Series 31: Forever Peace or Forever Wars?
This includes any armed attack on the BRP Sierra Madre.
Responding to rumors that China was mulling the removal of a grounded Philippine warship, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro warned that any use of force against the BRP Sierra Madre would be an act of war against the Philippines.
To begin with, China has been asking the Philippines to tow that derelict wreck since it was grounded in May 1999.
Ironically, his umpteenth irresponsible remark left yet another bad taste in the mouth because it was made just two days after China extended a helping hand for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to complete a successful resupply operation on October 20–21.
The China Coast Guard (CCG) stated that the delivery of necessities proceeded “with permission from the Chinese side” and that CCG personnel conducted confirmation checks and supervision.
It will be remembered that a previous DND-AFP mission that was aborted on September 24 due to intense obstruction by Chinese vessels, as it did not follow agreed protocol.
To hide their blush and save faces,the AFP and the National Security Council firmly rejected Beijing’s narrative, stating that the Philippines does not need permission from any foreign country to conduct rotation and resupply missions within its own exclusive economic zone.
Our security officials provided a hair split clarifying that recent diplomatic communications involved information exchanges rather than a permit-based arrangement.
Nothing but semantic bullshit!
The survival of our Philippine marines aboard BRP Sierra Madre, does not depend on whether an information or permission was granted. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What is important is not the legalese, but that our soldiers do not die of starvation because of Teodoro’s lexicon.
Last October 23, Teodoro again talked big: “Any threats against BRP Sierra Madre will be taken very seriously, because it will be an act against a military vessel of the Republic of the Philippines.”
Then when pressed by mindless media whether the military would update its rules of engagement for troops aboard the ship to prevent it from being boarded by another nation’s troops, the Marcos’ official charlatan declined to discuss “operational matters”, as if any existed in the first place.
This is classic Teodoro, who, when pinned down in a presser, avoids a question he himself created.
Of course, the Chinese does not have to board the BRP Sierra Madre. They simply have to pull it out and sink it in deep waters, or blast it to smithereens in pieces that cannot endanger safety and freedom of navigation.
But feigning a discombobulated reply makes it appear the Philippines can really do anything if the China disposes of the Philippine Navy’s abandoned junk.
On January 19–20, 1974, the People Liberation Army demolished the South Vietnamese navy at the Paracel Islands giving Beijing full de facto control of the archipelago, and the Americans who controlled the Republic of Vietnam at that time, just watched.
In 2012, the gringos only became spectators when we lost Scarborough Shoal.
Shortly, we will reveal the understated US foreign policy when it comes to disputed territories, especially in the South China Seas.
Act or State of War?
I mean what happened was Teodoro resorted to stupid legalese, as he tiptoed around any action that could be taken by China toward the aging warship, would be an “act of war” but not a “state of war.”
If that was his intention, perhaps he should have asked himself five questions before he threw the tomahawk on the Chinese, to enlighten the Philippine side whether we can still consider that rotting asset to be “ship” in maritime sense, that it can still be commissioned as a “warship”, whether any such could be classified as a “permanent station”, in a location that is a low-tide elevation that is not subject to sovereignty claim, and finally whether international law allows such huge garbage at sea.
The no longer navigable BRP Sierra Madre does not fall under the definition of a “ship that essentially has to be capable of floating and navigable by its own power”.
Its rotten structure exposes a condition that is temporary, so how can qualify for UNCLOS’ definition of a “permanent station”?
Ayungin Shoal is a low-tide elevation (LTE) that cannot be a subject of a sovereignty claim for 12 nautical mile territorial sea. It can form part of a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone of a coastal state under UNCLOS, but not under exception clarified by the 2016 Arbitral Award that binds the Philippines.
The Philippines is not a signatory to the 2007 Nairobi Wreck Removal Convention, but it is a member since 1964, and twice elected to the council of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that has adopted the treaty.
This more than qualifies BRP Sierra Madre under a legal framework for the prompt removal of wrecks that pose a hazard to navigation or the marine environment. If this law applies to wrecks in a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and optionally territorial waters, how much more for the Ayungin Shoal that cannot and does not fall under any EEZ?
At its present condition, the only shallow justification for the BRP Sierra Madre’s existence at Ayungin Shoal is that it is still “commissioned” by the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The military of course is capable of commissioning anything like the Sierra Madre or anyone like Teodoro, no matter what ludicrous sense it makes, and that is where this “act of war” context brings us to.
But Teodoro is 27 years late in the debate related to the grounding of this “ship”, and ten years tardy after the 2016 Award made a “landmark” distinction by the Arbitral Tribunal our “Submission#14(a) to (c) pertaining to our predicament at Ayungin Shoal.
