EDCA for defense, not a political accord

Since my column came out on the advantages and disadvantages of the Philippine and the United States governments’ signing of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), I’ve received feedback that  government executives particularly in the defense and security departments, are one in saying that the accord is a defense issue, not a political one.

That the government executives are gung-ho over the agreement comes as no surprise, and we are inclined to agree with them  that , coming as it does in the middle of a heightening territorial dispute between the Philippines and China, the forging of the agreement  could not have been more timely.

Defense Undersecretary Pio Batino, for one, declared that the EDCA is “not a political agreement. It is a defense agreement. It is not permanent because the EDCA has a  duration of just 10 years. And it is the position of the Philippine panel that there is no new policy being established here through EDCA.”

Batino headed the Philippine panel in the eight rounds of EDCA talks that spanned two years.

On allegations that the EDCA provides the US undue leeway in pursuing its offshore basing program, virtually making the Philippines into one whole US facility, Batino said; “This is not true. We are only eyeing several Armed Forces of the Philippines  bases to sufficiently implement the program.”

Allaying fears that the EDCA might open the floodgate to violations of Philippine laws, Batino said  the AFP and the Philippine government “would have the last say before any activities would be implemented.”

Earlier, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin who signed the EDCA on behalf of the Philippine government, with United States Ambassador Philip Goldberg signing for Washington, underscored the relevance of the EDCA in jointly addressing present day defense and security challenges confronting the two countries. Gazmin has pointed out that while the EDCA adheres closely to the limitations of its precursors — the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) — it allows both allies to do more in pursuit of “development of individual and collective capacities.”

Echoing the Defense department’s sentiments on EDCA, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said the agreement “would improve maritime security, maritime domain awareness and disaster response of the military.”

Del Rosario said the EDCA boosts regional importance to the Philippine-US alliance. “EDCA elevates to a higher plane our defense agreement and provide new momentum to our partnership.”

Viewed in the light of the worsening relations between Manila and Beijing, the EDCA, without doubt, boosts the Philippines’ external defense mechanism against a regional bully.

There is no question that we are centuries behind China in national defense development. This is the main reason we can only watch in muted resistance as China continues to expand its military presence in the disputed reefs and islets in the Spratly archipelago.

And here’s the interesting part. While we continue to argue among ourselves whether the EDCA is acceptable or not, Japan which has its own security issue with China, categorically declared that the agreement is good for regional peace and stability.

During his recent visit to Manila, Kenji Kosaka, president of the Japan-Philippines Parliamentary Friendship League (JPPFL), said on Tuesday that his group of parliamentarians fully support Philippine initiatives to resolve the conflict with China over the so-called “troubled waters” in the West  Philippine Sea.

My point is, if Japan has cast its vote of confidence on the EDCA as a  step in the right direction to affirm Philippine sovereignty over its territorial domain, why can’t we Filipinos rally behind this accord for our own good?

We seem to have this predisposition to put the agreement in the microscope, failing in the process to see the bigger picture of national and regional peace and stability.

We may be able to see the trees but miss the forest altogether.

“However, not only through bilateral but also multilateral discussions or under international law, we should be able to solve these issues, these maritime territorial issues,” the Japanese parliamentarian pointed out.

*        *        *

In the discussion on the RH Law which the Supreme Court found constitutional, Dr. Isabelo Magalit, former dean of the Asian Theological Seminary, has sent his views. Twenty years ago, he co-wrote and edited a small book on family planning; he wrote the theological paper, and a senior OB-GYN specialist wrote the section on family planning methods. A seasoned lawyer wrote the part on family planning and the law.

The theological paper became the position paper of the Christian Leader’s Alliance of the Philippines (CLAP), the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC), and the Philippines for Jesus Movement (PJM) associated with Brother Eddie Villanueva.

Writes Dr. Magalit: “Over the last three or four years, during the debates on the RH Bill, we had an Inter-Faith Coalition  chaired by Bishop Fred Magbanua, then Bishop Rodrigo Tano, which supported the RH Bill. We met frequently. The basis of our coalition was the theological paper I wrote. Representatives from the INC, from the Muslim community and from the NCCP also joined us. The latest to join called themselves “Catholics for RH”. We supported the RH Bill and were categorically anti-abortion. We favored the view that life begins at fertilization, mainly because of Psalm 139 verses 13 to 16.

“Because of pastoral duties, I withdrew from the coalition, confident that my colleagues would monitor the legislative process and ensure that our views were adequately represented. Bishop Ef Tendero of PCEC categorically defended our position that life begins at fertilization on TV. I just found out from your column that Rep. Edcel Lagman does not share our view and says instead that life begins at implantation. The difference between the two views is not small. The Lagman view allows abortifacient methods; our view does not. Our view has been dismissed as a ‘religious doctrine.’ The Lagman view is also a ‘religious doctrine.’ As a matter of fact, I think Justice Leonen’s view is also a ‘religious doctrine.’ May we not argue, given the breadth of representation in our Inter-Faith Coalition, that we do not represent a ‘sectarian view’ that threatens the religious freedom of the minority? We certainly respect the freedom of the irreligious to disagree with us. May we argue, further, that we have the Philippine Constitution on our side? Section 12 of Article II of the Constitution says, “The State… shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”  Signed, Dr. Isabelo F. Magalit

*        *        *

 Every weekend this month of May, head off to “The Country Fair” at the Grove by Rockwell in Pasig. For those seeking healthful finds, “The Fresh Market,” open from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays, will have goodies from Kusina ni Maria, Choco ABP and Mays Sushi, and natural products from Do Boer Organiques, Gifts and Graces, Luntian bags, Tulle Le Jour and more. “The Food Truck Barnyard Canival,” open from 4 p.m. t o midnight, starting Friday evenings to Sunday, is the new go-to place for a quick bite, with servings from Chef Broosy, Hungry Rover, Truck Bun, Ser Chef, Mexikombi and sweet summer treats from Mio Gelti.

The Country Fair is located at The Grove by Rockwell Community Center along C5 corner Ortigas Avenue (just across Tiendesitas.)

*      *      *

My email:dominitorrevillas@gmail.com