‘ign and des VI CRIT PH IT I TEN AND SECURITY POLICIES es ee u- oD ee Ze mY a2 O Originally delivered asa lecture at the Claro M. Recto Hall, Faculty Cen- ter, University of the Philippines, Diliman, on the occasion of the birth- day anniversary of the late Senator Claro M. Recto. Feb. 13, 2006 DD trys it tinected AN OVERVIEW OF PHILIPPINE FOREIGN POLICY | igh fe ap 4 oreign policy is the most powerful instrument for a govern- or tpn ment determined to develop and secure its territory. Especially tre ¢ @~ at this juncture of our history, both our internal and external poli- wey cies should just have one, unified objective: to reclaim full Philip- 4 prsod- pine control of its natural and human resources, finances, econom- “+? ic activities, state, etc. so that we, as Filipinos, can determine our path to development that shall benefit the greatest number of our people. Foreign policy should be an instrument for national devel- opment and self-determination, not as a means for subservi- ence. For a long time already, many Philippine administrations bowed to the impositions cf the advocates of imperialism and swallowed the sugar-coated poison of the International Mon- etary Fund-World Bank (IMF-WB) duo which wreaked havoc to our national economy and has only brought further inequality 73FORGING A /:/>SONALIST FOREIGN POLICY and poverty to this country. The foundation for an independent foreign policy is, in fact, enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Con- stitution, and is rightly, founded on the principles of peace, self- determination, absence of foreign intervention, demilitariza- tion and denuclearization. The 1987 Constitution is clear about our foreign policy. The gen- eral direction of our foreign policy is stated in Article II, Sections 2, 7,8 and 19: “Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the gener- ally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.” “Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sover- eignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.” “Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the na- tional interest, adopts and pursues a policy of free- dom from nuclear weapons in its territory. “ “Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively con- trolled by Filipinos.” The Constitution guarantees the role of Congress and transpar- ency in the process of making treaties, as is stated in Article VII, Sec- tion 21: “No treaty or international agreement shall be val- id and effective unless concurred in by at least two- thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” 74CRITICAL ISS%CS IN PHILIPPINE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES In the Transitory Provisions of Article XVIII, Sec.25, it says that: “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement be- tween the Republic of the Philippines and the Unit- ed States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Con- gress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.” We also have provisions about economic nationalism: and diplo- macy. In Article XII, on national economy and patrimony: “Section I. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the na- tion for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.” “Section 12. The State shall promote the preferen- tial use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and Qocally produced goods,.and adopt measures that help make them competitive.” Bgutralty i in Geuitent in referers a) ink) more ee ervomay “Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.” While many provisions about freedom and nationalism are still etched and in effect found in the 1987 Constitution, there have been several attempts to revise or to erase them altogether by the propo- nents of charter change (Cha Cha). The proposal to change the Consti- tution is an attempt to remove the pro-Filipino and pro-sovereignty 75FORGING A *=TYONALIST FOREIGN POLICY provisions to hew them with the neo-liberal economic globalization policies of the ‘global constitution’, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). It is also to tailor these constitutional provisions to the ‘global cop’ role of the United States (U.S.) armed forces. Because of the nationalist and sovereign provisions of the Con- stitution, it is but right for us Filipinos — as a patriotic duty - to resist any attempt of deleting and replacing them with pro-militarization and pro-foreign provisions. We have to promote the provisions in the Con- stitution that are for peace, for an economy controlled by Filipinos, for freedom and for justice. The country’s foreign policy has to be guided by a clear cut framework designed to ensure that it promotes and creates jobs, business and local industries. As such, we can ascertain the role of foreign capital, credit and foreign aid, including our alliance with other nations, big or small. Economic diplomacy should also be directed on how to balance trade relations based on mutuality. INTERNATIONAL