Renato M. Reyes, Jr.
President, BAYAN
June 7, 2023
The Marcos regime has welcomed increased US intervention in Philippine foreign and domestic policy, using China’s aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea as justification. The new Bilateral Security Guidelines between the US and the Philippines released in May this year, entrenches US meddling in our foreign and domestic affairs, creates the conditions for heightened tension in the region, and has dire implications on sovereignty, independence and human rights.
Proponents of US intervention cling to the pledge of US support against China in our conflict in the West Philippine Sea, including the promise of modernizing the Armed Forces of the Philippines to achieve a credible defense posture. The reasoning here is that the Philippines cannot stand up to China alone thus it needs US support. This is then portrayed as the only option available to the Philippines.
We disagree.
Claims of benevolent US intervention are reminiscent of the American policy of benevolent assimilation used to justify the violent occupation and colonization of the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century. We must also never forget that under the banner of spreading democracy, the US bombed Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and caused death and suffering on millions of people. The US is here not because of any altruistic motive but because of its imperialist agenda in the region.
As it has been in the past, imperialism means war and in this case, the current military machinations of the US in the Philippines is part of a broader inter-imperialist conflict between the US and China. The Balikatan exercises and the EDCA sites are a preparation for war. The prepositioning of US military equipment and the focus on interoperability between the US and the Philippine military is a preparation for war. What must be asked at this point is what kind of war they are preparing for. Certainly not one that is in the interest of the Philippines. This conflict is for regional and global supremacy that is not aligned with our interests. When two giants collide, it will be the underdeveloped countries like the Philippines which will be at the losing end.
Let’s get to one of the most often-asked questions on this issue: Will the US modernize the AFP? Are these military arrangements truly beneficial? First we must understand why the AFP has not modernized after the granting of nominal independence in 1945. It is necessary to go back to the long history of neocolonial relations between the US and the Philippines. These unequal agreements including the Military Assistance Pact and the Military Bases Agreement, made the Philippines dependent on second-hand military equipment from the US. Instead of developing the Philippines’ capacity to produce defense materiel in line with a national industrialization program, our country’s AFP modernization was done through US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and the US Excess Defense Articles program. These are US foreign policy tools to keep countries like the Philippines supportive of imperialist intervention and vulnerable to external dictates.
Even at the height of the US bases in Clark and Subic, the Philippine military did not modernize. There was also no real modernization after more than 2 decades of the Visiting Forces Agreement (1999 to present) and nearly a decade of EDCA (2014 to present). During a recent Senate hearing on EDCA, then Defense OIC Carlito Galvez noted that equipment such as night vision goggles were transferred to the Philippines by US forces operating in Mindanao. But is that all there is? Is that the value of Philippine sovereignty?
To further illustrate the myth of modernization, in 2011, we received from the US the Hamilton-class cutter later renamed BRP Gregorio del Pilar. Ironically, the ship was named after the Filipino general who died fighting the US colonizers. The ship was part of the EDA program. How old was the ship? It was first commissioned in 1967, and saw action during the Vietnam War. ABS-CBN News said the ship was acquired from the U.S. for more than $10 million.
This year we received two Cyclone-class patrol ships first used by the US in 1995 and decommissioned in March 2023. This was done again through the Excess Defense Articles Program. For mendicant Philippine officials, having second-hand ships is better than nothing. For the US government, this means they can continue earning from the sales and servicing of these old ships even after these have been decommissioned.
The old ships are usually stripped of their high-tech equipment before being turned over to the Philippines. Being quite old, the Philippines will also need to rely on the US for the maintenance and spare parts of these ships. If this is still the mode to achieve a credible defense posture, then we haven’t really learned anything from the past 70 years.
Perpetual dependence
The new Bilateral Security Guidelines calls for a Security Sector Assistance Roadmap where the US will be involved in the Philippines defense budget planning. There is something terribly wrong when country selling us second-hand equipment will be the one “helping” us identify the priority defense platforms we need to buy from them.
The BSG retains the previous mode of acquiring defense materiel: Foreign Military Financing, Foreign Military Sales, and Excess Defense Articles, which form part of the reasons why the AFP has not truly modernized.
In the entire BSG there is no mention of the US helping the Philippines achieve selfreliance in terms of armed forces modernization and the development of a credible defense posture. The US wants to keep us perpetually dependent and unable to stand on our own. Being dependent on FMF, FMS and EDA makes the Philippines more vulnerable to US dictates and impositions. These programs provide just the right amount of military “assistance” to give a semblance of cooperation and support, but never to the point of allowing the Philippines to be self-reliant and independent from the US.
Impact on human rights
The BSG expands on the scope of issues and “threats” that the US intervenes in. It refers to the document entitled Joint Vision for a 21st Century United StatesPhilippines Partnership in 2021 which defines emerging threats such as diseases, cyber threats, transnational crime and terrorist networks. The paper points to the need to “address the drivers of violent extremism and counter violent extremist ideology.” This signals continued US involvement in so-called “counter-terror” and counterinsurgency operations in the Philippines.
The Philippine military has long supported the US “war on terror” and has adopted the US counter-insurgency doctrine in its operations against Philippine rebels. The US is expected to ramp up military aid for these operations, despite the terrible human rights record of Philippine security forces.
US intervention in domestic issues such as insurgency, which the Philippine government has labeled as “terrorism” following the desgination by the US State Department, means US support for fascist measures and human rights violations committed against the people.
The recent bombings and artillery fire in Baggao, Cagayan in February this year came after the announcement of new EDCA sites in the province. Baggao is less than 2 hours away from the planned US base in Lal-lo Airport. Local groups believe that the military operations are meant to clear the the area of possible resistance to the US facilities.
What’s next?
Sometime in April 2022, then UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, in a speech on UK
Foreign Policy, called for a “global NATO” or the expanded intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to include the Indo-Pacific Region. “We need to pre-empt threats in the Indo-Pacific, working with allies like Japan and Australia to ensure that the Pacific is protected,” Truss said.
True enough, NATO has said that “strengthening relations with partners in the IndoPacific forms an important aspect of the NATO 2030 agenda.” NATO partners in the region include Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. Australia, Japan and the Republic of Korea are treaty allies of the US. How long before countries like the Philippines are also dragged into another US-led defense network and used again as a staging ground for foreign forces?
As we have often argued, it should never be a choice between two bullies or two imperialist powers. Neither the US nor China will defend our sovereignty and promote our interests. That task falls on the shoulders of the Filipinos. Rather than take the cynical stand that we are helpless without the US, it is time to take note of the historical fact that we have remained weak because of the US. Only by charting our own course, and working to develop a self-reliant economy, can we acquire the means to effectively defend our waters and islands.
On June 12 we will be holding protests in front of the Chinese consulate and US embassy in Manila to demand the demilitarization of the South China Sea and to call for an end to US bases and US troop deployment in the Philippines. We stand for Philippine sovereignty and regional peace, and we refuse to be dragged into the USChina inter-imperialist conflict. ###
0 Comments