position of the US commission to the Paris Peace Conference which unanimously supported the unity of Czech lands, including the area of the Sudetenland that was occupied by ethnic Germans. Of course, Hitler eventually invaded and annexed Czechoslovakia to the Third Reich.

 

But where is the parallel between Hitler’s Sudetenland with China and the South China Sea dispute that President Aquino was alluding to?

 

The Sudetenland was inhabited by German-speaking ethnic groups and was driven by local nationalist sentiment to join the German republic. There was an impulse in the Sudetenland to rejoin Germany, unlike the islands and various rock formations in the South China Sea which are largely uninhabited by any distinct population or ethnic group. In fact, after the Second World War, hundreds of thousands of ethnic-speaking Germans escaped Sudetenland and resettled in West Germany. On the other hand, most of the islands being claimed by the Philippines, China and four other Asian countries remain submerged under water during high tide and are practically uninhabitable by people.

 

The South China dispute is a territorial conflict among several Asian countries which claim competing sovereignty over islands and rock formations, primarily because of their potential rich oil and mineral deposits. No claimant country is eager about going to war for the sole reason of asserting sovereignty rights. The dispute could be considered a flashpoint for a wider armed conflict, but that’s all there is to it—not necessarily an impetus for war.

 

Comparing China with Hitler’s aggressiveness in acquiring the Sudetenland is obviously inflammatory and contrary to negotiating a settlement through diplomacy. President Aquino is simply fanning the flames and outrage against China’s aggressiveness in the South China Sea. Again, as a loyal American boy himself, Aquino is serving the interests of the United States for being the spokesperson for containing China’s rising hegemony in Asia and the Pacific.

Crisis in the South China Sea. Photo by UNCLOS and CIA.

President Aquino is emboldened by a mistaken belief in the illusion that the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States will save him from his belligerent rhetoric against China. This defence agreement is a moribund instrument, signed by the two countries at the height of the Cold War in 1951, for the sole purpose of limiting the spread of communism in Asia. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the decline of the threat of communism in the 1990s, the menace of communism has totally receded, even in the face of the local communist-inspired insurrection by the New People’s Army (NPA).

 

Like the former US bases in the Philippines, the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States serves only as a magnet to foreign aggression. Instead of seeking accommodation and modus vivendi, President Aquino has been animated by the US commitments expressed in this 1950s vintage Cold War origin security treaty, which is backed by US-Philippines joint military exercises under the US Visiting Forces Agreement.

 

During her visit to Manila on November 11, 2011, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on the 60th anniversary of the Mutual Defence Treaty that “the US will always be in the corner of the Philippines. We will always stand and fight with you to achieve the future we seek.”

 

It was the most gratuitous, yet unconstructive declaration by the former Secretary of State, that could be deemed provocative and ill-conceived given the practice of the United States not to take sides and be involved in regional conflicts in Asia and the Pacific.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to the Philippines
which coincided with the 60th anniversary of the nations' Mutual Defence Treaty.

But the US mutual obligation under the treaty in the event of a foreign invasion is more illusory than real. Reading the fine print of the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty would show that it is not automatic for the United States to come to the defence of the Philippines in case of hostilities with China. Under Article IV of the treaty, in case of an armed attack in the Pacific, both parties must act in accordance with their constitutional processes before introducing their armies into any hostility. Thus, the treaty is not “self-executing” or binding on the United States unless its Congress enacts an implementing law to commit the US military.

 

Besides, the treaty expressly refers to an armed attack in the Pacific, and the South China Sea, arguably, is not part of the Pacific.

 

President Aquino would not have the audacity to rile China with his blunt, careless, and undiplomatic statements if not for the mirage of the US military coming to defend the Philippines in case of war. This is also true in the case of Japan. The Japan-China dispute would probably not have escalated to its current level by Japan provoking nationalization of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, if not for assurances of applicability of the U.S. defense commitment to the disputed islands.

 

North Korea’s provocative development of nuclear weapons and other acts of belligerence are also clear examples of how these US defence treaties operate in escalating conflict rather than promoting détente. The presence of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula serves in limiting China’s willingness and ability to exert pressure on North Korea to denuclearize.

 

At present, US servicemen join the Armed Forces of the Philippines on a rotating basis throughout the year, not only in military exercises but also in the latter’s campaigns against NPA and Muslim secessionist rebels. The U.S. also maintains some 28,500 servicemen and women in South Korea and some 34,000 uniformed personnel plus dependents in Japan. Two major U.S. air force bases and the Futenma Marine Air Base occupy a large part of Okinawa. The U.S. Seventh Fleet is also headquartered in Yokosuka, Japan.

 

To the eyes of any intelligent observer, the presence of U.S. military in Asia and the Pacific has therefore become more of an attraction for foreign aggression and an irresponsible shield used by leaders of these countries in promoting belligerence and a rationale for going to war.

 

The alliances built by the United States with the Philippines, Japan, and Korea clearly represent a dangerous remnant of the Second World War, and particularly the Cold War that has long since ceased to be justifiable under any reasonable scenarios. All countries in the region would probably enjoy greater stability and security if these alliances were dismantled and U.S. military forces withdrawn.

 

These mutual defence commitments, and the ongoing negotiations between the United States and the Philippines in Washington for a new military framework agreement, are stoking the bluster in President Noynoy Aquino’s immature broadsides against China, even to the extent of misinterpreting history. While the Aquino government has been proclaiming the need for a rules-based and peaceful settlement of the South China Sea dispute, it continues to undermine this process by unnecessarily portraying China as a bully and Hitler-like in dealing with its smaller and less powerful neighbours.

