All after Duterte, Bato, and the Visiting Forces Agreement
(and how people took this matter with a grain of salt)
The recent February 6's Senate hearing about the termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement has left the people in a myriad of reactions: The administration's supporters did agree about on the basis of "national interest" while those who oppose are whether on the basis of "depriving of support for military modernisation/regional security" if not seeing its motives as "politically motivated".
With these reactions, especially in a time short of justifying further the regime's statement, followed by a Senate deliberation of the issue, would say that the order's vague terms of "negative impact to US-RP ties" rather parrots the message Duterte brought.
But the major question is: with all these bullshits brought about by Duterte, and the Filipino anxiousness to see about an agreement being terminated, is the termination really for the people's interest or an excuse by the regime?
Seeing "wrong" and "right" reasons to junk
This matter started with the recent passage of the Magnitsky act from the United States which involved barring off members of the Duterte administration to enter the the country. And one government official involved was Senator Roland "Bato" Dela Rosa, who confirmed the cancellation of his U.S. Visa by the American authorities.
In response, President Duterte threatened to terminate the VFA on the basis of "national interest". From there his fanatics initially had mixed reactions to his decision, especially after having friendly rapports with U.S. President Donald Trump. On the other hand, there are those who oppose the abrogation of the agreement, citing China's intrusion on the disputed islands in the West Philippine Sea, as well as the existing terrorism problem that requires foreign military support.
But in using Dela Rosa's cancellation of his U.S. Visa as an alibi to abrogate the agreement is but a mockery of "national interest" stated by Duterte. In fact, that the struggle to abrogate the VFA, the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) and its earlier agreement like the Mutual Defence Treaty has been relevant till present citing these as indication of neocolonial dominance through military, political, and economic intervention.
Furthermore the agreements stated includes allowing U.S. forces to bring and perhaps stockpiling nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, exempts from taxes and tariffs, setting up facilities that requires removing communities, and the clearing of its personnel from criminal liabilities. The Subic rape case of Daniel Smith, and the death of Jennifer Laude by Joseph Pemberton were examples that involves the interference of the U.S. Forces in avoiding their personnel to serve their sentence issued by the Philippine justice system. These and more would say became reasons in opposing the agreements (VFA, EDCA, MDT) and its outright call for its abrogation.
Seeing comments two and fro
As expected, the statement Duterte brought really created mixed reactions from the people-that even some of his supporters do recognise the need for an ally against an emerging eastern rival.
For supporters of the VFA and its related agreements, the purpose of foreign military support (if not an "aid") was more than just further training military officers to operate modern military equipment if not to improve its firepower, but rather a bilateral military cooperation in fighting terrorism as well as drug trafficking, human trafficking and other cross-border crimes.
Furthermore, the agreement also promotes "development" in a form of support for public works as welfare packages through USAID, and even assistance during calamities. Most notable of all is the Super Typhoon Haiyan or Yolanda in November 2013 or seven years ago when the Philippine government was literally paralyzed into inaction due to its leadership then. This and other related agreements would say served as a substitute for the former Bases which the U.S. Forces stationed for decades until its closure in 1992.
And also to think that for decades past that the United States was the first and foremost "supporter" in bolstering Filipino defences, would say that most Filipinos would rather cling to its Yankee ally no matter how old the weapon and armour given to them, nor the atrocity being done from its past, for after all, Filipinos happened to be "forgiving" and "forgetting" these instances occured.
But on the other hand, that by depending on the aid given by the United States it seems that the Philippines has forgot its struggle for self-reliance. For sure there are once students in Armed Forces Defence College and Cadets in the Philippine Military Academy who seriously adhere to the idea of reemphasising the need for self-reliance not just in the manufacturing of weapons and armour but also in the change of strategy and tactics in order to lessen if not entirely rely on foreign support such as those of a foreign coloniser.
