PH-US defense relations

Amid the increasing tension in our region aggravated by the recent military exercises in the South China Sea of the United States and of China (to be joined by Russia in new military drills in September), and the visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry a few days ago, it is apropos to review our defense relations with America.

Three treaties. This relationship was highlighted in the decision penned by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno in Saguisag vs Ochoa (Jan. 12, 2016) which upheld the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (Edca).

The United States colonized the Philippines after vanquishing the Spanish fleet in the Battle of Manila Bay in 1898. Under the Treaty of Paris concluded in the same year, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States.

Concurrently with our “independence” on July 4, 1946, the two countries entered into the 1946 Treaty of General Relations, in which the United States relinquished control and sovereignty over the Philippines, except in the existing US military bases.

This treaty became the “mother” of our defense relationship with the United States. Pursuant thereto, three defense pacts were concluded: the 1947 Military Bases Agreement (MBA), the 1947 Military Assistance Agreement (MAA), and the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).

The MBA provided for the operation of 23 US military bases for 99 years or until 2046 and mandated further negotiations to allow the Americans to expand their existing bases or to acquire new ones.

MBA amendments. Over the years, the MBA was amended significantly: 1) Its term was reduced from 99 to 44 years or until 1991; 2) certain bases were returned to the Philippines; 3) Philippine sovereignty over the Clark and Subic bases was recognized and the areas therein that could be used by the US military was reduced; 4) the treaty was to be reviewed mandatorily every five years; and 5) the military bases were to be used by the United States within the context of Philippine sovereignty, including prior consultation for such use.

The MAA was not a treaty, but merely an executive agreement that established the conditions under which US military assistance would be granted, particularly the provision of military arms, ammunitions, supplies, equipment, vessels, services and training for our defense forces.

On Aug. 30, 1951, the MDT was entered into on the premise that an armed attack on either country would be a threat to the security of the other. The treaty has two main features: 1) mutual assistance in maintaining and developing the two countries’ individual and collective capacities to resist an armed aggression; and 2) mutual self-defense in the event of an armed attack against the “territory” of either party.

Due to the expected expiration of the MBA in 1991, the two countries negotiated a renewal of their defense and security arrangements. In a proposed treaty, they sought to extend the term of the US bases. But on Sept. 16, 1991, the Senate rejected the proposed treaty; hence, the United States relocated its forces.

This rejection by the Senate’s “Magnificent Twelve” satisfied Filipino nationalists but minimized America’s ability to project its power in the Western Pacific. The power vacuum gave China the opportunity to replace America as the dominant power in our region.

Despite the closure of the bases, the Philippines remained a staunch US ally, and they carried out joint military exercises throughout the 1990s.  While large-scale joint military drills were suspended in 1995, the two countries later agreed to resume these albeit at a substantially reduced level.

VFA and Edca. A more intensified alliance was formally revived in the late 1990s resulting in the conclusion of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) on May 27, 1999. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this treaty in Bayan vs Zamora (Oct. 10, 2000).

The VFA governs the treatment of US military and civilian personnel visiting the country. A counterpart agreement (VFA II) regulates the treatment of Philippine military and civilian personnel visiting the United States.

After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001, PH-US defense relations entered a new phase, principally with US forces helping combat an al-Qaida-linked insurgency in the South.

In January 2002, US military and civilian personnel started arriving in Mindanao to take part in the Balikatan, simulating joint military maneuvers in case of an armed attack.

In the same year, the two countries entered into the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement outlining the basic terms, conditions and procedures for the reciprocal provision of logistics support, supplies and services between their military forces. It has been extended twice and will last until 2017.

In 2013, the Philippines filed an arbitration case after China occupied Scarborough Shoal off the coast of Zambales. This coincided with US President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” policy. After eight rounds of negotiations amid heightening tension between China and its neighbors around the South China Sea, the two countries signed the Edca.

This agreement expands US access to Philippine bases on a rotational basis and provides for America’s construction of new facilities as well as the prepositioning of defense equipment. It authorizes US access to some “agreed locations” in the country and to conduct certain activities therein.

In the context of the foregoing review, will our defense pacts with the United States help or hinder us in addressing our concerns in the South China Sea?  This question deserves an answer next Sunday. Abangan.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com.

WITH DUE RESPECT

By: Artemio V. Panganiban

@inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Now it can be told

Here is the story of how Amal took up the case of former President Gloria Arroyo to the UN Commission of Human Rights. When it was happening I tried to say as little as I could. The public knew that I had something to do with it but only vaguely. How did it happen, that an internationally known lawyer of human rights would come to Manila, interview her and then within the day agree to take up her case? Besides her room at the Veterans Memorial Hospital was guarded and no one would be allowed to pass without signing their names. Names had to be submitted at least a day before they come.