Amboys and the American empire

 

 

Some pundits and self-proclaimed Filipino patriots abroad, particularly Filipino-Americans writing in the United States whom we will refer to here as Amboys, are simply satisfied with the orthodoxy of a dictionary definition of sovereignty. To them the Philippines is a sovereign state because it is independent and self-governing, according to the dictionary.

 

But the basic lesson from the past hundred years tells us that our country has not fully achieved the upper limits of its political legitimacy – that of a nation-state. From the Philippine Revolution of 1896 to the restoration of democracy after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1984, the political reality is we have remained as a vassal of the great American empire. This is very clear, if not directly, through the control and influence over our nation’s economy by big multinational firms and their surrogates by way of the local oligarchic elite, the country’s virtual dependence on the US military for protection from foreign invasion, and the complete Americanization of the culture and minds of Filipinos.

 

Sovereignty in a nominal sense is not what the definition envisages. Neither is sovereignty in an aspirational sense good enough.

 

Well, this kind of opinion will be dismissed by these aforementioned Amboys as hogwash, ultra-nationalistic, or even communist-inspired. But what really is behind this anti-nationalist hysteria and revival of communist-baiting?

 

The United States Military has been well-loved in the Philippines, thanks to the
Americanization of our culture and minds that makes us believe America will
always help us against foreign invasion. Photo courtesy of the US Navy.

American hegemony in Asia, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, started to wane beginning in 1991 when the US waged the Gulf War to repulse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the closing of US military bases in the Philippines. At the same time, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption during the 20th century, made it easier for the United States to close its military bases in the Philippines, particularly the US Naval Base at Subic Bay, the largest overseas military installation of the United States Armed Forces. From 2001 to 2003 until the present, the US military has focused its intervention to the Afghan and Iraqi wars, in addition to the continuing Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestine and other Arab countries.

 

It was also during this time that China started to emerge as a major power player in Asia. Many international observers have also begun to entertain the possibility that the People’s Republic of China could emerge as a second superpower with global power and influence on par with the United States. Others also predicted that China will become the world’s largest economy by 2021, and will surpass the United States as a military superpower within twenty years. All of which is not good news to America, so its drum- beaters like the Amboys are sounding the alarm of a possible Chinese invasion in the event of war with China as the territorial dispute heats up over islands and other land formations in the China Sea, or the West Philippine Sea as far as the Philippine government is concerned.

 

These Amboys, more rabid warmongers than their local counterparts in the Philippine press, have pointed to the ratcheting of China’s claim over territories in the South China Sea and its more recent regulations restricting fishing by foreign vessels in the disputed areas as clear and present danger of future military escalations. They have denounced those who have supported the closing of US military bases in the Philippines in 1991 and the present campaign for the abrogation of the current RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement as short-sighted Filipino nationalism. To them, these Filipinos do not understand that the Philippines is utterly defenceless against foreign invasion without the help of the United States.

 

They even mocked and denigrated Filipino nationalists who have taken a different political perspective on the assistance provided by the United States Navy to victims of last year’s super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda. Short of calling these critics of US military presence in the Philippines as ungrateful or “walang utang na loob” in local parlance, these Amboys would rather see the US be given access to basing rights. Their argument is that this would preserve the sovereignty of the Philippines and its territorial integrity.

 

But how do we exactly preserve our country’s sovereignty by giving in to US basing rights? Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

 

The Amboys’ assumption is that the US military will come to our defence if we were attacked by a foreign enemy – basically the same expectation we have from the moribund RP-US Mutual Defence Treaty which was signed by the two countries during the height of the Cold War. Even then at that time the presumption of mutual defence has already been doubted and the US can only offer us very vague assurances that they will honour their mutual obligation under the treaty.

Philippines-US Mutual Defence Treaty relations. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

Our history of bilateral agreements with the United States had always been skewed in favour of the latter, which only shows that the more powerful party to an agreement always wins by getting what it wants. Take for example the Laurel-Langley Agreement, which essentially tied the economy of the Philippines to that of the United States. The greater freedom to industrialize while continuing to receive privileged access to US markets failed to materialize as our economy never really took off from being agrarian-based.

 

Then we have the Parity Rights Act, an amendment to the 1935 Constitution granting Americans equal rights with Filipino citizens to own, develop and exploit the country’s natural resources and to operate public utilities in the country. The Act was required by the US Congress in exchange for reparation after World War II. It was approved during the 1947 plebiscite which the then Roxas government argued would be mutually beneficial to the US and the Philippines. Of course, this was not true.

 

In 1974, Parity Rights to American citizens were terminated and the right to patrimony was restored in the Philippine Constitution. However, there is now an impetus to amend the Constitution to allow foreigners equal rights with Filipino citizens to exploit and develop the country’s natural resources in order to attract more foreign investments in the country.

 

Now, the Amboys are leading the way in allowing the US military to have basing rights in the Philippines on the pretext that it will protect and preserve our sovereignty, especially against Chinese aggression and imperialist advances. This is a very shallow argument. The Philippines is never a threat to China’s core sovereignty. China’s aggression in the South China Sea is aimed at asserting sovereignty over islands and land formations whose ownership is disputable. We are on the same footing as China and the other countries claiming sovereignty rights over these disputed territories. The determination of the dispute will probably take a long time and military overtures, either by China or the Philippines (with the help of the US military), will not help in achieving a peaceful and lasting settlement.

 

What the Amboys have so far accomplished is to influence the so-called Asian pivot in American foreign policy in Asia and the Pacific that will counter the threat of Chinese hegemony. They have become America’s boisterous cheerleaders, who are willing to offer their souls for the renewal of America’s empire in Asia.

