Twin policy of deterrence and non-aggression

FOR decades after the Second World War, humanity committed to and pursued a world without war. Nations adopted the peaceful settlement of conflicts and of having mutual respect to unavoidable differences in culture, politics and even faith. In geopolitics, this commitment to avoid the horrors of war and resolve conflicts bloodlessly is known as the “post-WW 2 global rules-based international order.”

This era of world peace could end, or potentially already has. The war in Ukraine has brought this shift, and not only because of the immense loss of life and destruction brought by a genocidal war of conquest. This represents the return of the idea that violent acts are an acceptable or even inevitable method for states to employ to resolve conflicts and pursue aspirations, further encouraged by the incredible accuracy and precise lethality of today’s battlefield. Yet this enormous tragedy only foreshadows what could potentially be the most destructive conflict our shared planet has ever seen. The contentious question of freedom of navigation and rules-based multilateral order in the Pacific looms ominously. We are waistdeep in a Second Cold War. American fighter jets have fired missiles over American territorial waters.

The geographical location of the Philippines puts us right in the middle of this conflict. Our fishermen and maritime security forces have experienced it firsthand. Fish have been stolen, lasers have been fired at Philippine Coast Guard vessels, and the rhetoric continues to escalate. There is no sign of an easing of tensions in the near future.

Depending on your perspective, this situation could either be a curse or a gift of providence. We as a nation, contingent on how our leaders steer us into the future, could today either allow the expansion of conflict into a full-blown world war or end it from where it is already raging today. This brings us to the integrated policies of deterrence and non-aggression.

This strategy is the only option for a nation committed to a peace which respects our rights. It is a deliberate effort, clear-eyed, to adhere to the principles of nonviolence as the dominant precondition to achieving progress. As the principal objective, we must avoid war. Deterrence is the only tool left for us by the surrounding superpowers and our geopolitical situation.

The success of deterrence allows the nation to pursue the policy of non-aggression. Non-aggression means no foreign invasion and the paramount commitment to peaceful settlement of external conflict.

For us to be allowed this privilege, we need a credible deterrence capability. This may appear difficult, but it is absolutely feasible. The elements for it are in us, and whatever is lacking is there for the asking due to our circumstances and abundance of willing partners.

The essential first step is to manifest in no uncertain terms love of country. We need to actualize the borne determination of our people to defend with their lives the fundamental interests of our nation and their individual rights to self-determination. The citizen army concept as mandated by the Constitution should have its enabling laws. The armed forces should prepare the reserve force command as a major unit capable of integrating the citizenry in times of crisis. More than that, forming ourselves into a credible obstacle to foreign hegemony will require a whole-of-society effort, including civil society and the private sector.

We need to structure a modest but lethal defense capability. This is not possible unless we choose and align ourselves to a particular side. Defense procurement is an intimate interstate process. We already have a Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States. What we need to achieve as a matter of national interest is to make clear to the Americans our understanding of the underlying principle behind the treaty. We have a shared responsibility as a matter of mutual interest to keep our part of the world safe and free.

Sharing of responsibility means to us not only opening our bases for mutual use, but also about requirements to enhance the deterrence quality of our Armed Forces. The Americans will gladly share critical know-how and military assets with us, and in this context the global West could be our vendors. America needs the support of our nation to accomplish their goals, and in any conflict our armed forces will have a crucial role to play in enabling victory.

Pursue other alliances

It is important that our armed forces are not tainted by perceived subservience. This is our people’s home. Our alliance cannot be exclusively American. We must pursue bilateral defense agreements with our neighbors as well. Japan, despite being a former aggressor, is our friendliest neighbor today and has an impressive defense-industrial base. We must pursue a mutual defense arrangement with Japan. We can also explore a similar bilateral arrangement with South Korea, another rapidly re-arming neighbor with high-tech expertise.

We must see the possibility of expanding the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). Asean becoming a regional defense system similar to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) of Europe may not be immediately feasible. The leverage Chinese debt has over some members is considerable. But the changing landscape of regional security may already favor the bilateral and multilateral discussion among Asean member states about becoming a regional defense body.

Asean as a regional defense alliance will benefit from mutual cooperation arrangements not only with the United States, Japan and South Korea, but with other friendly nations in this part of the world — the Oceanic countries, India, and even the Islamic world.

A non-aggression policy enables the establishment of cooperation and good working relations with states such as China, even when we are militarily within the United States’ circle of defense alliances. A non-aggression policy limits our response over disputes to peaceful solutions, such as raising the issue to relevant bodies, like the world courts and the United Nations.

Credible deterrence, combined with the strong commitment of nations to non-aggression, can eliminate wars. We absolutely do not need a catastrophic third world war to restore peace in the world moving forward.