LOAN AGREEMENTS Foreign loan agreements are really for huge projects that impact so heavily on the national budget which greatly reduces the alloca- tions for basic social services. And the people are already burdened with so many direct and indirect taxes which do not go back to them in the form of services especially to the poor and marginalized. This brings us to a more fundamental question: why should in- ternational loan agreements, especially those affecting the economy and natural resources, be exempted from the Philippine Senate's legislative ratification as treaties or international agreements? Why should we not subject these negotiations on international loan agree- ments to public scrutiny and evaluation? We will all eventually pay for these loans for decades so that even the presently unborn will also be made to shoulder the burden of payment. One way to prevent secret deals on large scale foreign loan proj- ects is to treat all these as international agreements under the 1987 Constitution. The Constitution provides, “ No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” (Art. VII, Sec. 21). Obvi- ously, in letter and spirit, these are referring to agreements with for- eign governments. Subjecting all public investment projects financed thru loan agreements and negotiated by the government with oth- er states and multilateral financial agencies, to Senate ratification 76CRITICAL I¢ 7S IN PHILIPPINE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES ‘te would be a most ideal situation. For these form the greater bulk of our foreign indebtedness for projects that we hardly even know of or benefit from. There should be no more secret negotiations for foreign loans that only contribute to our nation’s impoverishment and underdevel- opment. For as far as we can remember, they are not even subjected anymore to congressional and public scrutiny. In some Latin Ameri- can countries, they do not even allow foreign loan negotiations to be handled by unaccountable finance officials or technocrats who are only dreaming of eventually joining the WB or IMF as economists. In some progressive Latin American countries today, foreign loan nego- tiators include leaders from trade unions, peasant organizations and consumer groups. WHOSE GLOBAL SECURITY? Philippine foreign policy continues to anchor itself and look at global issues such as terrorism and national security through the lens and prism of the U.S. Thus, for the country to establish an alternative foreign policy that creates deeper and just Philippines-U.S. ties, this kind of relationship must be changed, if not restructured towards a mutual and reciprocal relations. Our country’s foreign policy should coexist with changing glob- al alliances. The end of the Cold War as well as the emergence and grouping of developed and progressive Latin American countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and others, have opened up sig- nificant possibilities for developing nations to push for greater and Deru" freer foreign relations alternatives and thrusts. The perspective on Mi" security should be that of determining our potential allies and adver- saries or conflict areas in the regional environment based on our own national interest. For so long, we have determined our foreign policy based on a knee jerk reaction anchored on historical and traditional stereotyped confrontations determined by the big powers. To develop relevant and beneficial relations that promote national empowerment, the Philippines has to review its relations with the U.S., China, Japan, the European Union, the Middle East, and the role it plays in Associa- tion of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia as a whole. We should also assess our membership in international government or- ganizations, even our ties with private international organizations. 77FORGING A gronnust FOREIGN POLICY ‘The deployment of an estimated 8 million overseas Filipino workers in almost all continents should now to be factored as. Part of our se- curity and foreign policy considerations. National strategic interest in the spheres of politics and security. need not be divorced from economic goals. Thus, national trade and development should be hinged on product, trade and market differ- entiation. For the national interest, the government should ensure that there exists economic cooperation, foreign aid and investment, and overcorae traditional partnerships. It has to formulate sound measures to keep away from the shadows of the U.S. where we are continuously abused and used as a pawn for its global politics. We should look for alternatives which would better benefit our national interest, including South-South understanding and trade, business and technological relations. For now, it is important that the country understands and for- mulates practical measures relative to the effects of economic glo- balization under the regime of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO), including