Just a week before Amal came to Manila I was with her mother, Baria who invited me to stay in their house in London. We have been long time friends since my exile in London. The room where I stayed had lovely shoes and dresses – it was Amal’s room in their family house. She now lived in a flat in Kensington but her clothes were washed in her mom’s house. Baria and I planned to go to the West End to have coffee in Harrods after passing by Amal’s flat. I knew her only through her mother’s stories about her, her friends and her work as an international lawyer. We chatted about many things but her instincts were sharp when it came to politics in the Philippines, including former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s incarceration.  It was just among many things we talked about. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that conversation will lead to her taking up the case of President GMA.

I went home soon after that thinking that it was just one of dozens of conversations I have had and the part on GMA was just a little aside. But in a few days, I received a call from her. She was on her way to Singapore  and she could drop by Manila for a day. To continue talking about GMA, I suppose. But she said nothing. She could stay with me so we could talk some more. But it was more than that.

She had someone carrying her luggage (A co-passenger) and she whispered to me “ he knows you and he told me I could trust you. I did not know until later what she meant. I would have to make it possible for her to talk to the incarcerated president – all in less than a day. And how could we pass the guards without asking what we were visiting the former president for? But I said, “Ok.” Not also knowing how we would be able do that. It was touch and go.

I said to Amal to walk as casually as she could by my side, I will sign my name and you go ahead. Thinking back, I think it was because she was tall, beautiful and foreign. She was not Filipino. What indeed would she to do with the incarcerated Filipino president? Once inside Mrs. Arroyo put her radio on full blast as they talked about her case. Amal explained how her law firm, the Doughty Chambers in London worked. By that time without anyone knowing it, Amal had agreed to take up her case and she would soon be in touch with GMA’s lawyers. Other than saying her mother was a friend,  I kept mum on how it all happened.

I wanted her to get a feel of Manila, well at least on its social night life. I was invited to several parties so I brought her along with me. I don’t know if she remembered that I introduced her to former President FVR at the Chinese national day celebration, or to American Ambassador then Harry Thomas. It was the Lebanese consul, Suferjoe Habibie, who took us along to the wine museum owned by the Josephs, wine importers and wholesalers. I had many friends who greeted me and she said, “Gosh Carmen you have so many friends” (She was not yet Mrs. Clooney.) There was even a naughty report which said that I was paying the lawyer’s fee for Amal. (Yikes). I gave a dinner for her and invited close friends with an interest in international law.

There was a serious side to Amal’s day in Manila but I kept the information close to my chest until Doughty Chambers would have filed the case with the UN.

As I wrote in a previous column “Two UN decisions that affect us are related. The first is the UN decision in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo that her human rights were violated by the Aquino government by keeping her imprisoned without trial and no evidence against her according to the rules of law and evidence.

The other UN decision from UNCLOS that it would hear the case the Philippines lodged against China on their dispute in the South China Sea (Whatever happened to that case?) As far as I know the decision from the Arbitral Commission is not the same as the one before the UNCLOS.

These decisions are ironic because in the first case the Aquino government refuses to honor the UN decision. The UN found the Aquino government violated GMA’s human rights on three counts. As far as I know, the UN decision is being contested by the Sandiganbayan which has redefined the meaning of “plunder” to keep GMA under detention. She has now been acquitted from the plunder charges.

The UN Working Group issued an opinion and endorsed all the arguments in the complaint filed by Amal Clooney.

In a nutshell, this was the decision from the UN Commission on Human Rights. I quote from Amal’s letter to GMA’s Philippine lawyers: “More specifically the panel (UN Working Group) ruled that her (GMA) detention is arbitrary under each and all of the three categories of arbitrariness recognized by the UN Working Group that we had put forward in our Petition (categories ii, iii, and v) holding that: Mrs. Arroyo was denied bail on grounds that are not compatible with international law; she did not benefit from the presumption in favor of bail; she was denied bail exclusively on the basis of the alleged strength of evidence against her; measures alternative to pre-trial detention were not considered and there were undue delays in considering her bail position in the proceedings against her as a whole.”

Accordingly the UN recommended the ‘reconsideration of Mrs. Arroyo’s application for bail in accordance with the relevant international human rights standards.’ As far as I know the decision also required that Mrs. Arroyo be paid damages for her unjust incarceration. The next step is for rehabilitation that she and she alone will decide.

source:  FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star)