Pro-Philippines
It is a personal honor to join The STAR family as a columnist. I look forward to a fruitful relationship with the country’s leading broadsheet. I hope my knowledge and opinion on the law, politics and government service will serve the readership in good stead.
Culture of peace Two survivors of the cataclysmic World War II, Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi, espoused nonviolence and pacifism as a state of consciousness or a way of life. Gandhi stated: “Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unharmed nation in the face of odds.” Einstein said: “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”
In its Charter, the United Nations mandates member-states to maintain international peace and security and develop friendly relations to resolve economic, humanitarian, social and cultural crises. In 1999, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on a Culture of Peace resolution that guides governments, international organizations and civil society toward promoting respect for life and non-violent practices through education, dialogue and cooperation.
Our 1987 Constitution states that as a national policy, the country renounces war and adheres to peace and cooperation with all nations. The Philippines shall also pursue an independent foreign policy, which President Marcos Jr. has repeatedly vowed to honor. The policy of – friend to all, enemy to none – has faced an acid test in the hegemonic rivalry between the United States and China in the Indo-Pacific region.
Third-party war participant
Let me get straight to the point: I am pro-Philippines. I am neither for China nor for the US. The brinkmanship in both the West Philippine Sea (WPS) and Taiwan Strait continues to escalate, which could place the country on the precipice of war as a third-party participant. Some US policy analysts have brazenly predicted a full-blown armed conflict over Taiwan soon. The government’s decision to allow America to preposition troops and weapons in nine Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) sites across the country has stoked the flames of enmity between the world powers. These locations are an open provocation to China for retaliation.
Of course, the Philippines is caught between a rock and a hard place. But duplicity and deceit have no place in foreign relations and diplomacy.
I maintain that we are not a factotum of the US and should never be reduced as an intermediary of its international warmongering and imperialism. China, on the other hand, should stop treating our fisherfolk and military personnel as punching bags for its passiveaggressive stand in the WPS.
I have spoken and written at length about the inutility of our Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the US when we lost two islands in the WPS. In 1995, China annexed Panganiban (Mischief) Reef located about 130 nautical miles west of Palawan. In 2012, we engaged China in a maritime standoff over Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, some 120 nautical miles from Zambales. China has since maintained its military presence on the shoal. The Americans, however, never lifted a finger to help us defend the said territories. They cited America’s non-interference policy in territorial disputes between claimant countries.
Conversely, in my social media live stream, I have called out China’s constant bullying of Filipinos in the contested islands, particularly within our Exclusive Economic Zone. The latest maritime incident at the Ayungin Shoal saw the Chinese Coast Guard aiming a military-grade laser at a Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessel and harming its crew. I agree with PBBM’s decision to summon and relay our displeasure over the incident to Chinese Ambassador Huang Xilian in Malacañang.
I disagree, however, with the contention of retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio that the laser attack is enough to trigger MDT’s operation. In my view, it is premature to invoke the treaty because China’s use of lasers against the PCG does not necessarily constitute an armed attack.
Under Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, an international armed conflict occurs when one or more States have recourse to armed force against another State (International Committee of the Red Cross). In Nicaragua vs. the United States, the International Court of Justice ruled that the concept of an armed attack is not merely action by regular armed forces across an international border, but also the sending by a State of armed bands on the territory of another State, if such an operation, because its scale and effects would be classified as an armed attack had it been carried out by regular armed forces.
Against national interest
It is inimical to the Philippine interest to participate, willingly or otherwise, in a war within the region. Our socio-economic gains will go to waste if we get dragged further into the US-China conflict. The country should remain focused on achieving national stability and prosperity as we march towards upper middle-income status by 2025. It would mean maintaining our economic growth, which hit a 46-year high of 7.6 percent in 2022 and bucking the headwinds of global inflation and recession. The government should prioritize job creation, faster delivery of social services and improvement of the living standards of Filipinos.
Unlike the US, our economy is not dependent on a military-industrial complex. It is interesting to point out that while the US mainland has never been a theater of war, the country has played a major role in the biggest international conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries.
As the world’s top weapons producer, America’s three-year rolling average for the combined fiscal year 2022 total of foreign military sales and direct commercial sales was $153 billion based on US State Department data. Indeed, an armed conflict in the Indo-Pacific region would be favorable to the superpower’s defense industry.
So, are we ready and willing to sacrifice our lives for a war that practically serves the interest of America?