the emergence of the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and other regional economic organizations. These changes and international developments have vital economic and political implications for the Philippines. THE VISITING FORCES AGREEMENT (VFA) ‘The return of foreign troops in our shores through the forging of. new anomalous security agreements are clear obstacles to our desire of pushing for an independent Philippine foreign policy. The VEA is the most anomalous aspect of our present day foreign policy. The rape of a Filipina by four U.S. soldiers and the refusal of the U.S. govern- ment to turn over the uniformed criminals to Philippine custody only prod us to rethink the VFA. Likewise, we should review the economic, security, and environmental implications brought about by the return of U.S. troops and their activities in the country. The VFA and the is- sues it has spawned, has brought about this re-thinking. SURRENDERING CUSTODY When the Philippine government signed the VBA, it willingly surrendered our absolute right to have custody on those U.S. soldiers who commit crimes on our soil. Look at how useless our courts and 78CRITICAL ISy 4.5 IN PHILIPPINE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES laws have become in enforcing custody over foreign criminals even in our own land. When the RP-U.S. Military Bases Treaty was still in force, U.S. military officers used the agreement as a sanctuary for err- ing American soldiers stationed in the Philippines. Thus from 1947 to 1991, in the more than 3,000 cases reportedly committed by U.S. troops in our country, not one reached the courts, to be tried and decided upon. Under Article 5 of the VFA, erring U.S. soldiers shall be put under the custody and authority of the U.S. and therefore, Philip- pine laws shall have no effect whatsoever upon the case even if the crime is committed anywhere inside Philippine territory. Article 2 of the VEA excludes U.S. military and civilian personnel from the usual passport and visa regulations. This privilege that is ex- tended to U.S. citizens in the armed services is not given reciprocally to Philippine personnel and troops visiting the U.S. Even foreign dip- lomats entering the Philippines do not enjoy this privilege. Then why would U.S. military and civilian personnel (i.e. Central Intelligence Agency or U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency) under the U.S. Depart- ment of Defense be extended this kind of special treatment? Article 3 of the VFA says that the commanding officers of U.S. warplanes and warships shall be the ones to inspect their crafts and their own cargo when entering into Philippine territory. They will conduct their own customs inspection for short. It is a travesty of our national sovereignty that the armed foreign visitors themselves con- duct the inspection of their own incoming crafts and cargoes! This also is true for health inspections and quarantine procedures which the visiting military forces will conduct themselves. LACK OF CONCURRING RATIFICATION IN THE U.S. SENATE To allow foreign troops into our soil, the Philippine constitution clear- ly states that this requires a treaty. Such treaty should be concurred in by at least 2/3 of the members of the Upper House or Senate, and also ratified by the other state entering into the agreement. Since the Con- stitution demands that the treaty be ratified also by the other con- tracting state, in this case the U.S. Senate, the failure to do so reduces the agreement to a mere ‘executive agreement’, devoid of the force of a full-fledged treaty set forth by the Constitution. The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philip- pines declares that the U.S. Senate does not ratify treaties employed by the two countries. This is simply wrong. The Treaty of Paris of 79FORGING A WAY gpALIST FOREIGN POLICY 1899 between the U.S. and Spain was signed and formally ratified by the U.S. Senate. In 1976, the U.S. - Spanish bases treaty was formally ratified by the U.S. Senate asa bilateral ty. Doesn't the U.S. recog- ze the Phili S as a co-equal in forging treaties? >. It is also s. at the U.S. has 78 other Status of Forces Agree- ents (SOFA) countries, supposedly similar to the VFA. There is no tru . Almost all countries with SOFAs still host U.S. military base facilities. Most SOFAs are being implemented only thin base fac’ Thile the facilities of the North Atlantic Trea- ty Organization/U.S. or Japan/U.S. are covered by SOFAs, the host country never re hes territory through the granting of extra- territoriality especially outside the U.S. bases or facilities. It is only in our case where a SOFA exists sans U.S. bases or facilities but where the host allows its entire territory to be covered by the agreement for the special treatment granted to foreign troops. The VEA was crafted in such a way where the U.S. shall still have r to that of the abrogated RP-U.S. Military Bases herein the SOFA