U.S. President Barack Obama’s candid answers to the two questions from Filipinos reporters whether the United States will come to the defense of the Philippines in case of an armed conflict with China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea disappointed a lot of Filipinos who expected him to say that the American soldiers who will be coming under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement will be side-by-side Filipinos in blocking China’s expansion in South China Sea.
Obama didn’t say that in his joint presscon with President Aquino in Malacañang Monday. Instead he reminded the public that the United States and China have a “constructive relationship.”
“ There is enormous trade; enormous business that is done between the United States and China; a whole range of issues on the international stage in which cooperation between the US and China are balanced,” he said.
He said: “ So our goal is not to counter China.Our goal is not to contain China” but “ to make sure that international rules and norms are respected, and that includes in the area of maritime disputes.”
Obama made it clear that the United Sates is not a claimant of any part of the South China Sea, where the Philippines,China, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan have staked territorial claims. What’s important to them is “, freedom of navigation that allows for continued progress and prosperity.”
R.G. Cruz of ABS-CBN asked the first question:”Will the US defend the Philippines in case the territorial disputes with China in the West Philippine Sea or the South China Sea become an armed conflict?”
It was followed up by Christian Esguerra of the Philippine Daily Inquirer who re-angled the same question: “Will the Mutual Defense Treaty apply in the event that the territorial conflict with China escalates into an armed conflict?”
As expected Obama made the same reply:“Well, let me repeat what I said earlier….”
The questions were embarrassing because they reflected our mendicant mentality and our fantasy about America. But they had to be asked because many Filipinos wanted to hear from the leader of the world’s superpower that he will take care of us if we clobbered by a neighborhood enemy, that is the world’s number two superpower.
You would not expect that kind of question from a Malaysian, Singaporean, Thai or Vietnamese reporter. We have yet to hear the same question from a Japanese reporter whose country has a much more serious territorial conflict with China.
When Obama spoke before war veterans and servicemen at Fort Bonifacio yesterday about “iron clad” commitment to defend the Philippines under the 1951 PH-US Mutual Defense Treaty, media spinned it as a change of tune.
Media conveniently sidestepped the fact that the MDT does not cover the disputed territories in Spratlys. In fact at the Monday presscon, Obama said: “And we don’t even take a specific position on the disputes between nations.”
In answer to a question from reporters accompanying him about the situation in Ukraine and the perceived weakness of his foreign policy,Obama gave a reply that is applicable to the armed conflict scenario in the Spratlys:” My job as Commander-in-Chief is to look at what is it that is going to advance our security interests over the long-term. To keep our military in reserve to where we absolutely need them.”
Obama understandly was being careful with his words even when he wanted to disabuse the delusions of many Filipinos of the importance of the Philippines to America.
Not Robert D. Kaplan, chief geopolitical analyst for Stratfor, a private global intelligence firm, and author of “Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific” in his guesting in Fareed Zakaria’s GPS at CNN. He said the China –Japan conflict is more serious. “..the East China Sea is a more acute problem for the United States because frankly speaking the United States probably will not go to the war to defend the Philippines. It’s a poor country, it’s a treaty ally, but not a serious one like Japan is.”
Kaplan also said:“The United States cannot allow Vietnamese or Filipino nationalism to drag the United States into a military conflict with China given how important the bilateral relationship between China and the U.S. for the piece of the world in the 21st century.”
Instead of being disappointed with Obama’s lack of assurance in a conflict with China, we should thank him for being honest with us. We should demand the same from our own officials.
Related documents:
Click here to read the ENHANCED DEFENSE COOPERATION AGREEMENT
Frequently asked Questions on EDCA.EDCA FAQs (as of 25April2014)
I don’t know how Phil. journalists’ minds work. They are asking specific questions they already know the answer to (or think they don’t). It’s stupid to expect Obama to answer in black and white questions of strategic relevance. Shrewd tacticians do not reveal their cards, expert sluggers do not telegraph their punches. Superpowers do not pre-announce invasions.
When he says the whole trip is not about China, who believes him? Even China doesn’t. It IS about China.
When he says the new sanctions against Russia are not about Putin, (though most if not all the characters on the list are Putin’s friends) it IS about Putin. Did any of the foreign journalists need to get Obama’s word for it?
