Prudent DFA stance not to invoke MDT

It was a prudent stance for the Department of Foreign Affairs that averted escalating the most recent tension sparked by China’s aggressive action in the West Philippine Sea.

The DFA refrained from invoking the 1951 US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty over the Feb. 6 incident, when a China Coast Guard boat directed a “military-grade” laser shot at a Philippine Coast Guard vessel moving into the Ayungin Shoal. The laser temporarily blinded the ship’s crew, tasked to resupply Filipino troops stationed at an old ship grounded there.

The Chinese action “constituted an armed attack on a Philippine public vessel” that would justify invoking the country’s treaty with the United States, declared the retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio. But DFA spokesperson Ma. Teresa Daza said the government wasn’t ready to define the Chinese action as an “armed attack” as discussions are still ongoing as to when the treaty could be invoked.

Carpio wasn’t calling for immediate resort to the MDT. First, he pointed out, the Philippines should coordinate with the US in releasing a joint statement warning that such future use by the Chinese of laser weapons on Philippine public vessels or aircraft “will trigger the operation” of the treaty.

Similarly cautious was House Deputy Speaker Ralph Recto. Invoking the MDT in this instance, he said, would be a “disproportionate response that will escalate things unnecessarily.” The President, he added, “has more than enough in his toolkit to respond to Chinese aggression, without need to send an SOS to the Americans.”

Recto projected “a protracted war of nerves” with China over the current administration’s move to restore full-scale defense and security relations with the US – and even expand the number of US military facilities allowed inside nine Philippine military bases. Here’s how he imagined China’s reaction:

“They will be throwing tantrums, like a jilted lover who has lost face. They probably felt that they’ve lost a concubine.” But, he warned, “Expect more harassment. We should be prepared for them.”

On the heels of the laser incident, China has merely reiterated its claims over the South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea where, in 2012, it seized from the Philippines Panatag Shoal, a traditional fishing ground of Filipinos and other fishers from neighboring nations. It has constructed artificial islands in areas of the WPS claimed by the Philippines, building these up as military outposts.

What’s new is that China openly belittles the Mutual Defense Treaty, and blames the US for the Philippines’ firm stand against its maritime claims. It was the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal in The Hague that upheld our position in 2016.

Through its spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, China’s Foreign Ministry asserted that:

• The Mutual Defense Treaty has no bearing on China’s stand to “protect” its claimed “rights” in the maritime dispute. It complained that the United States invoked the treaty “at every turn in an attempt to intimidate China.” “But it will not weaken our resolve and will to safeguard China’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests.”

• That the arbitration case brought by the Philippines to the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal was “pure political drama orchestrated by the US.”

• That The Hague tribunal 2016 ruling – which invalidated China’s “one-dash-nine line” claim over almost the entirety of the South China Sea – was “illegal, null and void” and that it “will have no effect whatsoever” on China’s claims to such rights. This assertion was first made soon after the ruling came out seven years ago.

The next volley in the war of words was a statement from the US State Department, through spokesperson Ned Price, saying that China’s “dangerous operational behavior directly threatens regional peace and stability, infringes upon freedom of navigation in the [SCS]… and undermines the rules-based international order.”

Note that Washington isn’t invoking the MDT either. The statement merely said that the US “stands with our Philippine allies” in the face of the reported use by the Chinese of laser devices against the crew of a Philippine Coast Guard ship.

The focus of US President Joe Biden’s current concern vis-à-vis China appears to be on the incident on Feb. 4 wherein, upon his order, an American jet fighter plane shot down a huge balloon in the atmosphere, acknowledged by China to be its own, as it moved across America.

As the retrieved balloon was found to carry intelligence-gathering devices, US officials say they believe that China sent the balloon to spy on American military bases in Honolulu and Guam. They also noted that China took three days before informing the US that its contractors were trying to move the balloon quickly out of US airspace.

Biden was reported by the New York Times as saying he expected to speak soon with China’s president, Xi Jinping, to raise objections to the balloon’s violation of US airspace. “I make no apologies for taking down that balloon,” he declared.

Meantime, certain Philippine legislators, notably Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, have urged President Marcos Jr. to seek defense and security cooperation agreements with other countries, besides the US and Australia (with which the country has signed Visiting Forces Agreements or VFAs). Specifically, Rodriguez suggested mutual defense pacts with Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and Australia.

Philippine Army chief Lt. Gen. Romeo Brawner was quick to pick up Rodriguez’s proposition. At a press conference Wednesday, he told reporters: “Well, this is not the stand of the PA but my personal stand. I believe these could be beneficial for our country if we allow more of our partners and allies to come into the country to train with us – not really to stay here and build bases.”

Gen. Brawner mentioned the importance of interoperability among the armed forces of allied countries, which could come about through joint military exercises, saying it’s now the trend among armed forces worldwide.

But there are downsides to the proposition, as there have been in the case of the VFA with the US since 1999. Prudence at this point indeed seems to be wiser.

*   *   *

Email: [email protected]