provisions were stipulated. But enate in 1991, nowhere in the VFA does it say that the U.S. has the 1 ire archipelago. However, this cir ented the Senate by to allow the return and deploy- i forces and facilities. rt Agreement (MLSA) was formally signed by lower ranking officials of the armed forces of the U.S. and the Ph nes to allow for the installation of U.S. logistical fa- cilities (communications and surveillance equipment) on our territory. NILSA was released to make it appear that it is a mere executive agree- nt that is im: enting provisions of the RP-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). Should its constitutionality be questioned, the VFA will be declared as a continuation of the MDT of 1951 and shall be treated as 3 mere implementing order for the said treaty. t of extra-ter: GRANTING THE U.S. UNHAMPERED FREEDOM OVER PHILIPPINE SOIL The VFA grants the U.S. an open-ended and unhampered freedom ts armed forces’ activities because the agreement doesn't specify the duration of stay and the number of U.S. troops that shall be al- 80cRITICAL 1S5ty gh PHILIPPINE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES lowed to conduct equally uriclear activities on Philippine soil. The VFA gives the U.S. the flexibility and interpretation of conducting unspeci- fied ‘activities’ on Philippine territory. That is why we are now wit nessing the proliferation of U.S. armed forces personnel -in uniform and without uniform - in almost every island of the country. ‘The agreement does not specify the maximum number of Ameri- can soldiers allowed to enter the Philippines. It doesn’t prescribe too, the duration by which they will be allowed to stay in the country. It is thus quite clear that the VFA enables them to enter and have ac- cess to any part of the Philippines over an indefinite period of time conducting undisclosed ‘activities’. The U.S. Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTE-P) composed of between 300-500 U.S. Operations Forces from the U.S. Seals and Rangers, etc. have perma- nently set up off-limits facilities inside camps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). They roam the camps of our armed forces di- recting the counter-insurgency and so-called counter-terrorism cam- paign, from the General Head Quarters (GHQ) at Camp Aguinaldo to the frontlines of Philippine Army brigades in Sulu, Basilan and Zam- boanga. They also regularly advise the Philippine Army units undergo- ing training at Laur, Nueva Ecija and other parts of the country. In its Article 8, the VFA agreement is silent about how the U.S. armed forces might operate its warships and warplanes in the coun- try. It doesn’t specify where or how far will its armed forces have ac- cess to Philippine territory. Opening Philippine territory to unregu- lated foreign troops activities and unlimited access is dangerous, a threat to our national security at the very least. Article 9 on the “Duration and Termination “states that the agreement has an indefinite termination date, and therefore allows for practically the perpetuity of the agreement. Article I of the VFA describes U.S. armed forces personnel as U.S. soldiers and civilians temporarily stationed in the Philippines who perform any and all “activities” that the Philippine government shall approve. But, what are these activities, if they are never specified? HOW THE VFA AFFECTS THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE PHILIPPINES ‘The VEA does not protect Philippine national security; it imperils it. ‘The presence of U.S. troops in Philippine territory shows that the country is being used as a launching pad once again for U.S. military 81FORGING A VQoneust FOREIGN POLICY i intervention against other countries. Us. access via the VEA puts the Philippines back into the American military infrastructure as logisti- cal and training support to the frontline or forward deployed opera- tions of its naval and armed forces. The U.S. naval or port visits are not merely ‘goodwill visits’ or ‘to show the flag’. They support the continuing U.S. covert and overt operations and military missions here and abroad, by replenishing supplies, beefing up fleets or squad- rons, providing rest and recreation, stocking up on fuel, and under- taking repair - all to brandish military might and most importantly, to invite if not provoke war. We have also allowed them to install sur- veillance and spy facilities for regional surveillance especially in the island of Mindanao, with a full contingent of CIA/DIA and National Security Agency (NSA) personnel. This is in tandem with the more than 100 NSA/CIA personnel that they have allowed to be deployed in neighboring Brunei, in exchange for not pursuing the sexual ha- rassment complaint of a former Miss America against members of Brunei's royal family. The complications caused by the retaliation of re-emerging Pan- Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism as reaction to aggression and intervention of the