THE Aquino administration has taken some comfort in the fact that the United States is pushing China by asserting its right to travel in and near areas claimed by the Chinese. However, a study by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) in November 2014 may have been ignored or is unknown to our government. This report, “The South China Sea: Assessing US Policy and Options for the Future,” has never been mentioned by either the administration or by the local press or media.
The CNA, established in 1942, is a US government-funded think tank providing research and analysis for decision-makers on matters related to the oceans and naval operations. While the report does “not necessarily reflect the views of the CNA or the Department of the Navy,” this is what is being read by Washington, D.C., policy-makers. The analysis and its conclusions are disturbing.
Regarding the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty, “If China were to attack a Philippine naval vessel, shoot down a Philippine military aircraft, or kill or wound members of the Philippine armed forces, treaty language related to attacks suggests that the treaty would apply.” Using the word “suggests” clearly implies that it would be up to the US to decide whether a Chinese attack on Philippine military assets would justify US involvement. That is not comforting.
Further, the report states this regarding the territorial claims. “The claims of the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei to islands or rocks in the Spratly Islands are not as strong as the claims of either China or Vietnam.” Further, “the State Department should conduct a legal analysis of the Philippine claims. If this analysis reaches the same conclusions as the analysis prepared for this project, Manila should be quietly informed of Washington’s opinion of its claims, particularly in the Spratlys.” That is not comforting either.
But the Philippine government has taken the territorial issue to international arbitration. On this, the report states, “US officials have publicly supported the Philippines’s request for arbitration, but if the tribunal rules that it does not have jurisdiction, it will be a major setback to hopes that international law can be the basis for shaping the behavior of parties involved in the South China Sea disputes.”
The Department of Foreign Affairs, to the best of our knowledge, has never said that the International Permanent Court of Arbitration might not even hear the case. What is the government’s “Plan B” if the dispute does not go to arbitration?
The report is 100 pages long and supports some of the Philippine claims, including the Reed Bank, the Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal and the Mischief Reef. But it also says, “From its perspective, China resolved the sovereignty dispute with the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal in 2012, when it established control over the shoal. The US is not going to become involved in any attempt to expel the Chinese.”
The issue is obviously complicated and the Philippine government is taking the actions it thinks are appropriate. But are expectations of success too high and, more important, is the government being transparent about the details?
Image credits: Jimbo Albano
3 comments
traitors and weaklings everywhere
traitors and weaklings everywhere
It appears that the Philippines is on its own and in this it should rapidly prepare for possible hostilities while doing its best to resolve things by diplomacy. Preparing for hostilities should be done as soon as possible and military preparation should focus on a strategy where we can inflict damage to the maximum on China’s air and sea force. Only those who are willing to fight effectively will have leverage on negotiations.