 

Here is a sample of one of these Amboys’ comments regarding the South China Sea dispute and US bases in the Philippines:

 

“These nationalists believe that without US bases on Philippine soil, China would spare us in the event of war with the US. Wrong! Without US bases, the Philippines would be the first to be attacked by China if war broke out with the US. It was proven that China seized Panganiban Reef and Scarborough Shoal without firing a shot. What does it take for China to seize Palawan and Mindoro?”

 

“Heck, the Philippine armed forces couldn’t even defeat the NPA and the Muslim rebels!”

 

Let’s deconstruct the particular Amboy’s argument.

 

This Amboy argued that without US bases in the country, the Philippines would be attacked in the event that China goes to war against the US, a scenario not supported either by history or actual Chinese expansionist policies. Compared to American military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and previously in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and Central America, China’s military aggressiveness in the South China Sea is only a recent phenomenon. Besides, the disputed territories in South China Sea are also claimed by other several countries.

 

Palawan and Mindoro cannot be compared to the Panganiban Reef and Scarborough shoal because the former are not disputed territories and officially belong to the national territory of the Philippines. The truth is that no country has a clearer sovereignty right over the islands in the South China Sea, such that their ownership is disputed by several countries.

 

This Amboy also seems to suggest that we need the US military to intervene to help the Philippine armed forces defeat the NPA and Muslim rebels.

 

It beguiles logic and common sense that these Amboys would easily surrender our sovereignty rights to the United States in order to counterbalance the growing influence of China in Asia and in the world, yet still consider such act as helping to preserve our sovereignty and protect our territorial integrity. To them, giving in to US basing rights is not surrendering one’s sovereignty if the objective is to restrain China’s hegemonic rise.

By all means, sacrifice our pride and integrity as a nation –this is the price of sovereignty these Amboys are willing to pay.

To boycott or not to boycott

Leaders of the U.S. Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG) in the United States and their counterpart in Canada have started a campaign to boycott China-made products. Their objective is to transform this primarily civil society movement into a worldwide boycott in protest of China’s “illegal occupation of the Scarborough Shoal and its creeping invasion of the Kalayaan Island Group in the Spratly Islands” in the South China Sea.

The China boycott is essentially a private effort by overseas Filipinos and their allies abroad. It does not have the official support of the Philippine government, and U.S. citizens, including Filipino-Americans are barred by law from boycotting under the auspices of a foreign government’s foreign policy. The U.S. Export Administration Regulations forbid participation in or support of boycotts initiated by foreign governments, such as for example, the Arab League boycott of Israel.

Contrary to the USP4GG claim, their boycott is not consumerist in nature, one that is fueled by concerns such as exploitative labour, unlawful use of animal by-products, or any environmental, ethical or moral issues. It is tied to a political objective, a remonstration against China’s aggressive stance with respect to their territorial sovereignty claim over islands in the South China Sea.

Leaders of the U.S. Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG) have called on
overseas Filipinos to boycott China-made products. Click link below to view
 "Boycott China,"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCRng6TGgEY.



It is as if the boycott were successful, China would be forced to give up its claim or agree to bring the competing territorial claims to arbitration before an international tribunal or settlement by multilateral negotiations. It is not clear whether the objective of the boycott will strengthen the Philippines’ claim vis-à-vis China’s and the other claims. There are six nations currently locked in a maritime standoff as to who has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, land formations which are mostly submerged under water during high tide but are known to be rich with oil and natural gas reserves.

How is this boycott going to play out?

In a press conference in Manila last July, Ms. Loida Nicolas, one of the convenors of the USP4GG, made it clear that the boycott is a “purely consumer-led boycott” of all products made in China. These products would range from light to heavy consumer goods such as household utensils and appliances, clothing, school supplies, electrical and electronic products to motorbikes, agricultural and industrial tools, and construction materials. The only problem is identifying if these products are made in China since almost everything in the market is made or has parts or components manufactured or assembled in China. Apple products such as the iPad, personal computers, cell phones and even American cars have electronic components or parts made in China.

So, USP4GG is encouraging all would-be boycotters to read the product’s bar code in order to track its origin. They said that if the first 3 digits are 690, 691 or 692, the product is made in China, and it is from Taiwan if the first three numbers are 471. Whenever you go to an Asian supermart or grocery store to buy soy sauce or Chinese noodles, the trick is to look for the bar code before buying. Or when eating in a Chinese restaurant, ask the waiters if they use products made in China before ordering your meal. If you happen to buy a signature brand of clothing that is made in China, then that creates a bigger problem because it’s not easy to sacrifice a preference for a specific brand in favour of expressing a patriotic sentiment.

Is this boycott going to be successful?

The leaders of the USP4GG say it will, but that’s too self-serving to believe. Even if 200 million Americans join the boycott which is next to impossible. They point to Vietnam’s victory against the powerful U.S. military during the Vietnam War, a David versus Goliath scenario they said. But that was not a boycott, it was a war for national liberation by the Vietnamese people. Still, some would invoke Gandhi’s boycott of British trade. Again, that was during India’s war of independence and not a consumerist reaction.

This type of consumer boycott that the USP4GG has started is not easy to wage since it covers so many products. It also creates the other problem of finding an alternative which would likely be very difficult because China-made products have saturated the market. These products, while made in China, are not necessarily China’s. They are products manufactured for a specific brand, model or foreign company using Chinese labour and resources. It is not like boycotting Nestle products, McDonald’s, KFC Chicken, or refraining to buy from Wal-Mart. This is not similar to the United Farm Workers boycott of table grapes in the 1960s or the boycott of tuna to help save dolphins in the 1990s.