U.S. in the Middle East is not supposed to be our concern. In fact, our sympathy as a member of the United Nations (UN) should be on the side of the Palestinian peoples whose territory has been unjustly occupied by Israeli Zionists who have carved through force, a nation for themselves. The Palestinian people have practically become refugees scattered in most neighboring Arab and even African countries where they have been dispersed in refugee camps. Presently, the U.S. is perceived as a bully state that occupies or bombs smaller nations according to its whims, and that which does not respect national boundaries and sovereignty of other nations just like what it did to Grenada, Panama, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now the threat to Iran. It brought upon itself the punishment of Sept.11, 2001 which the American writer Chalmers Johnson referred to as a ‘blowback’, an uncalled-for punishment to the provocative global policy of the United States. U.S. militarism and foreign policy abroad sow its own seeds of national insecurity. _ The fundamental and most serious issue now about the VFA is this: Despite being an anathema to our laws and Constitution, do we want the U.S. armed forces to use our territory as. launching pad of military intervention against other nations? This is what the U.S. did 82CRITICALE {VES IN PHILIPPINE FORETGN AND SECURITY POLrcrES more than 100 years ago after it stole Philippine independence and used our territory as a primary staging area for local and foreign in- tervention, Do we want to become a frontline base again that will strengthen the global system of U.S. intervention? Do we want our country to become a springboard that catapults the unilateral actions of the U.S. all over the world which trample upon the national sover- eignty of other friendly nations? Current events picture the precarious unilateral exercises of U.S. military troops as oriented toward ‘security’ and the ‘global war against terrorism’. The U.S. is posing as an international bully that picks on smaller nations by swaggering military might. The VFA once again ties the Philippines to U.S. strategic global intervention and its nuclear strategy. Under the VFA, the Philippines has become a ‘de facto’ sea and air training ground and service facility for U.S. war vessels used in carry- ing out military missions and objectives. The VFA brings back the role the Philippines played when the U.S. bases were still here - as accom- plice to the intervention and aggression of the U.S. armed forces in the ‘Asia-Pacific, Middle East, and elsewhere in the world. The VFA jeop- ardizes the legitimate interests of the Philippines in its relations with yy. other countries, particularly those that secure the services of millions"¢,5: of Filipino workers and trade with us. Such was the case of Iraq, which ~ had friendly and diplomatic ties with the Philippines, but this did not deter us from wholeheartedly supporting the U.S. invasion and occu- pation of that sovereign country. All these are outright contravention of the constitutional prohibition on the use of force and war as means of settling disputes. This is why the U.S. government and its support- ers are attempting to amend the 1987 Constitution. ‘This is why the VFA becomes a threat to national security and the people’s welfare. It is perilous because any country that plays host to the armed forces of the U.S., as a base or by providing them with military access, or even as country destination of for ‘rest and recre- ation’ of U.S. troops, may be entangled in U.S. armed interventions. We have to decide if we really want our territory to become part of the overseas support structure of a country that uses the name of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to justify invasion, war and occupation of the oil-rich resources of other countries. We also have to decide if we really want to violate our own poli- cies and laws - at the risk of damaging our dignity as a nation — to 83FORGING A NAINALIST FOREIGN POLICY allow the stockpiling of war material in our territory and to accom- modate the policy of the U.S. that breeds more wars and conflicts, It should also be noted that the U.S. government invites attacks against its own nationals abroad from those victimized by U.S. militarist pol- icies. When civilians - including women and children ~ are killed by so-called precision bombs, this is called “collateral damage in the war on terror.” With the VEA, we ar iting retribution and punishment from the increasing number of enemies of the U.S. abroad. - Ghia!!! CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS The VFA has also pried open our sea ports and airports for U.S. naval, armed and air forces. While the U.S. criticizes the nuclear capa- bilities of other countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. its own nuclear arms remain as a vital component of its modern naval fleets. It also has kept quiet on the nuclear weapons developed