As was widely expected Duterte finally sent a notice of termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement. Despite his testimony before the Senate that terminating the VFA would "negatively impact the Philippines’ defense and security arrangements as well as the overall bilateral relations of the Philippines with the US", DFA Secretary Tocsin
signed the notice and handed it to his counterpart at the U.S. embassy without a word of protest.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. has signed the termination notice for the country’s Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States.
Locsin said the embassy’s deputy chief of mission already received the notice of termination, which will take effect after 180 days.
“As a diplomatic courtesy, there will be no further factual announcements following this self-explanatory development,” the foreign affairs chief said.
This comes less than a week after Locsin told a Senate hearing that abrogating the said military accord would “negatively impact” the overall relations of the Philippines and the US.
The reactions across the board have been as expected. Duterte's allies such as Bong Go and Bato as well has his men in the cabinet have all deferred to him saying that it is the prerogative of the president to be "the chief architect of Philippine foreign policy." Senate president Sotto says they will be filing a petition in the Supreme Court contesting Duterte's unilateral decision to terminate the VFA.
Senate leaders are planning to question before the Supreme Court next week the country’s abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States without the concurrence of the upper chamber.
Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said they would probably file a petition for mandamus and another petition for certiorari.
“The forthcoming (petitions), if ever, will depend on who else will join. At the moment, I, Frank, Dick, and Ping are interested,” Sotto said in a text message on Thursday, referring to Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, Senators Richard Gordon and Panfilo Lacson.
Sotto first revealed this plan in an interview on DZMM, citing studies, which he said showed that the withdrawal of any treaty or agreement should have the concurrence of the Senate in accordance with its own rules and as provided for in the Constitution.
(Apparently, it appears to us now after the studies that I will probably review later that we will file a new petition concerning VFA to find out the Supreme Court’s reading on this abrogation)
(If this needs the concurrence of the Senate or not, once and for all. But our position based on our study of our rules, it appears that this needs our concurrence)
(As far as we’re concerned based on the Constitution, it says that this should go through the Senate)
This case will be very reminiscent of the petitions that were filed to contest the extension of martial law in 2018. If you remember the petitioners claimed that the constitution allowed the president to extend martial law only once and that for 6 months. What the Supreme Court ruled is that it is the president's prerogative to extend marital law for as long as he deems necessary and as long as the Congress concurs. Indefinite martial law via extension.
This case will set much the same precedent as it has not been determined yet if the president is allowed to unilaterally terminate agreements. In 2018 petitions contesting the withdrawal from the ICC were submitted before the Supreme Court for this very reason.
The petitioners asked the SC to declare the executive branch’s withdrawal as “invalid or ineffective” due to lack of concurrence from at least two-thirds of the members of the Senate.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/03/12/1900855/icc-exit-take-effect-sans-supreme-court-ruling-petitions
Whichever way the court rules it will once again be setting precedent. Hopefully they will rule soon and before the 180 days when the VFA termination will go into effect.
Reaction from the AFP has also been as expected.
“Since we have sent the notice, those ongoing activities will push through unless discontinued. Others will not be implemented anymore,” Santos said upon questioning of Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri.
“On the training, we are not the only one gaining but the US troops also,” he added.
The AFP chief also said the VFA termination will also affect their rescue capability.
“It will affect our rescue operations definitely. But we have already presented to the Defense secretary our way forward on how to fill the gap,” he said when asked by Senator Francis Tolentino.
Santos said that to fill the gap, they are planning to expand bilateral relations with other countries such as South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and other allies.
“Part of filling the gap is we will increase our bilateral exercises agreement with other countries not only USA. As of now, the only SOVFA (Status of Visiting Forces Agreement) we have is Australia. With the help of Congress, we will push for the approval of the SOFVA of other countries like South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, and other allied countries,” he said.
Maybe AFP Chief Santos didn't hear but the Palace has said "no" to any other military agreements with foreign nations.
"As far as the President is concerned we will not rely anymore on any foreign country for our defenses. We will have to strengthen our own resources," Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo told ANC's Early Edition.
"The President feels that it is about time that we stand on our own. We have to strengthen our own defenses against enemies of the state and this is the time for it. We should’ve abolished this agreement a long time ago."
There is "no reason," however, to scrap the country's existing VFA with Australia, he added.
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/02/13/20/ph-wont-seek-military-pacts-with-other-nations-palace
While Duterte may think the VFA should have been abolished long ago some senior officers disagree entirely.
“We don’t like the termination, of course,” one senior military officer told Rappler when asked about the sentiment within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
“It’s disadvantageous to us,” another officer – a general – told defense reporters in a message.