Yes, China is a top trade partner, blah blah blah, so you need a ten-year defense deal with RP, which China finds “particularly disturbing”, to boost US-China trade?
Yes it was embarrassing not because they were mendicant-minded. It was embarrassing that they had to ask the stupid question. Twice.
What’s China’s reaction to the trip?
**excerpts from Voice of America website blogpost aptly titled “As Obama Leaves Asia, One Last Swipe at China”
Why can’t the journalists read between the lines of the O’s Asian visit?
Ano pa gagawin ni Obama sa Asia e napilitan nga lang yan magbiyahe sa region dahil sa China issue. Of course it was all about China, as tongue said.
And to the kapinuyan who believed nakasandala sila sa pader ng US, wake up!
Obama just said that the United States’ defense commitment to PH is “IRONCLAD.” Is that shattering to any of my delusions as a Filipino? No, not a bit. It’s shattering to the expansionist goals of the mainland Chinese.
JCJ,read the MDT, especially Article IV
“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.”
What does “Constitutional processes” mean?
If the U.S. President decides to send troops in case the Philippines is attacked,he will need the approval of Congress. Congress will debate till kingdom come whether the Philippines is worth risking American soldiers’ lives. But the time they decide, the Philippines would have been taken over.
My point here is, huwag na masyadong umasa sa Amerika. Let’s try to be self-reliant.
# 5
I was about to point out the same thing. In all recent (100 years) military engagements, the US President was authorized by a joint resolution of Congress.
Wikipedia says there have only been three military operations in the 1900 that were not authorized by Congress.
The first, ironically, was when the US went to war against the Philippines, in the Philippine-American war of 1898 – 1903.
The second was in Nicaragua in 1927, and the third was Bill Clinton’s bombing of Yugoslavia. But that was authorized by a UN Security Council resolution. Perhaps NATO has the same provision as Article IV of the MDT.
So yes, the promise is ironclad – clad with the iron shackles of the Constitutional process in the US. You think the war-weary American public will go to war after Ir
after Afghanistan? Note the response to the crisis.
There is too much gung ho by Pinoys about going to war, knowing, or hoping that Uncle Sam will be behind. It is like the weakling boy turning into a nieghborhood bully, saying “Hey my big brother has bigger muscles than you. He has bigger guns as well.”
I’ve seen posts about how China has too few and ineffective aircraft carriers as against the many of the US. How China has xxx jet fighters against the yyy jet fighters of the US. Pinoy commentators talk as if those US resources were at our disposal.
China will not engage in a shooting war with our puny country. So lighten up, and walk the talk – about peaceful settlement of disputes, etc. True, China does bully. But that is done with water cannons, etc. But who shot at whom? We did. Score so far, one dead Taiwanese (province of China),zero for the Philippines.
Sorry I meant Note the US response to the Libyan crisis.
Wikipedia link is below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Other_undeclared_wars
“My point here is, huwag na masyadong umasa sa Amerika. Let’s try to be self-reliant.”
Better said than done.
Thanks, SnV. Always enlightening.
Here’s the ultimate Amboy, Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario issuing a statement after Obama that “Under the Mutual Defense Treaty, the United States will come to the assistance of the Philippines if our metropolitan territory is attacked or if our Armed Forces are attacked in the Pacific area.
“In 1999, in a diplomatic letter, the United States affirmed that the South China Sea is considered as part of the Pacific area.”
Pathetic. I will write more about this tomorrow.
Remember the planned missile attack against Syria after the unleashed chemical weapons? It so happend that U.S, congress was on recess when Obama decided to seek their approval.Nanigas na ang Syrians.
# 12
Hey. Don’t be judgmental. They guy is quoting the same Treaty you are quoting.
The guy is a diplomat; so he has to make his Penoy Boss and the US President look good.
You are right, though, the Article refers to island territories under its (US and/or PI) jurisdiction. It did not say South China Sea. But lighten up. The guy is a diplomat.
To my mind, this pact is just a formality. Since 2003, US structures were already built in the South like Zamboanga. The US military bases are disguised as housing units for the US soldiers. They claim to be providing humanitarian and medical missions in those areas. What’s disturbing is these US bases are off limits to the Philippine military. And what’s more disappointing is that despite the US presence in the south, our government has not succeeded in overcoming the ASG and other Muslim rebel groups. If we can’t even solve the Mindanao problem and get rid of this notorious ASG, how could we defend the country from external threat. How do we have a chance against China?
Please be reminded that the US has trillions of debts to China. Many large manufacturing companies are in China employing both Americans and local Chinese. US economy now depends on trades with China. All we need is look at Walmart. Go inside and everything is made in China.
Would China attack the Philippines? Nah. If China wanted, she would have done it long ago. China and the Philippines were both victims of Japanese abuses and atrocities. China can never forget “Rape of Nanking”. If war is to break out in Asia Pacific, it shall start between China and Japan. China hates Japan a lot more than the Philippines and other Asian neighbors.
US military remains to be number one in the world. But her resources are dwindling due to many years of involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and Africa. At present, US attention is more on Ukraine. The conflicts in Asia are of less priority.
What Filipinos are looking for is a categorical repy from the Americans to the question if they will defend the country should foolhardy China attack the Philippines in South China Sea. Was that question answered? I believe it has been. The carefully-worded responses from Obama himself and the overall purpose of the trip was exactly that: We will defend our treaty allies. It was said explicitly in Japan, it was ironclad in our case. How and what America will actually do is another thing. The US is known for its political-diplomatic double-talk.
The US ambassador says it clearer:
As America’s top diplomat, Obama balanced his answers to the same categorical question probably all throughout his Asian tour. They are sending a strong message to China to play “by the rules” while everytime reminding every one that China is a major trade partner. So, the president of the US goes on a four-nation tour not to contain China but leaves Beijing out of the itinerary and instead included countries the chinks considers troublemakers?
America has its interests foremost in their minds in the whole Rebalancing Act. First, to nail the economic goals starting with Japan for its Trans Pacific Partnership which includes most Asean and South American countries in the Pacific which however excludes Philippines and Malaysia. Unfortunately, Japan was concerned about protectionist America and thus no pact was signed during the visit.
In South Korea, the US’ reaffirmation of it’s support against its rogue neighbor in the north and its sponsors in Beijing was however clouded by the Koreans gloom and focus on the ferry disaster. The South Korean leader has resigned leaving the Obama visit’s initial impact to nil.
In Malaysia, the gesture that the US is ready to welcome Malaysia back into the fold was similarly overshadowed by its own Malaysian Airlines’ disaster. (Hmmm…two maritime disasters in one visit?)
The only (face-)saving grace was delivered in the Philippines, the EDCA was forged between the two countries and signed by our DND Sec and the US Ambassador. For that, Obama owes us one, even if he had preferred that he had signed it himself.
In full, the whole trip’s message was clear to China, and to all. America will not allow China to diminish America’s clout in the region. That the said countries are primed and are on standby mode if and when US decides that enough is enough, they move their trade out of China and into its newly-forged, some newly-reaffirmed, partnerships. That China has more to lose than gain if it decides to meet the US head on.
The ball is now in Beijing’s court.
Slip of the TonGuE: “…categorical reply from the Americans…”
During the press conference, Obama said differently; that is, America’s goal’s not to counter China. After this statement,local critics were all over the media. Perhaps Obama was advised by his advisers to bend a little what he said. So, during the meeting with the soldiers in his last day before he departed, he mentioned “ironclad”. This change of tune gave comfort to Filipinos; but sincerity still remains in question. To test Uncle Sam’s sincerity, a direct military conflict even in a small scale between China and the Phil would be good. The risk is there but until the US is tested, there’s no guarantee she would directly get involved. Look at Crimea and now in Eastern Ukraine.
Most articles I read about the EDCA say the deal is shady and hidden from the public. For those who still think it’s hidden, read it here: http://www.gov.ph/2014/04/29/document-enhanced-defense-cooperation-agreement/
Although it has a lengthy article on Environment, Health, and Safety, (Art. IX) it did not mention that it will do it right this time unlike when they left Subic and Clark with tons of pollutants and other environmental risks that we had to spend millions for when they left.