by U.S. allies like Is- rael and Pakistan which it in fact assisted for developing this capabil- ity. This is the reason why the U.S. continues to ‘neither confirm nor deny’ the presence of nuclear arms in its warships or vessels. It is obviously practicing double standards to demand from other countries to declare their nuclear capability while refusing to declare its own. The VFA continues to ignore the Philippine constitutional policy prohibiting nuclear arms. Because the Philippines — internally or exter- nally — adheres to and promotes a constitutional policy banning the en- try of nuclear arms in its territory, the provisions in the VFA should also be clear on its adherence to the constitutional ban on nuclear arms. It should be declared iliegal when the U.S. or other armed. foreign warships or planes bring into Philippine territory nuclear arms or any nuclear component, whether only for transit, port calls, servicing, or unloading. Any visiting armed sea vessel should attest or declare that it is not loaded with nuclear weapons, the way we require foreign ships to declare that they are not carrying narcotics or contraband prohibited by our national laws. This provision has long been proposed for insertion in the VFA, but we cannot expect that this will be implemented in a treaty that in fact was forged to exempt the U.S, armed forces from the laws of our land. How, may we ask, is the Philippine government enforcing this censtitutional ban on nuclear weapons in situations pertaining to entry of foreign warships, and how is the U.S. respecting this? The Philippines should always adhere to the state policy of free- dom from nuclear arms and the principles of nuclear disarmament. 84CRITICAL Tf quis IN PHILIPPINE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES which we continue to support in UN agreements and international conference. We signed with the rest of the ASEAN the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty on Dec. 14, 1995 that was put into force beginning March 26, 1997. A. few years ago, the Philippine government significantly con- tributed to the favorable declamatory judgment from the World Court International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands, which stated that, “the use and the threat to use nuclear arms is a crime against humanity.” Our country should continue to abide by the international agreements prohibiting nuclear arms, especially in relating with countries with nuclear weapons like the U.S., which still has a nuclear arsenal of more than 10,000 nuclear warheads and new-generation nuclear weapons, including the radioactive uranium- depleted ammunition it used in its war and invasion against Iraq. ‘he issue of ‘human security’, oftentimes neglected in assessing security issues, should be taken up. Our experience with U.S. military presence shows that not only does it damage local economies like a drug addict that becomes dependent on foreign troops; it also poses athreat to our women and children. ‘Rest and recreational activities’, or military prostitution to boost the so-called U.S. troops morale, only worsen the sexual exploitation of our women and children. The image of our women and children resulting from this exploitation is imprinted on the faces of thousands of fatherless Amerasian chil- dren, and in the thriving sex industry that caters to U.S. troops on furlough during their so-called ‘rest and recreation’ or R & R. The number of our women and children who will again be victimized by the sexual plunder of the members of the U.S. armed forces shall con- tinue to increase. The Subic rape case is but a common tale in places like Okinawa, Japan where women and children of Okinawa are regu- larly victimized by the sexual violence of U.S. Marines. WHAT MODERNIZATION OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES? ‘As for the modernization of the AFP, after more than 50 years of U.S.-Philippine military ‘partnership’, what is the current state of defense capability of the country? Instead of catalyzing moderniza- tion, the close partnership has in fact stunted the development of our armed forces by making it overly dependent intentionally or uninten- tionally, on the U.S. armed forces. 85yr FORGING A NA"4~ 4ALIST FOREIGN POLICY ~ pid the RP-U.S. MDT of 1951, or the defunct 1947 MBA for that matter, buttress our claim to Sabah against the occupying Malay- sians? Never did the military agreements imposed on us by the U.S. aim to develop the capability of the Philippines for external defense and the creation of a truly independent and modern defense estab- lishment. The Philippine defense establishment should learn from these lessons and be able to formulate a genuine defense policy based on our capabilities. When will we ever learn? Will we continue to harbor the illusion of ‘security’ at such a high political, social, legal, economic and envi- ronmental price? The granting of blanket extra-territoriality to the armed forces of the