Of course there would be instances of procuring firearms abroad, even Mainland China does procuring weapons including those from the United States, but unlike the Philippines would say that the country rather prioritise its domestic arms production and the importance of their studies be taken into practise especially those of strategy and tactics. Imagine, during World War II while the Philippines still romanticise Bataan and Corregidor and its much-awaited convoy of American forces and materiel the Chinese stressed the importance of guerilla warfare in resisting against the Japanese invaders. For sure the government would still brag that the country stil takes that self-reliance defence program seriously, but the question is, when will it be more than just objects of curiosity? For sure the Armed Forces taketh pride in its Hari Digma and Kalakian, of Sumpak, Tagak, and its Project Santa Barbara; but these projects rather left in its prototype stage after being mothballed or disapproved while Guerilla warfare, whilst recognised as the ideal mode given the terrain of the country, as being frowned by higher officials who prefers a continuity of reliance in foreign aid, using words like "regional security" and the likes while its neighbours taketh seriously their self-defence programs including those of studying strategy and tactics suitable for their settings. Even Australia does this through its "Defence of Australia Policy" that focused on the defence of continental Australia against external attack.
Pardon for the thought but in reading a variety of comments, be it for or against would say that they do truly wanted to defend their country, but the problem is this: since Duterte himself junked the agreement on the basis of what he said "national interest", what should Filipinos do then? Whine? Romanticise the past from time and again? Or think harder about the need for a new defence policy which emphasise the need for self-reliance in defending its patrimony? Anyway, Trump doesn't matter much about those agreements. But since Duterte did junked those, his American counterpart rather nod in it, thinking of it as "saving a lot of money" if not wanting for a renegotiation to happen.
Still, country above all
Like any other statement, Duterte's outburst may consider rather as another item from his long list of irrationally-driven arbitrary orders that's given verbally. Panelo, Esperon, et al. may tried their "best" to dismiss that "presidential rant" while Duterte's self-proclaimed "radicals", mostly ex-activists" would claim that their idol president as doing his "nationalist" task despite its obvious reason.
Yet, despite these statements would say that Duterte et al. would end worrying that with the Magnitsky act being enforced and thus includes Dela Rosa in the list of officials to be barred by the United States, it is no wonder that the megalomaniac known by fans as "Tatay Digong" is antagonised and irked. With this, it also corresponds to the growing infamy of the administration in general.
It is also to think that the U.S. Government is known to withdraw support from its puppets when the latter becomes irrevocably unpopular from the people. It is unsurprising, for with all the existing actions brought about by Duterte and his camarilla, and the growing movement against him, would say that the threat of an ouster would be likely- making Duterte lean further towards to China as an "ally" despite the latter's weaponisation of finance through various infrastructure projects in order to make Philippines fell into its debt trap.
Will Duterte and his apologists continue to pretend being "patriots" while continue being vassals to both the United States and China?
Still, country above all
Like any other statement, Duterte's outburst may consider rather as another item from his long list of irrationally-driven arbitrary orders that's given verbally. Panelo, Esperon, et al. may tried their "best" to dismiss that "presidential rant" while Duterte's self-proclaimed "radicals", mostly ex-activists" would claim that their idol president as doing his "nationalist" task despite its obvious reason.
Yet, despite these statements would say that Duterte et al. would end worrying that with the Magnitsky act being enforced and thus includes Dela Rosa in the list of officials to be barred by the United States, it is no wonder that the megalomaniac known by fans as "Tatay Digong" is antagonised and irked. With this, it also corresponds to the growing infamy of the administration in general.
It is also to think that the U.S. Government is known to withdraw support from its puppets when the latter becomes irrevocably unpopular from the people. It is unsurprising, for with all the existing actions brought about by Duterte and his camarilla, and the growing movement against him, would say that the threat of an ouster would be likely- making Duterte lean further towards to China as an "ally" despite the latter's weaponisation of finance through various infrastructure projects in order to make Philippines fell into its debt trap.
Will Duterte and his apologists continue to pretend being "patriots" while continue being vassals to both the United States and China?
***
Admittingly speaking, this writer opposes agreements which perpetuates vassalage that's well-hidden in its paraphrased verses. Be it the Mutual Defence Treaty, the Visiting Forces Agreement, or the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement, these agreements, despite its supposed goal of bolstering defences and promote cooperation, rather letting Americans decide instead of Filipinos is not a form of "partnership" but rather forcing Filipinos to become vassals according to the client's whims.
But, to use Dela Rosa's cancellation of his Visa, what more of the blacklist of his supporters in the government as its pretext? What a mockery of those who did really fought against it- especially to those who did protest in the streets against those agreements which continues this decades-old vassalage.