But what bothers me most is the article on Resolution of Disputes (Art. XI) which bars any party from referring such disputes to any court, tribunal, or third-party for resolution.
Corporal Smith and friends, you may rape our women without fear of being sent to your airconditioned jail in the US Embassy again.
Here’s a good read on EDCA:
http://natoreyes.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-edca-that-government-is-not-telling-you/
Your concern is valid, Tongue #19.
From Atty. Sarah Arriola: I think Article XI on Settlement of Disputes is worth looking at. It’s the bilateral impunity clause to shield American soldiers from the ICC. (International Criminal Court).
The Parties agree to resolve any disoute arising under this Agreement exclusively through consultations between the Parties.
Disputes and other matters subject to consultations under thsi Agreement shall not be referred to any national or international court, tribunal, or other similar body or to any third party for settlement unless otherwise agreed by Parties.
No need to shield US troops from the ICC. The US is not a member state of the Rome Statute that created the ICC.
The dispute clause only says the US does not want any arbitration in a dispute. Same reservation made by China when it signed the treaty establishing the law of the sea.
Looks like a double standard on our part. We are okay with the US refusing arbitration, and wanting bilateral negotiations. But we accuse China of being a bully for insisting on bilateral negotiations, because we are small, and it is big, and in the negotiating table, that is unfair.
But the US is bigger.
Of course, Pinoys love the US, we believe it will treat us fairly. We do not believe the same of our neighbor China. After all, Douglas Macarthur did not renege on his promise that “I shall return”.
Tell that to Lorenzo Tanada and the few senators who opposed the Bases Treaty. Was there fair treatment during the time that the bases were in the PI?
As usual, there is an Annex, which is not provided yet, just like the MILF agreement.
“Such agreed locations may be listed in an annex…” Definitions.
As they say, the devil is in the details. So the devil that may bedevil you has not been revealed yet.
How Pinoy General. Puwedeng kang pumasok, pero aamuyin ka muna ng aso ng Kano. Remember the bomb-sniffing dog that that Dick (Cheney) brought to Malacanang when he visited Cory? The mother had the balls to snub the Dick and send Raul enjoy-the-rape Manglapus.
The initial duration is for ten years. The activities look, sound, smell, and feel like activities in a base.
But it is not a basing agreement. Ang tigas naman ng ulo niyong mga kontra.
Una-unahan na lang ito sa Supreme Court. I’m sure Louie Biraogo has a petition ready already. He will be pleading before his batchmate, Marvic MILF Leonen. Sorry M.V.F. ang tamang middle initials.
Expect Wigberto Tanada to file as well. (Tunay ang buhok niyan, walang wig). Saguisag? Retired na. Maybe with his group MABINI.
Looks like a double standard on our part. We are okay with the US refusing arbitration, and wanting bilateral negotiations. But we accuse China of being a bully for insisting on bilateral negotiations, because we are small, and it is big, and in the negotiating table, that is unfair.
But the US is bigger.- SnV #23
Agree.Agree.
In fact, I was thinking, this might be taken against the Philippines in the case before the UN Arbitral Tribunal because UNCLOS provides that issues should be resolved by negotiations before it is brought to the Tribunal.
China wants bilateral talks while the Philippines has always insisted on multilateral talks. In the case of Scarborough Shoal, the claimants are only Philippines and China. Why would other Asean countries join in the talks?
Atty. Harry Roque whom I admire is an expert in international law. Why does the government not utilize his talent and skills?
While it’s true that it’s double standard on our part, the US continues to double talk.
Another stupid author. Implying to follow vietnam strategy to handle the dispute. Viets cannot even handle the riot, cannot even stop china building rigs in disputed areas, cannot even do diplomatic approach when dealing china ships using water canons. Yeahyeah even phlils cannot.stop china building structures in disputed areas. So what is the diff between viets and phils handling the situation. A lot of differences, but both countries still cannot stop china agressiveness and intimidations. Stupid Ellen Tordesillas, go back to college, improve your logic, tactic, analytic skills, by improving your mathematics calculus skills, this will help you to improve your analytical skills. I guess the reason why you end up being a writer is because you are stupid in analytical academic subjects. I guess The only way you can finish school is to show eloquent fluent logically sounds constructive article.