Generally, this type of boycott has a very short life span and not effective in the long term. If successful, which is doubtful, it would hurt the Chinese labour population since the boycott would take away their jobs and even impoverish them. Likewise, the boycott also deprives millions of consumers of cheap products to buy. As USP4GG cannot ask the U.S. and Philippine governments to sanction the boycott, it becomes toothless and ineffective. On the other hand, if the boycott is endorsed by both governments, it would be like declaring war against China and it is not politically sensible to disrupt regional or world peace just for the sake of boycotting “toyo” or “pancit canton,” or perhaps, an iPad with electronic components made in China.

This boycott targets a list of products that is probably too long for most consumers to remember. And for a cause that is not quite clear and difficult to put across in a few understandable words.

How is boycotting China-made products linked to the validity of the Philippines’ claim for sovereignty over land formations in the South China Sea? There are other claimants but why are they not also boycotting?

USP4GG claims that China has illegally occupied the Scarborough Shoal and invaded the Kalayaan group of islands in the Spratlys. With the exception of Brunei, isn’t this what all the claimant countries have done – occupy their territories in order to establish de facto settlement? Isn’t the fact that, except for Brunei, all the competing countries have stationed troops in the South China Sea? Why then would a boycott of China-made goods be a better alternative to pursuing a military war or peaceful negotiations?

Most successful boycotts have a highly emotive and achievable cause. Take for example, dolphins killed by tuna fishermen, support “breasts, not dictators” campaigns against Triumph bras manufactured in Burmese factories, or a campaign plea for tourists not to visit a certain country. This is not to say that a boycott is only worth supporting because it’s easy to explain or PR-friendly. Many consumer boycotts don’t have a defined goal, but it is always worth investigating any boycott if it’s really the best option for voicing your concerns.

No country, including the Philippines, would dare start a war without resorting to the machinery of adjustment set up in treaties or international agreements, especially if the outcome would impact on the entire region or perhaps the whole world. Boycott advocates have always argued that if only all nations would embargo trade, loans and other intercourse with an offending nation, that nation would quickly feel the weight of disapproval and correct its ways. But that doesn’t necessarily happen even in these modern times. Consider for example the ongoing U.S. Cuban trade embargo or several U.N. sanctions against countries like Iraq and Iran. Generally speaking, economic sanctions such as boycotts are ineffective substitute for military measures or a peaceful determination of disputes.

There is little question of guilt of each of the claimant countries in the South China Sea conflict. It is unlikely that we shall ever have a less tangled case in the region, especially when five out of the six competing countries have stationed their troops in the disputed sea and fortified their settlements. It doesn’t matter if there is a big disparity in the military superiority of one country against the others. No aggression ever rises without provocation and none without some veil of reasoning that is plausible enough to deceive the opinion of the claimant-countries in the region. It would not be absurd to suppose that a boycott would lead to a military confrontation, or that it is essentially not different from other kinds of war activity.

Besides, this boycott is painting the Philippines as a hypocritical nation. Economic and trade partnerships between Beijing and Manila have developed rapidly in recent years making China as the Philippines third largest trading partner. After visiting China in 2011, President Benigno Aquino III announced nearly US$13 billion worth of Chinese investments in the Philippines, a result of his various meetings with Chinese businessmen over the course of his visit.

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III. Click link below to view "President
Aquino's arrival speech after state visit to the People's Republic of China - 2011,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOU3ZQHN86E



This was President Aquino’s message after his visit to Beijing: “We succeeded in putting across the message we want to bring: the door of the Philippines is open to investments from China. With our economic managers, we showed them the business opportunities in the Philippines. In agriculture, infrastructure, energy, tourism, the two governments saw the good results of Chinese continuing to look for investment opportunities.”

President Aquino has even declared 2012 and 2013 as the "Philippines-China Years of Friendly Exchanges." How can a boycott of China-made products be seen as promoting friendly vibes between the two countries?

Instead of a boycott, it would be better for overseas Pinoys to exert more pressure on the United States, Canada and other foreign nations to bring the weight of their governments on the Chinese so that they would agree to a multilateral negotiation of the South China Sea dispute. Among member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Malaysian government last Monday, August 13, urged ASEAN countries to settle first their overlapping claims in the South China Sea before bringing them up with Beijing.

If the ASEAN can present a more united and stronger front against an increasingly assertive China, this would be a positive step in negotiating with China. On its part, China has always preferred a bilateral settlement of the dispute. A unified ASEAN stand of the member-countries which have competing claims in the South China Sea is a stronger bargaining suit, instead of individual countries negotiating separately with China.

This is what Filipinos abroad, those in the United States and in Canada, should try to advocate instead of boycotting China-made products. Anti-Chinese prejudice has permeated our culture and it has survived throughout our history. Filipinos have always been discriminated because of their geographical distance from the Asian mainland. A China boycott will only fuel this resentment of the Chinese, and it may pose as a potential barrier to a quick negotiated settlement of the South China Sea conflict.

During his trip to China, President Aquino also visited Hongjian village in Fujian, where his ancestors came from, and where his late mother, former President Cory Aquino had planted a tree 23 years ago. In Fujian, Aquino said: “We have a saying that those who don't know where they came from, won't arrive at where they are going, so I made it a point to visit and give thanks to my relatives in Fujian.”

The USP4GG leaders and followers overseas should pause for a second, and for one deep moment, consider the words of the leader they look up to.

National hubris

 

The standoff in the South China Sea is exposing the true colours of Filipinos, at least those who still shamelessly cling to America for help in times of threat to our country’s sovereignty. I’ve read an opinion posted in my alumni e-group which says that as much as we want to break the American influence upon us, there is no one who can really help us but America.

Here I am referring to the Philippines’ territorial claim over the Spratly Islands which is also contested by five other nations that straddle the South China Sea. In fact, the Philippines has stopped calling it the South China Sea and would rather have it called the West Philippine Sea. I’m not very sure we can rename a sea without the agreement of other countries which have referred to that sea by its name on the map for a number of centuries.

