South China Sea territory disputes are simply not on Washington's
agenda; Manila needs to rethink its strategy and alliances
The critical questions for Filipinos are: Will the
United States defend the Philippines if there is a shoot-out with China in the
Spratlys? How far will the United States go in terms of conforming to the
Mutual Defence Treaty? Is mutual defence a myth, a misleading vague alliance
for the United States to gain vested concessions?
Echoing US President Barack Obama's statements, US
Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has said: "The US is neutral and doesn't
take any side on territorial disputes in the South China Sea."
The United States has criticised China over incidents
in Southeast Asia, but these are mere words. Observers say the only time the
United States will move is if the Strait of Malacca is closed by armed
conflict. The United States will never permit international sea lanes to be
blocked. When Egypt tried to close the Suez Canal, the US and UK governments
instantly sent an invasion force.
When push comes to shove, will America react? Many
factors suggest it will not. The trend on how it wages war has shifted
dramatically from expensive invasion and protracted occupation (as in Iraq and
Afghanistan), to cheaper clandestine support (arms, mercenaries and/or funds)
for pro-US regimes or rebels (as in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Ukraine).
Drone technology is the new trend because there are
less US casualties but, ironically, more non-American civilian casualties,
catalysing more terror attacks, and giving the United States a bad
international image.
America has never reacted to incidents such as the
sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat, or a stand-off between Philippine and
Chinese vessels, in the Spratlys. America issues protests and a promise of
"mutual defence", but never moves. This has emboldened China to
continue its aggressions, spraying, sinking and threatening Vietnamese,
Malaysian, Indian, Japanese and Philippine vessels at will.
The US donation of used ships and planes to the Philippines
is dangerous because it emboldens Filipinos to fight back with the illusion
that "Big Brother" is behind them. This donation cannot face up to
China's naval might; using them to wage conflict will result in the massacre of
Filipinos. The chance of the United States giving us drones and sophisticated
weapons is slim. For one, it has to be clandestine as it needs congressional
approval in Washington.
The Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was
initiated and authored by the United States, not the Philippines. It was forged
through the many visits of Philippine Defence Secretary Voltaire Gazmin to
Washington. When he came back, he issued press statements echoing the US voice
on the need for alliance and mutual defence and the promise of rescue against
Chinese incursions, as a rationale for the US "rebalancing" policy.
This policy is not important and is in fact
detrimental to Filipinos. Gazmin appears to be an agent of the Pentagon and the
White House in carrying out US military plans. The Spratlys are not on the US
agenda. The United States will not move just because a Filipino ship is sunk by
China. The US agenda is a much larger strategy of "encirclement"
through "rebalancing", which will shift 60 per cent of US forces away
from the Middle East to the Asia Pacific.
The EDCA, which represents the geopolitical interests
of the US, not those of the Philippines, was achieved covertly without
congressional input, thereby making it illegal and unconstitutional. It was
signed in April and was revealed gradually much later as a fait accompli,
precisely because the authors knew it would be met with an avalanche of
protests. This reflects the weakness of President Benigno Aquino in acting on
behalf of Philippine interests.
On the other side of the political divide, the
National Democratic Front-Communist Party of the Philippines is silent on
China. It has to do a lot of soul-searching and refit its ideology to the new,
evolving situation. Perhaps the best stance is to be anti-America and
anti-China at the same time.
And is the United States inducing a Chinese
pre-emptive first strike?
Beijing is fully aware of US encirclement designs via
rebalancing, a massive shift of US forces to the Asia-Pacific in apparent
preparation for a war with China. China is fully aware of the Pentagon's
Air/Sea Battle plan (ASB) and Anti-access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy, an
apparent grand scheme for the invasion of China. Logically, China is feverishly
preparing, with more research and arms. ASB-A2/AD has triggered a rapid arms
escalation.
The first goal of America may be to neutralise all
Chinese facilities that may deny access to its invading forces. These include
carriers, missile sites and bases deep in the Chinese mainland. Even US generals
have reportedly expressed fears that China would view this aggressive attack as
an all-out invasion, and may respond with a nuclear first strike. If even
Pentagon generals have this fear, why is America clinging to the ASB-A2/AD?
Does this imply that the White House is but a pawn of the Wall Street-Pentagon
partnership, which today rules America, and wants more wars to enrich itself?
Bernie V Lopez
Bernie V Lopez is a political commentator, radio and TV broadcaster and
producer-director, and a former professor at Metro Manila's Ateneo de Manila
University.
Business & Investment Opportunities
Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd (SBC) is incorporated
in Singapore since 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment