Senate clash seen over US bases access

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned on Friday that a new security agreement with the United States, which would expand US forces’ access to Philippine bases, would run into a head-on clash with constitutional restrictions on American military presence in the country following the closure of US bases in 1992.

Santiago issued the warning after the Aquino administration announced that Filipino negotiators had offered the United States wider access to Philippine military facilities to counter China’s increasing aggressive actions in enforcing its maritime claims on disputed territories in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea).

In a communiqué issued during the sixth round of talks in Washington, Philippine officials announced that the two sides hoped to finalize terms for an “Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation” before US President Barack Obama embarks on a visit to Asia, including the Philippines, next month.

This will be Obama’s first visit to Manila since his reelection, indicating the heightened strategic role of the Philippine bases in rebalancing US forces in the Asia-Pacific region.

The rebalancing is part of the US “Pivot Asia” doctrine in the midst of the rising economic and military power of China in East and Southeast Asia, and the intensification of maritime disputes between China and its neighbors in the region.

Stronger cooperation

The new military pact seeks to forge a stronger defense cooperation with the United States and represents an attempt to expand its military ties with the Philippines.

The military ties have been largely moribund since 1991 when the Philippine Senate voted not to renew the lease on US military bases in the country, leading to the closure in 1992 of the naval base in Subic Bay and the Clark Air Base—two of the largest US overseas bases during the Cold War.

The announcement prompted Santiago to issue the warning, apparently in an effort to preempt the conclusion of a new agreement during Obama’s visit.

She pointed out that before an agreement could be finalized, the issues of constitutionality, such as the concurrence of the Senate, which is the treaty ratifying chamber of Congress, should be resolved.

Santiago is raising these issues prematurely even before the text of the agreement has been released. She has contended that US access to Philippine bases under a new agreement should be covered by a treaty that would be scrutinized and concurred in by the Senate.

Real issue

The senator argues that the deployment of US forces and hardware is not a minor matter that may be covered by an executive agreement, as claimed by the Department of National Defense. Until the text of the agreement is published, it is pointless to start a great debate over constitutional issues raised by Santiago.

The only useful function it serves is that Santiago has served notice that the Senate and the government are heading toward collision on an issue involving Philippine sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States.

The collision course diverts attention away from the real issue of de facto Chinese infringement of Philippine sovereignty as a result of incursions into areas claimed by the Philippines as part of its national territory.

Real enemies

This shift of focus on US derogation of Philippine sovereignty under the new status of forces agreement away from Chinese encroachments raises the fundamental issue to Filipinos. Who are our real enemies in light of Chinese depredations—the Chinese or the Americans?

Why are we less concerned with China’s de facto annexation of Philippine territory than we are over the Senate intervention in the assertion of its constitutional power to review and ratify treaties?

In trying to conclude a new basing agreement with the United States, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) is using it as a tool of hard-nosed diplomacy to back Philippine diplomatic initiatives with US military power deployment in Asia-Pacific under the 1951 Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty.

Pending publication of the text of the new agreement, this much has been disclosed by negotiators: The agreement seeks to allow larger numbers of US troops to have temporary access to Philippine military camps and bring aircraft, ships and humanitarian equipment.

Existing agreements have allowed the deployment of US troops in Mindanao to provide counterterrorism training to Filipino soldiers since 2002.

Inadequate

US military access in the Philippines is restricted to annual joint exercises—a participation which Philippine and US defense officials consider inadequate to respond to the growing threat of the expansive Chinese military power to the security of the region, especially smaller countries with rival claims on territories.

Under the draft accord, the Philippines is reported to have allowed US forces joint use of bases like those in Manila, Clark, Palawan, Cebu, Nueva Ecija and La Union.

“We are only offering US military forces to fewer military bases,” said Ambassador Eduardo Malaya, a member of the Philippine panel.

No base within a base

Philippine negotiators were unclear whether there will be any limit to the number of US troops or their length of stay. Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino, head of the Philippine panel, said the US negotiators had agreed that Philippine authorities could have access to US facilities set up inside local military bases. Any US military facility will not be a “base within a base,” Batino said.

The Philippines has been hardening its position and flexing its muscles in the face of Chinese blandishments over the past few days. On Friday, it rejected China’s demand to pull out a grounded Philippine Navy ship from the disputed Ayungin Shoal in the South China Sea. The DFA issued a sharp statement reiterating Philippine ownership of the shoal, in the disputed Spratlys, saying it is part of the Philippine continental shelf.

Blocked

China earlier blocked two Philippine ships bringing supplies from reaching a small contingent of Filipino soldiers stationed in a rusty ship at the shoal.

The DFA called the action provocative. It said the BRP Sierra Madre, a naval vessel, was placed on Ayungin Shoal in 1999 to serve as a permanent Philippine government installation in response to China’s illegal occupation of Mischief Reef in 1995, also claimed by the Philippines.

The DFA issued the statement in response to Beijing’s assertions that that it was right in driving away Filipino ships from the shoal, known as Ren’ai Reef in China. It accused the Philippines of carrying materials to “China’s island.”

Provocative act

On March 12, the United States expressed concern over China’s “provocative” act of blocking Philippine vessels on a resupply mission to Ayungin Shoal, as it called for respect for international laws and freedom of navigation in disputed waters.

The US Embassy’s Chargé d’Affaires Brian Goldbeck said the Chinese action “is a provocative move that raises tensions.”

These acts of harassment appeared to have been fueled by belligerent statements of Chinese President Xi Jinping on March 12, calling on China’s armed forces to staunchly defend national interests. Speaking to military delegates to China’s National People’s Congress, Xi said the military shouldn’t shy away from defending China’s interests.

His remarks “came amid concerns in Asia over the rise of Beijing’s military and strategic assertiveness,” The Wall Street Journal reported, referring to the territorial dispute between China and Japan over islands in the East China Sea that “has set parts of the region on edge and severely strained relations” between Asia’s two largest economies.