In past columns, I have been arguing that we should move our belligerent
stance against China several notches down. We should also stop those juvenile
and really useless boycott-China noises that definitely won’t change Chinese
government policy but only enrage the Chinese masses, which would take decades
to repair.
The
arbitration case we filed against China in the UN Permanent Court of
Arbitration will be nearly useless for us, but a boon for the US.
If — and
it’s a big “if” — the Court assumes jurisdiction, which is their first ruling
that would take four months from now, it would take five years for it to rule
on the suit, which is its track record in other less-complicated cases.
And in
those five years, our relationship with the economic superpower in the region
gets colder and colder to freezing point, with our neighbors Cambodia and even
Vietnam, a claimant in the South China Sea, laughing at us they get tens of
billions of dollars in Chinese official development assistance, trade, and
investments.
And if,
and that’s a big “if”, the Court rules in our favor, China will simply ignore
the decision. The Aquino administration thinks that this will turn China into
an international pariah, and be forced to give up its claims.
That’s
extremely naive thinking. Life will just go in the world and in the region, as
long as China doesn’t invade the other islands Taiwan, Vietnam, and the
Philippines occupy. Can the Court issue a TRO to Beijing on its reclamation
work on the shoals it occupies?
But
really, could you compare that kind of disregard for international law if China
ignores the arbitral court’s ruling to the two superpowers’ blatant violations
of international law with their invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, and
Georgia that cost thousands of lives? Turkey invaded in 1974 a sovereign
country, Cyprus, and still occupies a third of it. Is Turkey an international
pariah?
If the
Court rules against China, will we feel secured in our “ownership” of the
Kalayaan Island Group, with its second biggest island in the area Pag-Asa?
The Vietnam claim
Nope. The
Vietnamese also claim those islands, saying that the French included it in what
would be Vietnam in 1933. Marcos declared that group to be Philippine territory
only in 1978, after maritime-school operator Tomas Cloma claimed it as his new
nation of “Freedomland” in 1956.
Now,
since we declared to the world that we bow to international courts to rule on
sovereignty issues in the Spratlys, would we agree to let the same UN Permanent
Arbitral Court to rule on whether the Kalayaan Island Group belongs to us or to
the Vietnamese?
But the
one who would benefit really from the Court decision on our pending suit would
be the US, as it would have more public-opinion room to be the sole superpower
in this region, halfway around the world from it. The Court decision will
portray China as a bad superpower in the region, with the US the good one.
Washington will uncork its champagne to celebrate that it’s achieved President
Obama’s “pivot to Asia” goal within his term. As in the 1950s, we have proven
to be the very reliable US puppet.
The
reality of the world is that sovereignty over lands has never been determined
by Courts, but by military power. The Falkland Islands, 300 kilometers from the
Argentinian coast, will always be territory of the British who are 6,000
kilometers away because of its military might. So will Gibraltar. Did
Argentina, Spain (which claims Gibraltar), and the UK ever ask a court to rule
who really owns what? Certainly not.
What we
need to do though, as I have explained in past columns, is do diplomacy, smile
at the Chinese, send as many trade and cultural missions to China as we can,
ask our Chinese-Filipino taipans to massage down the Chinese anger at us, while
we fortify the seven islands and two shoals we occupy in the Spratly islands.
While
realistically we can’t build fortresses that would repel the Chinese in a
full-scale war, we have to build some “minimum credible deterrent.” In layman’s
terms, that means our forces in the disputed territories must be able to do
battle with an invading Chinese force, which would hopefully turn world opinion
to our side. But how would the five to six-man squads, armed only with assault
rifles stationed at most of the seven islands do this?
It’s one
of Aquino’s biggest boo-boos during his administration that he virtually asked
China to a fight — by arresting its fishermen and then sending the only warship
we have to defend our arresting coast guard men, only to withdraw two days
later –when our military modernization program is still in the drawing boards.
It’s like a kid challenging a bigger one to a fight, but then backing down as
soon as the gauntlet is picked up.
This
administration for all its chest thumping and saber rattling hasn’t been able
to strengthen our military to build even the most minimum credible deterrent.