Without the VFA, the Philippine and US militaries would “lose the capacity to exercise meaningfully” because US troops would then be subjected to regular immigration processes such as securing visas if they were to stay in the Philippines for more than 21 days, the general said.
Scrapping the VFA would also entail the pullout of US troops stationed in parts of Mindanao, where they assist the AFP in intelligence gathering and surveillance in counterterrorism.
“They would have to be pulled out because without the VFA, their stay wouldn’t be covered,” the general said.
It would also put to waste effective protocols learned over the years, the general added, such as those from the 2017 battle for the city of Marawi, which was retaken from the Maute terrorist group after a 5-month siege. Intelligence sharing and tactical consultations with US forces helped the AFP eliminate the terrorist leaders and regain control of the city.
There would be disadvantages to the US, too. Losing military presence in the Philippines would leave a “central hole” in the US’ strategic cover in the Asia Pacific, because the Philippine archipelago straddles the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
One observer says the termination of the VFA will have a "shattering impact" on the security of Southeast Asia.
“ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) members publicly and privately count on a US military presence to counter-balance China. The termination of VFA would lead to a marked reduction in US military presence, especially in the South China-West Philippine Sea,” Prof. Carlyle Thayer, defense force lecturer at Australia University of New South Wales, told reporters on the sidelines of the Singapore Airshow recently.
He also said the scrapping of the defense arrangement would have a knock-on effect on the professionalism of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and on its interoperability with American forces.
The VFA allowed the deployment of US forces in the Philippines on rotation basis. In return, Filipino military officers were sent to the US for professional military education and training.
“Any rupture in Philippines-US relations would also undermine ASEAN unity and ASEAN’s centrality in the region’s security architecture,” Thayer said.
US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper called scrapping the VFA a move in the wrong direction.
“I do think it would be a move in the wrong direction as we both, bilaterally with the Philippines and collectively with a number of other partners and allies in the region, are trying to say to the Chinese: ‘You must obey the international rules of order. You must obey, you know. Abide by international norms,’” Esper said.
He added: “I think it’s a move in the wrong direction for the long-standing relationship we’ve had with the Philippines, for their strategic location, the ties between our peoples, our countries.”
One the other hand President Trump, ever the businessman, had a very practical take on Duterte's decision to terminate the VFA.
“I don’t really mind if they would like to do that, it will save a lot of money,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. “My views are different from others.”
He said he had “a very good” relationship with Mr. Duterte. “We’ll see what happens.”
"We'll see what happens." Indeed. 180 days will be mid-July which is time enough for anything to happen. But given Duterte's determination to not save the VFA it will likely be the Supreme Court who will stop it's termination if they rule in favour of the Senate.
If the VFA is not salvaged before the clock runs out it could be that the most recent quarterly report of Operation Pacific Eagle is the penultimate one.
 |
|
|
This quarter, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-East Asia (ISIS-EA) did not appear to demonstrate any changes in its strength, tactics, capabilities, or leadership structure in the Philippines,according to information provided by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM). ISIS-EA remained confined to areas in the southern Philippines where it has historically operated and retains popular support.
U.S. military support to the AFP this quarter consisted primarily of advise and assist operations and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support. USINDOPACOM stated that this support led to the neutralization of two “significant [ISIS-EA] targets” this quarter. U.S. military contractors also provided casualty evacuation support to Philippine troops wounded fighting ISIS-EA in the remote, mountainous regions of the Sulu archipelago.
USINDOPACOM reported to the DoD OIG its assessment that the recent increase in suicide bombings does not represent a major trend in the Philippines, and foreign ghters are not a signi cant presence. A senior Department of State (DoS) official stated publicly this quarter that while Southeast Asia is not currently a major destination for ISIS affiliates, there is a risk it could become one without sustained efforts from the United States and regional partners.
According to a DoS cable, the Philippine government’s extended delays in providing for the reconstruction of Marawi city has allowed violent extremist organizations (VEO) to regain a foothold in the area. Corruption scandals have also plagued the reconstruction efforts, according to the cable, which contributes to public perceptions that politically connected government contractors were benefitting at the expense of Marawi’s displaced residents andadds fuel to existing anti-government sentiments in the region.
That is all from the introduction of this report. The US lists the type of help they provided to the AFP. They also warn that without "sustained efforts from the United States and regional partners" the Philippines "risks becoming a major deistic for ISIS affiliates."
Will the Philippines become a major center of terrorism when the VFA expires? Will the VFA be salvaged before the time is up? As Donald Trump said, "We'll see what happens."
No comments:
Post a Comment