Ownership of the Spratly Islands is highly debateable and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) according to many legal scholars has no meaningful provision that could settle the sovereignty claim between the disputing countries. The effective alternative to establish territorial sovereignty is occupation and permanent settlement, which is exactly being done in small efforts by China, the Philippines and Vietnam, and of course, by oil explorations to the extent possible without military harassment. Presently, these countries have military reinforcements in the South China Sea to protect their territorial claims while all the rival countries are attempting to solve the impasse by diplomatic means.

U.S. decommissioned BRP Gregorio del Pilar ship enroute to the Philippines from
 Alameda, California to help the Philippine Navy patrol the South China Sea. Photo
 courtesy of  Bytemarks. Click link to view "The South China Sea: Troubled Waters,"
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEbIv2ZxKuI&feature=related

The Philippine government has been the most vociferous in seeking American military support. To date, it has received a decommissioned naval vessel from the United States to help in reconnaissance and maritime patrol. In a meeting with the South Korean president recently, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III has also asked his counterpart for aircraft, boats and other military hardware to help the Philippine military in its territorial dispute with China over the Spratly Islands. Obviously, the other countries which also have territorial claims to the Spratly Islands are relying on their respective military resources.

Compared with the other countries, the Philippines does not really have an effectively functioning navy or the significant equivalent of an ample military force that could protect its territorial claim. Hence, why it has been unabashedly making overtures to the United States government for help.

China has fleets of submarines, frigates, and destroyers and, much recently, an aircraft carrier. Vietnam also has a number of submarines, like Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. In addition, Thailand has a small aircraft carrier.

The Philippines has one of the longest, and perhaps, the deepest harbours in the world where a strong navy can thrive. Subic Bay used to be the refuelling and repair station of the U.S. Seventh Fleet. But the American government was only interested in establishing military bases on Philippine soil for use of its military rather than in helping the Philippine government develop a self-sufficient military infrastructure for defence purposes. Even the moribund mutual defence treaty between the United States and the Philippines provided no concrete assurance that the U.S. would come to the defence of the Philippines when threatened by foreign invasion.

When the military bases were closed after the termination of the agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines, the U.S. government found an alternative to keep its presence in the Philippines as part of its military campaign against terrorism. Now the U.S. government has deployed its special forces to help the Philippine military combat the local communist insurgency and Moslem separatists in Southern Mindanao, both considered terrorists by the United States. Through a Visiting Forces Agreement, both the U.S. and Philippine military have conducted joint exercises in waters close to the South China Sea, in a way reinforcing the territorial claims of the Philippine government to the Spratly Islands.

Philippine Navy Special Forces on training exercises with U.S. Special Forces in
South China Sea. Photo courtesy of LightAj.

The barefaced idea, however, that only the U.S. government can help the Philippines in its territorial claim to the Spratly Islands is only promoting dependency on a foreign power and entrenching the historical subservience of the Philippines to its former colonial master. This Philippine mendicancy shows we’re willing to fight foreign aggression tooth and nail to preserve our sovereignty but we’ll allow American intrusion anytime. It’s not that there’s no other country which can help us, it is that it is only the United States which can help us.

Even before the Americans took the Philippines as its first colony on the eve of the twentieth century, the country’s national hero Jose Rizal had already predicted the coming of the Americans based on his reading of the observations by a German traveller named Feodor Jagor. Jagor was already prophesying the commercial growth and industrial development in America and it was just a matter of time for the nascent U.S. power to claim its share of colonies in the world.

Since the Americans established its foothold in the Philippines, it has always been based on its permanent economic and military interests in the region, never for altruistic reasons. The unequal treaties, between the two governments, whether economic or military, were always lopsided in favour of the U.S. government. Contingents of Filipino soldiers were sent by the Philippine government in Korea and Vietnam to fight along with American soldiers the creeping communist powers north of these two countries. The Philippines also sent troops to fight with Americans in Iraq. In return, the U.S. government has been providing foreign assistance, mostly money and decommissioned equipment to the Philippine military. Where the financial assistance actually went will not surprise anyone given the pervasive corruption in the country.

The Visiting Forces Agreement between the Philippines and the United States gives an excuse for American troops to be involved in the fight against the communist insurgents and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. There are even talks between the two governments for the re-establishment of U.S. bases in the Philippines, and with the South China Sea being part of America’s pivot foreign policy, military bases in the Philippines would again be on the front and centre of American presence in Asia and the Pacific.

There is today a growing consensus among European nations to end their dependency on American military protection. This is highly inconvenient to U.S. President Barack Obama who needs all the help he can get, even from small allies, if only for political reasons. With the fall of the Soviet Union and America’s decision to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has found itself without a clear goal and a common enemy. Postwar Europe has always tended to fall in line with Washington’s security policies, and this is what kept NATO going since 1949.

A military alliance like NATO without a clear common enemy is almost impossible to maintain. Europeans are now realizing that the only solution to their military problems is to reduce their dependence on the United States and take greater responsibility for their own defence. With the Americans being less and less able to be the world’s policemen, European governments are struggling to define their common interests which are unlikely to be best represented by a seemingly endless war with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.

At the same time, the Americans have also realized the need to refocus their foreign policy and military strategy to confront the rising threat of Chinese hegemony in Asia and the Pacific, which explains why the U.S. considers the South China Sea as vital sea lanes to its navy and for commercial and trade routes. The military exercises between the U.S. and the Philippine military have also concentrated in protecting oil rigs in the South China Sea, obviously in anticipation of Chinese aggression.

