Shaping our destiny
Long before Xi Jinping became China’s president, China was already moving to annex the South China Sea (SCS) by seizing islands and shoals at strategically located areas in the Paracels and Spratlys, then Scarborough, to establish forward operating bases (FOB). It had in fact created artificial islands in the Spratlys — Mischief, Subi and Fiery Cross — apart from Woody Island in the Paracels. It seized Scarborough from us in 2012 and it’s just a matter of time when it will cross “red lines” to begin building another FOB.
Controlling the SCS is China’s “core interest” which it claims to own “historically” as far back as the Ming dynasty and, by extension, to which it has “indisputable sovereignty.” Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Antonio Carpio has presented powerful arguments demolishing China’s claim based precisely on historical and legal records. Additionally, the Arbitral Tribunal’s ruling last year upheld UNCLOS and effectively trashed the fictitious 9-dash line that China uses to justify its ownership of the entire SCS including the Exclusive Economic Zones ( EEZs) of the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.
That’s the harsh reality that President Rodrigo R. Duterte has encountered front and center from no less than President Xi himself just last week at the “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) summit. When the President expressed to President Xi his desire to drill for oil in the area of Recto Bank, the latter objected because it’s China’s sovereign territory. They had a brief verbal tug-of-war over sovereign rights (Philippines) and sovereignty (China) and, according to President Duterte, President Xi made it clear that should the Philippines go ahead with its plan to drill for oil China would go to war. So what else is new?
During Hu Jintao’s time, China said the same thing claiming we were interlopers and troublemakers, and that war was necessary at some point to teach us a lesson if we continue to resist its rightful claim. China would send its fishing fleets in swarms manned by militias backed by its Coast Guard and Navy. This three- layered “cabbage” approach is unmatched by the Philippines to this day due to the lack of a similarly configured defensive layer, and the quantum of ships and aircraft needed to maintain the integrity of our EEZ and protect our sovereign rights.
The President has questioned, on the other hand, America’s resolve to effectively deter China’s aggressive movements forward in those years when the artificial islands were still being constructed. Whether it was outsmarted by China or whether it has a secret power-sharing agreement in the region remains a matter of debate and conjecture. The point however is that China has been able to establish its “fait accompli” in the Spratlys and Scarborough without any credible response from the US except its “freedom of navigation operations” that periodically parades its military might before an unfazed China.
That’s why the President decided to take the Philippines out of the foreign policy shadow of the US but without abrogating the Mutual Defense Treaty ( MDT) between the two countries, a treaty that, to my mind, requires a serious makeover to take into account 21st century security challenges and modern unrestricted warfare. From the President’s lens, the US is unreliable as an ally for several reasons:
a.) it maintains its “strategic ambiguity” despite China’s obvious belligerence toward the US and the Philippines;
b.) access to American weapons systems to build credible deterrence is being restricted by the US gov’t; and,
c.) instead of helping an ally address national issues like narcopolitics, terrorism, insurgency, secessionism and its broken institutions, it has taken an adversarial posture designed to divide and rule the country by politicizing “human rights.”
As America’s and China’s core interests continue to clash in the marketplace of ideas, it will inevitably lead to a clash of arms if they continue to talk past each other. Both countries would like the Philippines to do its bidding because of its strategic geographical location, and whoever has the most influence on the country will be able to control the region stretching from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. The trouble is that both are browbeating the Philippines to do what they want, and it’s driving people to choose between America’s or China’s national interest. Lost in translation is the Philippines’ national interest.
I believe that it is in our national interest to:
• modernize the Mutual Defense Treaty to keep our traditional alliance strong, relevant and reliable; and to build strong security partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, ASEAN.
• expand our economic horizons to include ASEAN, BRICS, the EU, Africa, the British Commonwealth of nations and the Americas.
• engage China on two tracks: one track to tackle contentious security issues, and another track to build strong economic, social and cultural ties.
• work for peaceful outcomes but be ready to defend ourselves should trouble come to our doorsteps.
I’m a firm believer in missile and rocket defense systems to effectively deter hostile threats: Long-range, medium-range, short-range capabilities on shore-to-ship; ship-to-ship; surface-to-air; air-to-ground; anti-submarine guided missile and rocket systems. If the US continues to obstruct our defense buildup, we should aggressively source from Israel, Russia, Sweden, France, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Singapore and South Africa. This should be complemented by the acquisition of the minimum required quantity of ships, planes, helicopters and submarines; and harmonization of the AFP-PCG-BFAR.
There are doable funding options: lend- lease; long- term bonds; commercial- industrial conversion of military baselands; annual savings from long- term anti- corruption and efficiency programs. During the buildup, defense spending should range between 3% and 5% of GDP to be within the spending range of ASEAN countries. Our forces should be reconfigured to effectively defeat internal armed threats, and effectively deter external armed threats. But for that to happen we must have political and social cohesion driven by love of country.
Patriotic fervor, a “country above self” mind- set and unity of purpose must underpin our transformation journey to become the nation of our dreams.
From the President’s lens, the US is unreliable as an ally.