U.S. over the entire archipelago is tantamount to surrendering our jurisdiction and national dignity for nothing. THE VFA AND THE ENVIRONMENT There is no provision in the VFA describing how the U.S. armed forces would be held accountable for damaging the environment. Be- cause of the disappointing record of the U.S. in cleaning up its debris in its former military bases, we should be wary of the environmental havoc the U.S. military will wreak upon us in a whole-year-round of military exercises and port calls. Up to now, the U.S. government still refuses to recogrlize and shows no initiative to investigate or clean up those areas in their for- mer bases which have been confirmed as contaminated with deadly toxic and hazardous wastes. In limited studies conducted on the for- mer U.S. military bases, it has been proven that the water and soil of outlying communities are contaminated by carcinogenic chemicals and solvents, lead and mercury. The U.S. military exercises resulted in the contamination and destruction of the environment, like those recorded in Okinawa, Japan, where: shooting exercises damaged the forests and mountains contaminated the soil with TNT, RBX, DNT and unfired ammunition and missiles; as- bestos, lead and PCB contamination of Okinawan waters; red soil erosion due to regular military movement; cobalt 60 from military ports; and the discovery of mutant frogs at the water shores sur- rounding the U.S. military facilities in Okinawa.” 86CRITICAL a PHILIPPINE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES In the Philippines, a health survey under the Heath for All Proj- ect (1998) conducted a few years ago in the former Clark Air Force Base in Pampanga by Dr. Rosalie Bertell as chief investigator, linked US. military wastes to some diseases in the municipality of Mabala- cat, Pampanga. These include diseases that weaken immunity and ail- ments caused by contaminated water from the former U.S. base. The landing and berthing rights stipulated in the VFA reintro- duced the entry of U.S. military forces all over the country for port visits and military exercises employing hazardous war equipment. The U.S. government has a tainted record for its failure to investi- gate, publicize, and clean up environmental hazards brought about by U.S. military activities not only in the Philippines but also in Pan- ama, Puerto Rico, Japan, South Korea, Hawaii and Alaska. If the nu- clear-pewered vessels of the U.S. naval force emitted radiation while docked in Philippine waters, how would they be held accountable if the VEA lacks environmental provisions? Now that the entire country is held wide open for unlimited U.S. armed troop visits in sea and air ports as well as military combat ex- ercises using live fire ammunition and explosives, we should already anticipate the environmental and health risks involved in such activi- ties, An editorial in the New York Times highlighted this problem in its Dec. 25, 1998 issue: “When the United States pulled out of the Clark and Subic Bay Bases in the Philippines beginning in 1991, it left dozens of sites where toxic chemicals and asbestos had been dumped or buried in unse- cured landfills. These may now be the cause of disease among people living nearby. Washington has paid the Philippines nothing for cleanup and has released only perfunctory information about the hazards.” VFA AS MODEL FOR OTHER COUNTRIES? Adding insult to the injury committed against Philippine sover- eignty is the plan of other countries like Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to use the VFA as model agreement in honing their own military forces. They intend to use our territory as a training ground while we bear all the environmental, social and political costs as host country. We did not kick out the U.S. military bases, only for the for- 87FORGING A \__-ONALIST FOREIGN POLICY mer bases or the rest of cur territory to be used as “on the job train- ing” (OJT) grounds for the armed forces of other countries. The plan will only elicit resentment from the people and communities that will be socially and environmentally damaged by the ‘live fire’ military training exercises. For instance, the presence of U.S. Special Opera- tions Forces in Mindanao during the Balikatan exercises and similar military training in 2003 only revived the memories of crimes com- mitted by U.S. occupying forces at the beginning of the 20 century. At the 1906 Bud Dajo massacre in Sulu, more than 600 Muslim men, women and children were killed by the invading U.S. expeditionary forces. VFA AS INSTRUMENT FOR SURRENDER OF PHILIPPINE SOVEREIGNTY 7 The VEA is an instrument of capitulation. It is onerous. It is un. just and immoral. Its provisions are tilted in favor of U.S. interests ‘and swathed in ambiguity to trample upon the right of the Philip- pines as a sovereign state in its own territory. Fifteen years ago, we showed the world that despite our weaknesses as a nation and despite pressures from a superpower, we