By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Part 31: Where the Philippines sees War, China seeks diplomacy

Gilbert Teodoro’s “new” South China Sea initiative is stuck in a time warp. It just more false starts, more transparency trash and more paper-tiger “protests” down memory lane.

Alongside US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, he announced the “Task Force Philippines” on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, aimed at an Alliance Readiness Action Plan “increasing the two nations’ interoperability, exercises, and preparedness to decisively respond to crisis or aggression, and reestablish deterrence in the South China Sea.”

In short, no pro-action, no diplomacy, as Philippine foreign policy will continue to be run by the deep state.

In fact, as soon as Hegseth opened his mouth, he immediately exposed its huge limitations, saying “It bears repeating that (the) Mutual Defense Treaty is critical for both of our countries; either of our forces anywhere in the South China Sea it is applicable.”

The US-PH Mutual Defense Treaty does not apply in the Spratlys or anywhere in the South China Seas. Moreover, its applicability in case of an armed attack does not obligate the United States to immediately respond to defend the Philippines.

Kissinger Doctrine

Digging deep into the US archival database, a June 9, 1975 memorandum by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, that has been declassified last July 2006, reveals this “Alliance Readiness Action Plan” garbed in highfallutin nomenclature envisioned to accelerate their key defense priorities in the next two years, is just an obnoxious horse pucky in the continuing information war and lawfare of the United States as the Philippines as proxy.

The historical Kissinger document initially entered as “State Secret” was addressed to Ambassador William Sullivan at the US Embassy in Manila and Admiral Noel A.M. Gayler, the Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific based in Hawaii, and pertains to the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the US and the Philippines.

I quote the memo, in toto, in order to preserve its authenticity, but to aid comprehension, I have inserted [parentheticals] to identify acronyms.

Kissinger laid the premises: “Under Article V of the MDT, treaty commitment is defined to apply in the event of armed attack (1) on metropolitan territory of either party; (2) on island territories in Pacific under jurisdiction of either party; and (3) on armed forces, public vessel and aircraft of either party in Pacific.”

This may shock Gilbert Teodoro and our lazy security cluster, but “In USG [US government] view, Spratly Islands do not fall within either of the first two categories of Article V relating to territories.”

First category

Kissinger explains the “First category evidently covers those territories over which a party is recognized as sovereign.” Thus, it is inapplicable because “As you are aware, USG regards question of sovereignty over Spratlys (including “Freedomland” or “Kalayaan”) as undetermined, and we take no position on merits of claims of various disputants.

“We note that at time MDT [was] signed, GOP [government of the Philippines] had asserted no claim to any of Spratly Islands, and had protested neither Vietnamese nor Chinese claims, which had been reiterated at time of negotiation of [the] 1951 Japanese Peace Treaty. USG announced publicly at that time it considered sovereignty question undetermined.

“Furthermore, Spratly Islands all fall outside Philippine territory as ceded to us by 1898 treaty with Spain. USG maps accompanying presentation of MDT also exclude Spratlys from territories covered by MDT.”

Second category

The former secret document qualified further, that the second category, island territories under either party’s ‘jurisdiction’, was intended to cover other territory which a party administered by international agreement but was not sovereign over, for example [United Nations] trust territories and [at that time] Okinawa.

“We are not aware of any Philippine-administered territory falling within this category.”

US does not consider Japanese Peace Treaty, also known as the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, as creating de facto Allied Power trusteeship over Spratlys, and we would not regard the Spratlys as thus being islands under jurisdiction of either party [or both the US and the Philippines].”

The document even struck a provision that might be construed as antithetical to Philippine interests.

While granting that the position adopted in the preceding category “does not mean [the] Philippines could not expand territory over which it is sovereign”, the State Department “do not see legal basis at this time for supporting the claim to Spratlys of one country over that of other claimants.” 

Kissinger even defined the preeminent principle as customary law which is presently favorable to China – “Continuous, effective and uncontested occupation and administration of territory is a primary foundation for establishing sovereignty in absence of international settlement, but Philippine occupation could hardly be termed uncontested in face of claims and protests of Chinese and Vietnamese.”

The US Secretary of States added the US government would welcome and recognize international settlement agreed to by all claimants, although he acknowledged this would be “cold comfort in light of present political realities.”

Third category

The document concurred with the US Embassy in Manila’s view that government of the Philippines is aware that the State Department considered “sovereignty undetermined”, would be more likely to invoke third category of Article V in the event of Vietnamese or Chinese attack on Philippine garrisons in the Spratlys.

Kissinger, however qualified, “we do not believe this aspect of treaty gives either party carte blanche to deploy forces anywhere in the Pacific with the assurance that the other party will be bound by the MDT in the event of attack on those forces.”

The second paragraph of the treaty’s Article IV states a necessary first step: “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

Ther reason for this, Kissinger said is that the commitment in the event of attack on forces must be construed in context of overall purpose and provisions of the treaty citing that the “Preamble sets forth collective defense purpose of MDT and reaffirms parties’ commitments to principles and purposes of UN charter, while in Article I parties undertake to refrain from ‘threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with UN charter.’

