Repeated confrontations in the West Philippine Sea, where Chinese coast guard vessels use water cannons against Filipino fishermen, have sparked intense national debate. The Philippine government's standard response—filing diplomatic protests and invoking the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—is seen by many as ineffective, with China routinely ignoring these actions. This pattern raises a critical question about the nation's strategic posture and its key alliances.
The Stalled Shield: The 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty Review
A pivotal element in this geopolitical puzzle is the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States. Years ago, an announcement was made regarding a review of this cornerstone defense pact, which obligates the US to respond to armed attacks on Philippine forces. However, the outcome of this promised review remains unclear. Foreign relations experts and some senators have pointed out that foreign affairs power is shared with the Senate, suggesting they should have been involved in the process. The question lingers: "Nagkaroon ba? Search me," as the original commentary noted.
Analysts often trace the current dynamic to the administration of former President Rodrigo Duterte. His presidency marked a pronounced foreign policy pivot towards the People's Republic of China. Duterte's famously critical stance towards the US—labeling it "domineering and imperialistic" and highlighting the one-sided nature of the relationship—contrasted with the historical alliance. He pointed to visa inequities, where Americans can enter the Philippines visa-free while Filipinos face rigorous and often unsuccessful application processes at the US embassy, a scene still visible along Roxas Boulevard today.
Re-examining the "Special Relationship" with America
The commentary urges a deeper analysis of the Philippine-US relationship, revealing potentially disturbing imbalances. Despite being a long-standing ally and host to five major US military facilities for extended periods, the trade and economic favors granted to the Philippines are described as a "pittance" compared to other nations. The argument posits that Washington primarily watches over its own special interests, often at the expense of Philippine sovereignty, and "gets away with it."
Historical precedents are cited, referencing past presidents like Manuel Roxas, Ramon Magsaysay, and Ferdinand Marcos, who are characterized as having been subservient "accomplices" to directives from the White House and Pentagon, only to be disposed of when their utility ended. This critical view challenges the romanticized notion of the US as the "land of milk and honey," especially under administrations perceived as hostile to immigrants, like that of former President Donald Trump.
A Call for Strategic Clarity
The core issue transcends individual administrations. The repeated use of water cannons against fishermen symbolizes a broader test of national resolve and the effectiveness of its international partnerships. The apparent stall in reviewing the Mutual Defense Treaty leaves a cloud of uncertainty over the US's commitment level in the face of gray-zone tactics in the West Philippine Sea.
The situation demands a coherent, strategic response that moves beyond cyclical diplomatic protests. It requires a clear-sighted evaluation of all alliances, ensuring they deliver tangible, mutual benefits and unequivocal support for Philippine sovereign rights. The fundamental question, "Are we that helpless?" resonates, pushing for a foreign policy that is assertive, independent, and ultimately successful in protecting the nation's interests and its people at sea.