know how to defend our sovereign interests and uphold our dignity as a nation. With our decision to remove the U.S. bases on Sept. 16, 1991, we proudly showed that we can be a sovereign nation and stand tall as Filipinos. So too, was our decision to pull out our military forces out of Iraq, which was a vic- tory against an aggressor empire which that robbed us and cut short our own independence more than a century ago. And just like what it has done thus far to Iraq, it treated our freedom fighters whom colonial history wants us to forget- those who fought U.S. aggression and colonization at the beginning of the 20" century— like Macario Sakay, Julian Montalan, Benito Natividad, Francisco Carreon, Lucio deVega, Leon Villafuerte, Aniceto Oruga, Cornelio Felizardo, among others — as terrorists, insurgents, rebels and criminals whom they hunted down, caught and murdered or executed. Let me re-state that it is important that the issue of allowing the return of U.S. military presence in the Philippines which was termi- nated in 1991, be linked to the continued use of our territory by the U.S. empire for its interventionist policy in many parts of the world. In short, it is a part of empire building by the economic forces of U.S. led globalization. This is quite clear in a document of the U.S. General 88CRITICAL IS o IN PHILIPPINE FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES Accounting Office, “Overseas Presence” (June 1997), which stated, ‘Military exercises demonstrate U.S. resolve and capability to project military presence anywhere in the world.” At the moment, and at the expense of trampling upon the sover- eignty of other nations, the unilateral military measures of the U.S are decided upon by itself as lone fixer of peace, PAX AMERICANA, as guarantor of an order that promotes its own national interests The key issues and questions of our present foreign policy that we need to review are the following: 1.Would we allow our foreign and security interests and policies to willingly and even actively support the armed forces of the U.S. and its global interventionist strategy? 2.Should our foreign and international policy not contribute to a sustainable global peace and environment, and a nuclear weapons and nuclear-free world? 3. Should we continue accepting the fact that the Republic is now suf- fering from indignities inflicted by the VFA and other international agreements that even violate our own Constitution and laws? Overall, the foreign policy of a country should be shaped by its own political, economic and diplomatic interests. Many of our na- tional woes, including foreign debt, widespread poverty, worsening unemployment, etc., are caused by having been entangled if not in- tegrated in the structures of an inequitable global economic system. Here, the decisions and activities of countries with dominant econo- mies and with the greatest influence on institutions like the IMF-WB and the World Trade Organization, impact on our local politics to a great extent. Imperialist globalization, domination and dependence impose limitations to our national, foreign and security policies. We should, however, remember that other nations in similar circumstances were able to assert their national interests and self-determination. Despite our vulnerabilities and constraints, we were able to overcome this on. Sept. 16, 1991 when we booted out the largest overseas U.S. naval and air force bases from the Philippines. We did this in the case of Angelo de la Cruz, when we decided to pull Philippine troops out of Iraq. We should nurture our future leaders and public servants with a deeper sense of identity, as Filipinos sincerely serving the national 89FORGING AN” “*ONALIST FOREIGN POLICY ww interest with incorruptible professionalism and integrity. With lead- ers and public servants like these in our bureaucracy and foreign service, we will able to move forward in attaining an independent foreign policy faithful to the spirit of our Constitution. BIBLIOGRAPHY: . 1. Bello, Walden. “A Second Front in eee pe March 18, 2002. a ee http://www. focusweb.org/publications, . De Castro, Renato C. and Kraft, Herman Joseph S. U.S. Military Presence in Southeast Asia: Forward Deployment in the Post Bases Era. Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies. Pasay, MetroManila: For- eign Service Institute, 1994. N 3. Department of Foreign Affairs, Primer on the RP-U.S. Visiting Forces Agreement. Manila: DFA, 2001. s Docena, Herbert. Unconventional Warfare. Focus on the Global South, 2006. . w . International Studies Institute of the Philippines. For an Independent For- eign Policy. Papers and Proceedings of the Conference for an Independent Foreign Policy. Feb. 26-27, 1988. Quezon City: ISIP-UP Law Center, 1988. o Republic of the Philippines. 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. 7. Vizmanos, Danilo, Philippine Navy, Ret.Captain. “An Assessment of the Balikatan Exercises:. Bulatlat.com. June 11, 2002. 90