This is why this wily lawyer and a bar topnotcher” played games on his boss Marcos.
When pushed further about the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, Teodoro stated that “the possibility is open,” but emphasized that activating or invoking the defense obligations is ultimately a decision for President Marcos to address.
A possibility is a possibility as anything is possible. Provocateurs have a habit of circling around the issue but truth to tell, any attempt to drag the treaty into the discourse, will be a voice in the wilderness.
There already exists a “state of war” between China and the Philippines surrounding the BRP Sierra Madre and Ayungin Shoal.
No need to invoke one.
The confirmation was inked by no less than the Arbitral Award that Philippine bigots paradoxically celebrate as a “victory”. Here are the pertinent paragraphs:
“(1161) …the Tribunal finds that the essential facts at Second Thomas Shoal concern the deployment of a detachment of the Philippines’ armed forces that is engaged in a stand-off with a combination of ships from China’s Navy and from China’s Coast Guard and other government agencies.
“…In the Tribunal’s view, this represents a quintessentially military situation involving the military forces of one side and a combination of military paramilitary forces on the other, arrayed in opposition to one another.
“As these facts fall well within the exception, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to explore the outer bounds of what would or would not constitute military activities for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b).
(1162) Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ Submissions No. 14(a) to (c).”
Under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), member states can exclude disputes involving “military activities” from compulsory arbitration. China had previously filed this exemption declaration.
The Tribunal concluded that the tense standoff at Second Thomas Shoal fundamentally involved military forces and constituted an ongoing military activity.
Because of China’s structural exclusion under Article 298, the Tribunal could not legally adjudicate the claims raised in 14 (a) to (c).
While this does extinguish the Philippines from having entitlement to sovereign rights in the area, the existence of a military situation impedes the exercise of those rights because of the existence of conflict.
This presents a distinct legal status where the intersection of an EEZ, which is a sui generis (unique) functional zone, the presence of military operations becomes one of the most heavily debated topics in international law, resulting in two starkly contrasting legal interpretations:
UNCLOS Article 58 preserves high seas freedoms—such as the freedom of navigation and overflight—within the EEZ. Maritime nations argue these freedoms naturally encompass peaceful military exercises, surveillance, reconnaissance, and task force maneuvering.
But under UNCLOS Article 301, coastal states argue that live-fire drills, weapons testing, or spying constitute a threat to their national security or infringe upon their sovereign right to control the local environment and its resource.
Our situation therefore has acquired a blind spot because the UNCLOS delegates did not explicitly define “military activities” during the original treaty draftings.
Thus, conflicts arising over unallocated rights must be evaluated case-by-case based on equity and localized circumstances, for parties to arrive at bilateral agreements between and among themselves, for what would apply as a common law to both or all of them, as stipulated in UNCLOS Article 59.
Have you noticed how United States officials seem to walk on eggshells when asked about this problematic impasse, which only China and the Philippines can solve.
Invoking the MDT
The Mutual Defense Treaty is not subject to “wild interpretation” because it does not provide for an automatic response.
As ratified by the US Congress, it has become part of US laws and jurisprudence, ruling in its final language the necessity of constitutional processes.
Therefore, the US legislature’s final action had become an essential trigger towards its enforcement.
This question was resolved 26 years after its signing in 1951, and 51 years ago today when US Ambassador to the Philippines William Sullivan sought clarification from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when our president then, Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Sr., started occupying islands in the Spratly Islands.
On June 9, 1975, the official policy telegram and legal position, declassified in 2006, now known as the Kissinger Doctrine, indicated that Philippine claimed territories in the Spratlys, do not qualify under the treaty’s first category under the sovereignty of the Philippines as a “metropolitan area”, or the second category as a “trust territory”.
Kissinger also explained that while it “may fall” under the third category “of an armed attack”, he presented caveats on why it cannot be bootstrapped for deployment to support a “defense of territory”, an “aspect of collective defense (for the US and the Philippines), or a “sovereignty claim for an openly disputed territory.”
Read in all caps the telegram in its verbatim form:
“9) HYPOTHETICAL ATTACK ON PHIL GARRISONS IN SPRATLYS PRESENTS DIFFERENT CASE IN THE SENSE THAT USG (United States Government) HAS NOT RECOGNIZED SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY THIRD STATE OVER ISLANDS OCCUPIED BY GOP (Government of the Philippines).
“HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALSO NOT RECOGNIZED GOP SOVEREIGNTY OVER ISLANDS.”
Kissinger emphasizes the mutual or “collective” intention of the treaty:
“IN THIS SITUATION, WHILE WE WOULD NOT TERM PHIL OCCUPATION AS ILLEGAL INVASION OF ANOTHER STATE, NEITHER CAN WE TERM THIS DEPLOYMENT AS ASPECT OF COLLECTIVE DEFENSE PURPOSE OF MDT.”