While European nations and other countries for that matter are beginning to see the folly of dependence on American military protection, the Philippines is a rare exception. Military dependence on the United States is a very clear policy of preserving the historical subservience of the Philippines to its former colonial master. Already without a strong national culture because of too much American influence on the values and habits of Filipinos, losing one’s national pride in exchange for military consideration is not a hard bargain to make. It’s probably much easier for the American government to mobilise Filipinos to join the army to fight the Chinese in the event of a confrontation in the South China Sea than asking Americans to risk the blood of their soldiers without the solid backing of their citizens.

The subservient attitude of Filipinos to American interests is almost like a national hubris, a basic precondition of Filipino-American relationship. Where the American flag goes, so there goes the Philippine flag, too.

American sailors on Rest & Recreation with Filipino girls in Manila. Photo
courtesy of  Chris Koerner

Some militant members of the Philippine Congress, and they are just a miniscule few, have cautioned against bringing the mighty U.S. army to the South China Sea conflict. Theirs is the most honourable position every Filipino should take: to assert sovereignty and territorial integrity over Philippine territorial waters but not allow any foreign country, be it China or the United States, to exploit our waters and its resources for their economic, military or hegemonic interest.

Our record of mendicancy only proves that as a nation we are not capable of self-government. When foreign aggression confronts us, we always tend to cry on the shoulders of the U.S. government and ask for help. In foreign relations, we have never learned that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. The U.S. has waded its feet on the South China Sea conflict because it gives them the reason to re-establish their hegemony in the region, and we are aiding and abetting the Americans to achieve their goal against our patrimony and national interest.

Cha-Cha, one more time

True to the saying that change is the only thing constant in this world, the Philippine Congress is back to its perpetual obsession for amending the Constitution. This time as a bicameral assembly, both houses of Congress have agreed on a formula that will propose revisions in the Constitution without the so-called involvement of the sitting President.

The first time the Philippines had its own Constitution was when the country was on the brink of gaining independence from Spain. It was largely symbolic for it embodied the First Republic until the Americans took over the islands and put the country under its colonial tutelage. Three Constitutions had since been adopted after the Commonwealth era but the Philippines never really became free from American stranglehold, as this latest initiative by the Philippine Congress to amend the Constitution could have been triggered by the constant lobbying of the American ambassador to the country.

Every time a new Constitution was adopted, hopes that the revisions would bring about positive change to the country quickly dissipated, only stirring up yet more calls for another round of revisions.

Just like the popular cha-cha-cha dance, every step forward is followed by a step backward, and that is exactly the enduring pattern of constitutional reform in the Philippines. Aptly termed Cha-Cha for charter change, it is like an affliction that won’t go away.

Cha-cha-cha. Photo courtesy of dabuda. Click image to view "Juana Change -CHACHA,"
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Hy-V0MUmo&feature=related

The last time the Philippines had a major overhaul of its Constitution was in 1987 after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship. Ferdinand Marcos himself installed his own Constitution in 1973 which was later superseded by the 1986 Freedom Constitution when Cory Aquino was catapulted to the presidency.

During the administration of Cory Aquino, a period of respite from Cha-Cha fever held sway as she said time and again that she was not interested in changing the Constitution, apparently the same tack now being taken by her son, President Noynoy Aquino.

Failed Cha-Cha attempts

Amending the Constitution was initiated during the terms of Presidents Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, but the reformers could not agree on the mode of charter change.

Congress wanted revisions through a constituent assembly, with both houses of Congress sitting as one body. But the elected representatives in both houses were not sure how to approve the amendments once drafted and debated by both houses, and they were all consumed by nagging suspicions that the president at the time only wanted to stay in power for a longer term.

Others wanted a constitutional convention, where a separate election would be held to choose the delegates who would draft the amendments to the Constitution. But none of the sitting presidents was as strong as Ferdinand Marcos, the only president able to call a constitutional convention during his regime to draft a constitution to legitimize the New Society. Still others attempted to change the Constitution through a people’s initiative, which was shut down by the Supreme Court twice; first, for lack of an enabling law for the proposed revisions in the 1987 Constitution, and second, for failing to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative.

With the latest Cha-Cha initiative, both houses of Congress will consider amendments to the Constitution separately, vote on their respective proposals in accordance with the required number of votes under the Constitution, and submit the approved changes to a national referendum. But the revisions will only touch on economic provisions, not on structure of the government or term limits of the presidency.

Pressure from the United States

Undoubtedly, the impetus could have come from Washington, D.C. For a long time, the United States has been pressuring the Philippine government to adopt charter change to allow foreign companies to build majority stakes in companies that are currently barred under the present 1987 Constitution.

U.S. ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas Jr. made no qualms about the American policy to see that the Philippines change its laws and amend its Constitution in order to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which has been endorsed by the U.S. government. The TPP aims to eliminate tariffs among countries who signed up to the regional undertaking by 2015. Among those who have already agreed to participate are Australia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

During President Noynoy Aquino’s visit to the United States last year, he asked American support for joining the TPP. Aquino told the Council for Foreign Relations in New York: “Envisioned as a platform for economic integration across the region, the TPP countries would be in a best place to become the region’s leading hub for trade, investment and growth.”

So all this talk that President Aquino is not on board the current Cha-Cha initiative could just be a smokescreen. Aquino appears to have given tacit approval to the U.S. ambassador when the latter has been making speeches that the inability of foreign companies to gain a majority stake in the Philippines has been a constraint to economic growth.

In his speech before a forum on Philippine-US relations organized by the Washington-based Asia Society last August 2011, Ambassador Thomas said “our priorities in the Philippines are basically the same as the priorities of the Philippine government.” He added that the United States is currently “pleased to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and also the Speaker of the House now open to changing parts of the Constitution on the economic side.”

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that Filipinos should own majority shares (60 per cent) in companies doing business in the country, especially those involved in strategic industries. This provision, however, has easily been circumvented by Congress and other joint oil exploration ventures between the Philippines and foreign companies. The Mining Act of 1995, for instance, masks the mining operations of wholly-owned foreign mining companies as a partnership between the government and the foreign corporation. The Nampalaya project in offshore Palawan is also another example of a partnership between the Philippines and foreign companies that violates the Constitution, whereby Shell and Texaco were allowed to get a 90 per cent stake in the entire project while the Philippine National Oil Corporation is left with only 10 per cent.

Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, is a multilateral free trade agreement that aims to further liberalise the economies of the Asia-Pacific region. The original agreement between the participating countries took effect on May 28, 2006. U.S. President Barack Obama had proposed a target for settlement of negotiations between member-countries by the next APEC summit in November 2011.

The objective of the agreement was to reduce all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015. It is a comprehensive agreement covering all the main pillars of a free trade agreement, including trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy.

TPP to make cheaper drugs less accessible

The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been criticized largely for some provisions that threaten to extend restrictive intellectual property rights, which would have geographical ramifications and a broad impact on citizen’s rights, particularly due process, privacy and freedom of expression rights. The agreement would also have lasting restrictive impact on the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure and innovation across the world. In other words, the TPP will rewrite the global rules on intellectual property enforcement.

One example of the obvious deleterious effect of the agreement would be to alter current policy regarding provision of affordable drugs for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. Expansion of intellectual property barriers would enable pharmaceutical companies to hold or renew patents for longer periods, thus limiting the availability of cheaper generic medicines and treatment. Prices of medications to treat HIV and AIDS globally have fallen dramatically in the past 20 years, largely due to intellectual property legislation which allows for more wide-spread access to patents that used to be heavily guarded by large pharmaceutical companies.

As a result, the TPP will benefit predominantly big transnational companies and powerful countries like the United States. Matthew Kavanaugh, director of the U.S. Advocacy for the Health Global Access Project (GAP), said that the TPP in fact is a “beachfront strategy for gaining a hold in Asia for a certain set of countries, for a certain set of interests."

Cha-Cha and the TPP

If the Philippine Constitution will be amended to open up its patrimony provisions in order to secure membership in the exclusive TPP club, it will be a total sell out of our economy. Once the nationalist economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution are removed, the result will be the unhampered plunder of the country’s resources and the unregulated extraction and repatriation of profits.

For change, Revolution, not Cha-Cha. Photo courtesy of pelikula76.

As in the past, the President and Congress have easily bypassed the Constitution by circumventing its economic provisions that limit foreign ownership and participation in local industries, particularly in the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.

During the previous months, President Aquino signed an agreement allowing China to lease 1.2 million hectares of land for agricultural production. Not to be outdone, Japanese corporations were also able to obtain a lease from the government for one million hectares for bio-fuel production. So obviously, the United States government wants a sweeter deal than the ones the Philippine government has given to China and Japan.

The best minds in the Philippine Congress have not yet started to sit down in earnest and tinker with the economic provisions of the Constitution, yet the country’s wealth and resources are already up for grabs by foreign corporations. This current initiative to amend the Constitution is a mere formality, a charade to cover up what is already a blatant breach of the fundamental law of the land by the very same people who are now championing charter change.

Spratlys war of words must stop

Overlapping territorial claims to the Spratly Islands by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei have escalated the conflict in this region to a new high. China, Vietnam, and the Philippines, the three most assertive in their claims, have engaged in naval clashes before and there is prospect of more in the future.

United States cruisers operate in the South China Sea. Photo by Former Navy Gallery.

While China and Vietnam continue to flex their muscle by staging military exercises in the South China Sea, the Philippines, the weakest military-wise, is not to be outdone. With U.S. troops and naval ships under the Visiting Forces Agreement between the Philippines and the United States, both countries have been conducting their military games a few kilometres away from the disputed islands, prompting Beijing to complain that the exercises were an indirect offence to China’s sovereignty.

More than a territorial dispute

Clearly, this is more than a mere squabble over territory.

Ever since reports were published that the Spratlys may be sitting on enormous reserves of oil and natural gas, the jockeying between these three countries has never been more intense. China appears to be the most eager to lay its hands on Spratlys oil. Its booming economy needs the vast energy resources that Spratlys can provide. Vietnam and the Philippines can surely make use of Spratlys wealth to provide for their country’s needs.

The disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Photo by Google earth. Please click
the following  link to view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CDMSOGaRY,
"The South Cina Sea: Troubled Waters."

A 1969 United Nations report indicated probable rich hydrocarbon deposits in the Spratly Islands. The international oil industry has compared the Spratly petroleum deposit to an elephant with the potential to produce over a billion barrels of oil.

Each of the claimant countries shapes their claim on a variety of arguments, ranging from historical evidence of discovery and occupation to arguments based on international law principles and the UNCLOS provisions. Every state is sticking to their territorial claim of sovereignty, which for the most part is weak but no one is willing to budge.

The evidence presented by China, Taiwan and Vietnam to support their historical claims is unconvincing, if not dubious at most. Their evidence merely illustrates their countries’ intermittent contact and brief occupation of the islands. The same is true with the claims of the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei which all suffer from factual weaknesses and legal misinterpretations.

Sovereignty claims are driving the Spratly Islands conflict to the edge of brinkmanship. It is now a war of words between China, the Philippines and Vietnam. This sabre-rattling must stop if they want a reasonable and equitable settlement of their dispute. Otherwise, they face the possibility of a military confrontation. In the end, whoever has control of the Spratly Islands will have hegemony in the entire region.

