On scrapping the PH-US Visiting Forces Agreement
PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte’s threat to scrap the PhilippinesUnited States Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) unless the US restores the canceled visa of former national police chief and now senator, Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, has once more focused public attention on the clutch of defense agreements we have with the US. While the President’s action referred to the VFA only, the VFA is inextricably linked to the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Enhancement of Defense Cooperation Agreement because it concerns the sending by the US of warm (military) bodies to the Philippines, which these other agreements call for.
Actually, the VFA was required by both the Philippine Constitution and US policy regarding its military presence abroad. Article XIII, Section 25 of the Philippine Constitution provides that foreign military bases, troops or facilities may only be allowed under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate. Military troops of countries not covered by such a treaty are not allowed in the country. The US, which conducts the same exercises in two or more countries, would at times for reasons of economy think of bringing together several countries for exercises in the Philippines, but is stopped from doing so by this provision. It can invite participants only from countries that also have a VFA with the Philippines. To date, Australia is the only other country the Philippines has a VFA with and it has actively participated in military exercises held by the United States in the Philippines. A VFA with Japan has been contemplated following the wish of the US to share its responsibilities in the Pacific with Japan, thus finding an excuse for the latter to rearm but this has so far not come to fruition.
On the other hand the VFA is a condition required by the US of countries hosting US military troops on a nonpermanent basing arrangement. It is similar in content with the bases agreement we had with the US when it had bases in the country. It extends such privileges to US military troops and their attached civilian components as visa-free entry, tax exemptions, exemption from the registration of vehicles, exemption from payment of port fees and special treatment on custody and detention if accused of committing criminal offenses in the Philippines. As with the bases agreement, the provisions on the treatment of accused criminal offenders in the VFA have given rise to controversy.
A reader has observed that the Philippines is allowing the US to use Philippine airport and port facilities in ferrying troops fighting US wars of aggression in the Middle East and has questioned its being in accord with the country’s pursuit of an independent foreign policy. The VFA extends port facilities to all vessels whether or not they are involved in the Philippines-US joint military exercises.
The US has gone to all lengths to prevent the prosecution of its troops for any offenses on foreign soil. It has not only thus refused to sign and ratify the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court ( ICC), but has also threatened countries ratifying the statute with sanctions, e.g. cutting off economic and military assistance. Ratifying countries are saved from US sanctions by enacting legislation granting US troops special arrangements such as provided by the VFA. (The Philippines has withdrawn from the ICC on orders of President Duterte.)
With the scrapping of the VFA and the withdrawal of the privileges extended by the VFA to US troops, it is doubtful whether the US would conduct joint military exercises in the Philippines, including exercises that in recent years have been focused on combating terrorism. It also puts into question whether the US will come to help the Philippines in case it is attacked by an external power as provided for by the Philippines-US MDT.
To date, the anti-US rhetoric of President Duterte has been little more than just that, rhetoric. His so-called pivot to China is more hype than reality. His efforts to bring the Philippines closer to China have been little more than those of the previous administrations before President Benigno Aquino 3rd’s, whose efforts in this direction were thwarted by China’s taking over Scarborough Shoal and aggressive reclamation activities in the South China Sea and the Philippines’ consequent filing of an arbitration case against Beijing. Until Senator Bato’s canceled visa incident, the US and the Philippines have been reported to be planning among the biggest joint military exercises ever for 2020.
The scrapping of the VFA does not appear to be the call of the hour in the face of indications that China remains bent on owning the whole South China Sea. China maintains its position that their reclamations are actions made “in their own house.” The wiser move than junking the agreement is to attend to Filipinos’ disappointments and complaints about the Philippines- US defense treaties and make the Philippines- US partnership a more vigilant and effective one by reviewing/revising/reinforcing them.
The MDT of 1951 needs updating to take into fuller account the current and changing situation in the South China Sea and the entitlements of the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The agreement must be more proactive in maintaining peace and security in the region rather than merely respond to an armed attack. The MDT should have an effective institutional mechanism for assessing the security situation in the region and planning programs of action and strategies. The MDT should be more effective in assisting the partners in enhancing and modernizing their defense capabilities.
As for the VFA itself, the provisions of the agreement on criminal jurisdiction must be reviewed in order that due process and justice prevails in cases involving service personnel committing crimes in the Philippines. There is also a need to review provisions extending privileges that are reciprocal on paper but one- sided in practice, such as the exemption from port fees that are one- sided because Philippine military ships seldom visit US ports.