It looks like President Aquino has made up his mind and we will soon see greater US military presence in the Philippines.
This means more troops and expanded facilities for supply replenishment, troop accommodations and R&R.
We can guess, based on public pronouncements so far from Cabinet members, that the former US naval base in Subic Bay will be rehabilitated, but as a smaller facility since much of the original base is currently occupied by the Subic Freeport Zone. Washington will likely foot most of the bill for the rehabilitation, but the facility will be a camp of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
Yesterday, Malacañang reassured the public that there would be no permanent presence for US forces under the new arrangement that is being formally negotiated starting today.
About nine years ago, with the biggest threat to America no longer the Soviet Union but a borderless, deadly extremism, Washington changed its strategy and moved away from setting up permanent military facilities anywhere in the world.
Instead the Pentagon aimed for “freedom of action†and developed a strategy that allows rapid response to flash points from “lily pads†scattered around the world.
Under the strategy, still being implemented, the lily pads or jump-off points could be nothing more than “gas-and-go†facilities at sites such as airports, or larger “forward operating sites†where troops are stationed on brief rotations of about three months. The second one appears to be what Washington wants in the Philippines.
Another concept being pursued is “sea basing†for the world’s mightiest navy. This means a fleet of US aircraft carriers and warships positioning in international waters, ready for speedy combat deployment or disaster response. This greatly reduces US dependence on land bases.
So Philippine officials are telling the truth when they say there will be no permanent presence in the country for US forces under the broader access arrangement being worked out.
Still, defining “permanent presence†can be tricky in a country that once hosted America’s largest overseas military facility.
* * *
When Uncle Sam shuttered its Philippine bases, the US forces took away with them all materials and equipment that were not bolted to Philippine soil, including the massive floating dry dock in Subic and the grass cutting machines at Clark Air Base.
When we asked AFP officers how they intended to keep the base grass properly trimmed – required not just for aesthetics but also for security, and which, we were told, cost the US about P160 million a year – the AFP officers said they would deploy an army… of goats. I don’t think it was a complete joke.
The AFP still has not recovered from the loss of defense resources from the US security umbrella. Shortly after Subic Naval Base was shut down, the Chinese occupied Panganiban (Mischief) Reef off Palawan and began building what is now a garrison.
The Chinese activities, although landing in the news, were shrugged off by the Philippines. We were preoccupied with many other things, and there didn’t seem to be any external threat warranting serious military upgrading. We knew we would never be able to fill the security vacuum left by Uncle Sam, but the attitude was, who cares? There was no external threat on the horizon.
Only when China became prosperous enough to build up its defense posture, occupying more reefs in its surrounding waters including the West Philippine Sea and shooing away Filipino fishermen did we start taking seriously Beijing’s territorial claims over nearly the entire South China Sea.
And that’s when we realized our weakness in enforcing our maritime territorial claims.
With that weakness unlikely to be corrected in the near future, our officials have sent an SOS to Washington. It’s no coincidence that the planned expansion of US military presence is along the western seaboard, with Subic Bay facing Panatag or Scarborough Shoal off Zambales.
* * *
While US military presence is ramped up and Manila pursues international arbitration on its maritime entitlements, we should at the same time undertake parallel efforts to bolster friendly relations with China. There’s a wide room for improvement in many aspects of bilateral ties, from trade to law enforcement and cultural exchanges.
While we should pick our allies based on shared values and way of life, we shouldn’t toss away our long history of friendship and peaceful exchanges with the giant in the neighborhood.
China became the world’s second largest economy by opening up and making friends, with its backyard peaceful for three decades. Beijing is not unreasonable or foolish; surely it is seeing the goodwill it has built up being eroded by its recent moves, and its old friends turning away.
Concern, however, can be expressed without antagonism. Our officials should be aware of the importance of face for China. In private, some Chinese officials may concede that their territorial claim to waters almost lapping the shores of their neighbors is ridiculous. But rival claimants must be careful not to rub it in.
Chinese journalists who don’t like their government’s repressive ways have told me that there is genuine nationalism among ordinary Chinese that Beijing either exploits or cannot ignore (or both) when it comes to territorial claims.
Even the US, while implementing its pivot to Asia, is exploring areas of cooperation with China, with President Barack Obama recently giving his Chinese counterpart the red carpet treatment.
A similar tack is being pursued by countries hosting US lily pads.