International case law

Two cases in international law are worth reviewing in regard to the conflicting territorial sovereignty claims over Spratly Islands.

The Island of Palmas case, decided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1928, set forth the factors necessary in establishing territorial sovereignty over an island. In Palmas, the case is about the conflicting sovereignty claims of the United States and the Netherlands over an isolated, but inhabited island located between the Philippines and the former Dutch East Indies. The U.S. claimed that Spain originally discovered Palmas Island and subsequently ceded title to the United States under the Treaty of Paris.

The United States also based its claim on the island's contiguity to the Philippines. The Netherlands, on the other hand, claimed sovereignty based on their peaceful and continuous display of state authority over the island.

The court awarded Palmas Island to the Netherlands and held that the mere act of discovering an island results only in inchoate title and does not suffice to establish sovereignty unless the discovery is followed by a continuous and peaceful display of authority or some degree of effective occupation.

In contrast, the Permanent Court of Arbitration held in the Clipperton Island case that France's discovery and declaration of sovereignty in a Honolulu journal were sufficient to establish sovereignty over an uninhabited atoll. The court concluded that in some instances, where the territory claimed is completely uninhabited, the requirement of effective occupation may be unnecessary.

The Clipperton case involved the sovereignty claims of France and Mexico over an uninhabited atoll located off the coast of Mexico. France argued that a French Lieutenant claimed the island on behalf of the French government in 1858, while Mexico claimed ownership by way of cession from Spain.

The Clipperton Island case is relevant to the Spratly Islands dispute because the islands are similarly isolated and uninhabited. However, higher standards for effective control may be applied in the Spratly Islands dispute because of the number of claimant countries involved and the complexity of their claims. The International Court of Justice also held that when an ambiguity exists, actual displays of authority, evidence of possession, and acquiescence by other states to the exercise of sovereignty are of decisive importance in determining sovereignty issues.

Each of the countries in the Spratlys dispute has made attempts to occupy the islands. Taiwan, for example, has continuously occupied Itu Aba since 1956, and Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, China and Brunei have each controlled several features of the archipelago. These occupations most likely satisfy the Palmas standard of a continuous display of authority. Other claimant countries, however, have protested and not acquiesced to these sovereign displays.

UNCLOS has little impact

In 1982, the United Nations United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted. While UNCLOS embodies customary international law and governs practically every aspect of ocean management, it is of little impact in the Spratly Islands dispute since it fails to provide specific guidelines for delimiting maritime boundaries, especially where there are overlapping claims. The only guidance UNCLOS provides is that boundary disputes involving the continental shelf or exclusive economic zone (EEZ) shall be resolved by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, to achieve an equitable solution.

Both China and Vietnam have rejected Philippine challenges to elevate the Spratly Island dispute to a special tribunal created under UNCLOS for maritime disputes or to the International Court of Justice. It is rather obvious that China and Vietnam would have difficulty substantiating the legal basis for their claims. However, China is agreeable to a joint undertaking to explore Spratlys’ natural wealth but only on a bilateral basis.

Possible joint development zone

Settlement of the Spratlys dispute by an international court or tribunal appears to be beyond the immediate horizon. The only alternative, which may work in the best interests of all the countries, would be to establish a joint development zone. Previous studies in the past have stressed the need to implement more confidence building measures among the claimant states. There was also a proposal made to establish a three-tiered joint development agreement, consisting of twelve separate joint development zones.

More than fifty years have passed, yet the settlement of Spratlys dispute appears headed nowhere. The Spratly claimants, perhaps, can learn some lessons from the negotiations over the Timor Gap, originally between Australia and Indonesia, and later between Australia and East Timor, when the latter seceded from Indonesia to become an independent state.

Originally known as the Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on the zone of cooperation in an area between the Indonesian province of East Timor and Northern Australia, the treaty provided for the joint exploration of petroleum resources in a part of the Timor Sea seabed which was claimed by both countries. East Timor at the time was invaded by Indonesia and was annexed as its province. The negotiations between Australia and Indonesia and the ultimate signing of the treaty were criticized as Australia’s de jure recognition of the Indonesian invasion and annexation of East Timor.

Lessons from Timor

When East Timor seceded from Indonesia in 1998, a new treaty was negotiated resulting in the Timor Sea Treaty. Although the negotiations over Timor Gap had a long and complex history, Australia and independent East Timor have generally accepted that the issue of East Timor’s maritime boundary is much less important than the wealth that could be generated for the new country by the exploitation of the Timor Sea resources.

Cumulative oil slick footprint in the Timor Sea, August 30, 2009. Photo by Sky Truth.
Please click the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XyatkST4m8 to
view "The Timor Gap - East Timor."

The new Timor Gap Treaty which was signed on July 5, 2001, guaranteed that the East Timorese and Australian economies would both benefit from the sea’s oil resources, instead of keeping a protracted conflict over which country owns the seabed and has jurisdiction to its resources. Time will tell when the issue of sovereignty shall again arise between the two countries since no one is willing to give ground on its respective position, although anything is possible once the oil is gone.

Spratlys’ competing states could similarly opt to follow the Timor Sea Treaty framework. Exploit the archipelago’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas, share the fruits among them based on their permanent economic interests to their territorial claims, and decide on the sovereignty conflict later, perhaps after all the oil is gone.

Both international law and the UNCLOS fail to provide a definitive answer to the Spratly Islands dispute. Any solution, however, will take time. By agreeing to a provisional joint development plan that will benefit every claimant state, the countries will at least be able to jointly and equitably exploit the natural resources of Spratlys, or until they can agree on a more permanent solution.