What’s magnificent about withdrawal of US bases?
TWO ITEMS stood out in the March 19, 2016, issue of the Inquirer—the report titled “US fears Chinese buildup on Panatag” (Front Page) and the column by Mahar Mangahas titled “The vindication of Jovito Salonga” (Opinion). Both items are related to the removal of US bases from the Philippines in 1992.
The 12 senators led by then Senate President Salonga who voted in 1992 for the removal of the US bases were thereafter referred to as the “Magnificent 12.” In the light of what has since happened in the West Philippine Sea, it is time we posed the question: What is magnificent about the ousting of US bases from the country? National survival is the primordial consideration in the conduct of a country’s foreign relations. On this basis, the removal of US bases from the country is an unmitigated disaster.
In 1992, Panatag Shoal was a target range of the US Navy. Had the US bases not been removed, we would still be in possession of Panatag. Moreover, with the connivance of America, we could also have designated as target ranges all the areas on which China has built artificial islands. In 1992, nobody had effective possession of these disputed areas. They were terra nullius, and using them as target ranges would have amounted to effective possession by the Philippines.
Like all bullies, China picks on the weakest prey first. In the current dispute, China has bullied only the Philippines and Vietnam, and has not grabbed areas claimed by Taiwan and Malaysia. The major reason is this: Taiwan and Malaysia have modern weapons (“A neutral foreign policy will not work,” Opinion, 7/4/15). China would not have confronted the United States on this issue.
The most devastating outcome of China’s construction of these artificial islands is the impact on the defense of our national territory. In 1992, the nearest Chinese airfield was 900 kilometers away, on Hainan island. Now, Chinese airfields are a scant 200 km away. The significance of this is that the distance of 900 km is not within the combat range of jet fighters. But that is not the case at 200 km. Our problem will get worse the day China installs missiles on those islands. We will need batteries of Patriot missiles to defend our country, which of course we cannot afford.
The constant argument of those who worked for the removal of the US bases from Philippine soil was that the bases’ presence was an affront to our national sovereignty. And yet we can, after due notice, always terminate the presence of US bases, which we in fact did in 1992. Instead, what we have now is China’s permanent presence on our front yard, and the only way we can remove it is by waging World War III.
In 1992, the US bases provided employment for as many as 80,000 Filipinos. Conversely, a big number of our fishermen have lost their livelihoods; Chinese fishermen are exploiting the marine resources that our own fishermen used to harvest. On top of that, rare sea life which our Navy and Coast Guard had safeguarded for years are being harvested illegally by the Chinese. In due course, they will exploit all the natural resources of these areas.
We are not speaking here with the benefit of hindsight. These events are foreseeable. It is taught in any course in diplomacy that we live in a lawless world. A country must have adequate arms to defend its territorial integrity. A defenseless country invites aggression. When the 12 senators voted to oust the US bases in 1992, they should have taken the compensatory step of increasing the defense budget. Given our limited means, this would undoubtedly have caused a decline in our living standards. But then, we have a model on this issue.
When India started developing nuclear weapons, Pakistan said in response that it would do the same even if its people ended up eating grass. Pakistan got its nuclear arms, but at great privation to its people. But Pakistan’s officials who said this were true statesmen; they had the courage to tell their compatriots what it would take to preserve their national sovereignty.
We cannot say the same of the 12 senators who voted to oust the US bases. They constituted a majority in the Senate; it was within their power to increase the defense budget, although this would have meant cutting the outlays for education, health and social services. That would have been an unpopular move and they could have been voted out of office. In this respect, the “Magnificent 12” behaved as politicians: They were thinking of the coming elections, not the future of our country. Had they behaved as statesmen, they should have, like their Pakistani counterparts, increased the defense budget even if our people had to eat grass.
The problem is that we still see this happening in our country now. We see a considerable number of our politicians still calling for the abolition of the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement but without telling the public that this would require increasing the defense budget, which would in turn depress our living standards.
It is difficult to see how the removal of the US bases in 1992 constituted a magnificent episode in our history. In fact, this early it is evidently a catastrophe. From here on, we have to live under the shadow of Chinese weapons, including nuclear arms in due course. There is also something wrong when a country overlooks a failure in public policy, in this case the closure of US bases, and pass it off as a success.
Hermenegildo C. Cruz served as Philippine ambassador to the United Nations in 1984-86.