Obviously
we expected too much from a government that can’t even fix the main mass
transport in Metro Manila, the MRT-3 line.
Follows
are excerpts from a July 20 Wall Street Journal (Asia Edition) front-paged
article entitled “Philippine Military Upgrade Stalls,” which I hope doesn’t
encourage the Chinese from invading our Spratly possessions tomorrow:
“A string
of programs collectively valued at $1 billion stalled early last year,
according to military officials and executives involved in Philippine defense
deals.
“The
delay underscores how the government’s efforts to transform the country’s
derelict navy and air force have become mired in red tape, funding problems and
corruption allegations.
“The
delays leave long-held plans to build a ‘minimum credible deterrent’—comprising
small but capable air and naval fleets—at least a decade from completion, said
Jose Antonio Custodio, a Manila-based defense consultant. Even with a basic
deterrent in place today, Manila would likely still lack the means to check
Beijing’s assertiveness.
“ ‘We’re
still at square one,’ said Mr. Custodio. ‘With China building all these new
bases [in the South China Sea], I’d say it’s already too late.’
“President
Benigno Aquino III has promised to rejuvenate the military, degraded by decades
of underinvestment. A pledge to spend $1.7 billion on new equipment initially
bore fruit, as the administration signed a flurry of defense contracts valued
at $834 million in late 2013 and early 2014, including deals for 12 Korean
fighter jets, three Airbus transport planes and a new fleet of combat
helicopters from Canada and the U.K.
“ ‘The
record will show that the Aquino administration has stepped up the pace of
[military modernization] considerably, surpassing the procurement program
undertaken by three previous administrations combined,’ presidential spokesman
Herminio Coloma said.
“Aquino didn’t sign law”
“However,
Mr. Coloma also confirmed that Mr. Aquino still hasn’t signed a law earmarking
a further $2 billion for defense procurement that was passed by congress in
February 2013. Mr. Coloma didn’t explain the delay.
“Government
finances have been stretched thin after the government spent billions on
reconstruction following Supertyphoon Haiyan in 2013, a fact Mr. Custodio, the
defense consultant, cited for the spending delay.
“Already
strict government procurement rules have been further tightened since then,
putting the brakes on a range of spending programs.
“Contracts
for two naval frigates valued at $398 million and for two long-range patrol
planes valued at $132 million—capabilities that would help the Philippines
monitor its maritime territory, where it has overlap the ping claims with
China—are among those that were scheduled to have been bid out last year, but
are instead stuck on the drawing board.
“ ‘It
seems that all programs are paralyzed,’ said a Western defense executive whose
company is involved in one stalled project.
“With
China accelerating its island program in the South China Sea, Philippine
military chief General Gregorio Pio Catapang recently urged Manila to spend
more on defense as the country’s economy enjoys healthy growth. Last year’s
defense budget was just $3.3 billion— less than neighboring Singapore’s ($9.5
billion), Indonesia’s ($7.5 billion), and Malaysia’s ($4.9 billion).
“A
Philippines senate inquiry into country’s military modernization efforts has
meanwhile questioned the effectiveness of the funds spent so far, with one
senator arguing there was practically nothing to show for the $1.4 billion
spent on new weaponry in the decade to 2013. Senators also probed a deal for 21
secondhand helicopters, which the defense department canceled in April after
only seven deliveries amid concerns about the quality of the technology, and
with a Philippine tax official claiming that the aircraft had been ordered in
exchange for kickbacks.
“The
breakdown of the helicopter program has made defense officials even more
reluctant to place new orders and expose themselves to further scrutiny, said
Mr. Custodio.
“Mr. Aquino
has turned to allies for help. On a recent state visit to Japan, he requested
secondhand P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, having already received a $183
million loan from Tokyo to fund the construction of 10 new patrol boats. Tokyo
has said it is considering the requests, though it hasn’t committed to anything
specific. Australia, South Korea and the U.S. have all donated used military
kit to Manila in recent years and have signaled a willingness to do more.
“But
hand-me-downs won’t deliver a deterrent capable of influencing decision makers
in Beijing, Mr. Custodio says. ‘The Chinese are building islands on our
doorstep.’ “
Bobi Tiglao
No comments:
Post a Comment