The Secretary of State drew a thin line, “Under most foreseeable circumstances, the treaty would apply if either party were attacked on high seas or in international air space.” But he carefully makes a distinction in that almost all of the South China Seas is claimed by China as territorial seas, specifically the Spratlys, Paracels, Pratas, Hainan and the Penghu (Pescadores).

He also distinguished that Section 8 of the declassified document pertains to attacks on Philippine forces present in third countries, may be irrelevant, clarifying “Deployment for defense of third country territory, however, is fundamentally different from case where deployment is for purpose of enlarging Philippine territory.”

To be more precise, he said hypothetical attack on [Philippine] garrisons in Spratlys presents different case in the sense that the US government has not recognized sovereignty of any third state over islands occupied by Philippine government.

Sadly, the Secretary of State cited a decisive irony, “we have also not recognized [Philippine] sovereignty over islands.”

In this situation, he said while the US would not term Philippino [sic] occupation as illegal invasion of another state, neither can we term this deployment as aspect of collective defense purpose of Mutual Defense Treaty, adding rather “we view purpose of [Philippine] garrison as establishing and enforcing a claim to sovereignty over openly disputed territory [and]MDT does not obligate us to support this type of deployment in event of armed attack.”

Realpolitik

Kissinger emphasized, “We would emphasize as well that in our view territorial defense commitments of parties are embraced in first two categories of Article V. We do not consider that commitment in event of attack on forces can be boot-strapped into commitment for defense of territory not included in first two categories by deploying forces in such territory.”

Driving the final nail in terms of realpolitik, he concluded, “As a practical matter, we see precious little chance Congress or the American people would support US intervention in Spratly dispute.

“If the [Philippine] garrisons ever were attacked, it seems to me less harmful politically to deny our obligations on legal grounds, than to leave unfulfilled an acknowledged commitment.”

His last sentence was more graphic and ominous in presenting an analogy, “Furthermore, contrary interpretation would also create difficulty for us if [Philippines] ever tried to invoke MDT with respect to Sabah… or possibly if NATO were invoked by either side in the Greece-Turkey territorial disputes.”

Signed, Kissinger.

Wider poison

If this Task Force is so yesterday, why is it being launched? What’s the big deal?

So, where else would a fish be caught but by its lips?

“The US-Philippine alliance should not be seen in isolation, because the alliance, and moving forward now, are based on fundamentals — respect for international law, respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty,” Teodoro said.

He pointed out that given the strategic location of the Philippines, advancing these fundamentals not only benefits the country but also the broader push to add more allies, because freedom of navigation, respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty are not only important for us, but for the whole world.”

In their meeting, Hegseth and Teodoro also discussed key regional security issues, including China’s coercive actions in the West Philippine Sea and the larger South China Sea. Further translated, what both officials meant was enhancing capabilities and adjusting the scope of existing defense and military activities bilaterally and multilaterally with like-minded partners.

In short, the US is tasking the Philippines to poison the waters taking advantage of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s rotational chairmanship of Asean from the South China Seas onto the entire region!

But when Teodoro added emphasizing the importance of continuous consensus-building efforts among regional partners that accelerates their key defense priorities in the next two years, Task Force Philippines’ mission expands to serving as the arms salesman of the United States in Asean.

(Expect the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a prominent Washington D.C. think tank, and BowerGroupAsia, a strategic advisory firm focused on the Indo-Pacific to figure significantly in this marketing effort for the US war economy. CSIS may be non-profit but its twin BGA helps mostly US clients navigate complex markets by providing actionable intelligence to implement business strategies and beat around industrial regulations especially in the Asean subregion.

(CSIS has a long-standing partnership and collaborative relationship with Stratbase Albert Del Rosario Institute or Stratbase ADRi of which Manny Pangilinan is co-chairman of the Board of Trustees. Pangilinan is also the chairman of PXP Energy Corporation, which holds 79.13% controlling stake in Forum Energy, a British upstream oil and gas company that is part of a consortium that was issued last October 8 by President Marcos Jr. with a petroleum service contract (PSC No. 86) covering about 132,000 hectares in the Northwest Palawan Basin, between Palawan Island and Reed Bank (Recto Reef) which is controlled by China.)

To start the ball rolling, Teodoro also met in Kuala Lumpur with Singapore Defense Minister Chan Chun Sing whom he had lobbied earlier this year during the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. last October 31, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung also net at the sidelines of the APEC Leaders Meeting in Gyeongju.

Marcos also unabashedly declared that Manila would actively support efforts to promote peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula: “Next year, the Philippines will chair the Asean summits, and I see a real opportunity for us to promote a rules-based order.”

This American-speak is not international law but represents US hegemony.

Was he therefore thinking straight when he earlier demonized China and front-acted for Donald Trump a few days earlier at Asean at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia but tried to catch President Xi Jinping’s attention at APEC later in Busan, South Korea?

Looks like a time loop has occurred and it is not even Bill Murray’s Ground Hog Day!

To be continued.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: