There was a collective expression of disappointment among many Filipinos and the media because Barack Obama “gave no categorical commitment” that America would “defend” the Philippines if its dispute with China “escalates into an armed confrontation.”
They had hoped that Obama would be as clear in his position on the Philippines-China dispute as he was in Tokyo when he stated, “Our commitment to Japan’s security is absolute and Article 5 [of the security treaty] covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands.”
The harsh reality is that there is no comparison. The fact is that the U.S. has no choice but to be militarily involved in a shooting war between Japan and China. This is because Japan has the capability to strike back and ignite a major global conflagration that diplomacy cannot immediately contain.
In contrast, a lightning raid by the Chinese on the areas the Philippines is claiming in the West Philippine Sea would be similar to the fait accompli that Russia pulled off in the Crimean Peninsula. The U.S. will not risk escalating the conflict, with Russian forces already in place, and has to resort to sanctions. That would be as much as the Philippines can expect from the U.S. once the Chinese resort to santong paspasan (use of force).
In the joint press conference attended by both Obama and Noynoy Aquino, the media asked a very direct question: “How did the United States reassure the Philippines that the U.S. is genuinely committed to countering an increasingly assertive China in the region? Will the U.S. defend the Philippines in case the territorial dispute with China in the West Philippine Sea or the South China Sea becomes an armed conflict?”
Obama skirted the question with his reply: ‘…our goal is not to counter China. Our goal is not to contain China. Our goal is to make sure that international rules and norms are respected, and that includes in the area of maritime disputes.”
Obama added: “…our primary interest is the peaceful resolution of conflict, the freedom of navigation that allows for continued progress and prosperity. And we don’t even take a specific position on the disputes between nations…. But as a matter of international law and international norms, we don’t think that coercion and intimidation is the way to manage these disputes.”
Obama did give an idea of what the U.S. has been willing to do so far in helping the Philippines: “We’ve had decades of alliance with the Philippines, but obviously in the 21st century we have to continue to update that. And the goal for this agreement is to build Philippine capacity, to engage in training, to engage in coordination — not simply to deal with issues of maritime security, but also to enhance our capabilities so that….we’re able to potentially respond more quickly; if there are additional threats that may arise.”
And how will the United States act in case of “additional threats”? His response to criticism of his foreign policy, specifically with respect to Syria and the Ukraine, should provide us with some clues.
If “Syria” and “Ukraine” were to be substituted with “Philippines,”this is what Obama would have said:
“Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question I think I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?
“My job as Commander-in-Chief is to deploy military force as a last resort, and to deploy it wisely. And, frankly, most of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people had no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests.
“So if you look at (the Philippines), for example, our interest is in helping the (Filipino) people, but nobody suggests that us being involved in a…war in (the South China Sea) would necessarily accomplish this goal. And I would note that those who criticize our foreign policy with respect to (the Philippines), they themselves say, no, no, no, we don’t mean sending in troops. Well, what do you mean? Well, you should be assisting the (Filipinos) — well, we’re assisting the (Filipinos). What else do you mean? Well, perhaps you should have taken a strike in (China) to get (Chinese ships) out of (the South China Sea). Well, it turns out we’re (negotiating with China) without having initiated a strike. So what else are you talking about?
And Obama would have added: “In (Asia), what we’ve done is mobilize the international community. (China could be) isolated. And (if China were to) engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world. And (we are) able to mobilize the international community to not only put diplomatic pressure on (China) but also…to organize (East and Southeast Asian) countries…in applying sanctions to (China)… Well, what else should we be doing? Well, we shouldn’t be putting troops in, the critics will say. That’s not what we mean. Well, okay, what are you saying? Well, we should be arming the (Philippines) more. Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into (the Philippines) could potentially deter the (Chinese) army? Or are we more likely to deter them by applying the sort of international pressure, diplomatic pressure and economic pressure that we’re applying?”
And Obama would conclude: “The point is that for some reason many who were proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again. Why? I don’t know. But my job as Commander-in-Chief is to look at what is it that is going to advance our security interests over the long term, to keep our military in reserve for where we absolutely need it. There are going to be times where there are disasters and difficulties and challenges all around the world, and not all of those are going to be immediately solvable by us.
“But we can continue to speak out clearly about what we believe. Where we can make a difference using all the tools we’ve got in the toolkit, well, we should do so. And if there are occasions where targeted, clear actions can be taken that would make a difference, then we should take them. We don’t do them because somebody sitting in an office in Washington or New York thinks it would look strong. That’s not how we make foreign policy. And if you look at the results of what we’ve done over the last five years, it is fair to say that our alliances are stronger, our partnerships are stronger, and in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one example, we are much better positioned to work with the peoples here on a whole range of issues of mutual interest.
“And that may not always be sexy. That may not always attract a lot of attention, and it doesn’t make for good argument on Sunday morning shows. But it avoids errors. You hit singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run. But we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnership with folks around the world.”
In sum, on his visit to Manila, Obama has played his cards close to his chest, allowing China, the Philippines and the rest of Asia enough clues to speculate on but not enough to pin him down.
In contrast, Aquino made a remark that could serve as a rationale for the U.S. not to get militarily involved, in case China suddenly stages a blitzkrieg in the West Philippine Sea.
Said Aquino: “We have tried to work on that particular premise of building .up our ties (with China) on different aspects where there is no conflict or very little conflict…. That I think has to be the primordial concern, rather than disputes on a few rocks that are not possible to be inhabited.”
Can you imagine the president of the United States justifying to the U.S. Congress and the American people going to war with China over “a few rocks that are not possible to be inhabited”?
Did Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario read that part of our president’s remarks?
([email protected])