The secretary of state acknowledged the existence of a dispute. This is vital because international disputes cannot be resolved unilaterally but only between and among parties according to international law.
“RATHER, WE VIEW PURPOSE OF GOP GARRISON AS ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING A CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER OPENLY DISPUTED TERRITORY.”
Kissinger gives the ultimate military prescription:
“MDT IN OUR VIEW DOES NOT OBLIGATE US TO
SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF DEPLOYMENT IN EVENT OF ARMED ATTACK.”
Allow me to put what Kissinger categorically said in today’s context:
Support of this type of deployment such as the grounding of the BRP Sierra Madre, aggravated by the fact that it falls on an area not qualified for sovereignty claim, does not obligate the US to support even an “armed attack” on the BRP Sierra Madre.
“10) 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 BOOTSTRAPPED INTO COMMITMENT FOR DEFENSE OF TERRITORY NOT INCLUDED IN FIRST TWO CATEGORIES BY DEPLOYING FORCES IN SUCH TERRITORY.”
So who has our back in the Spratly’s? Nada.
“… MDT MAY APPLY IN EVENT OF ATTACK ON FORCES DEPLOYED TO THIRD COUNTRIES…DEPLOYMENT FOR DEFENSE OF THIRD COUNTRY TERRITORY, HOWEVER, IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM CASE WHERE DEPLOYMENT IS FOR PURPOSE OF ENLARGING PHILIPPINE TERRITORY.
Simply stated, the Philippines cannot involve the United States in territorial claims, especially when disputed.
As Kissinger went into implications, the succeeding section is fatal to Teodoro’s posturing:
“11) … AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WE SEE PRECIOUS LITTLE CHANCE CONGRESS OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD SUPPORT US INTERVENTION IN SPRATLY DISPUTE.”
Then, the secretary of state delivered the geopolitical coup d’grace:
“IF THE PHIL 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.”
If the MDT does not apply to the BRP Sierra Madre, grounded at Ayungin Shoal, afortiori or with more reason, it also applies to all our expansive claims in the South China Seas.
This is why Washington DC just watched us lose Scarborough Shoal in 2012.
Reiterating the Kissinger Doctrine, Hillary Clinton explained on April 7, 2014 that Americans do not side with any claimant or arbitrate specific territorial ownership in maritime disputes. Specifically, she clarified that United States does not take a formal position on competing territorial claims over land features or sovereignty in the South China Sea.
Curiously, if there one thing the United States and China do agree, it is that Philippine territory has been defined and is limited to the expressed provisions of the 1898 Treaty of Paris. 1900 Treaty of Washington and the 1930 Convention Treaty between the US and Great Britain, constituting our historical treaty limits.
China has formally and consistently acknowledged this time and again, the latest of which was by Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister when the Arbitral Award was released in July 2016.
The US has however treated it with ambivalence in public, talking about “iron-clad commitments” when excising favor from Philippine presidents such as expanding the American presence in EDCA bases or envisioning a Pax Silica, but quickly disappearing when push comes to shove as when natural disaster strikes or promised financial assistance becomes due.
The Arbitral Tribunal admission of a “state of war” itself, exposes the “iron-clad” reassurances by Biden’s Lloyd Austin and Trump’s Peter Hegseth as all sheer licentious propaganda and a ton of horse pucky.
`This said, I am advocating to all geopolitical analysts to study closely the three treaties which defined the Philippine treaty limits, because failure to do so births the root of all our problems in the South China Seas.
If one does not seriously take to heart these three historic documents, as originally intended by its framers and signatories and as technically supported by accompanying charts and maps, one can easily fall prey to the over-interpretation and improvisation of vested interests like expired justice Antonio Carpio and his partisan clients.
As late as 80 years ago this year when these “titles” were passed on to us by the Treaty of Manila during our independence from the Americans on July 4, 1946, we are discovering long-hidden nuances such as their exclusion of the Batanes Islands from the 20° latitude and the Scarbough Shoal from the 118° longitude.
Geography, after all is the basis of geopolitics.
Conclusion
For a high government official who has not done his homework well, the government charlatan, Secretary Teodoro does not stop because he is not being gagged by his dimwitted boss, the President, who believes this foul mouth is contributing greatly to diverting the attention of the people from this administration’s gross inefficiency and corruption.
Instead of engaging in public debate way over his pay scale and intelligence quotient, what Teodoro should be prioritizing is the modernization of our armed forces, where he has a tremendous backlog, and not geopolitics which he is obviously unprepared and careless.
This is especially in the light of four PAF pilots who died flying SF-260 trainer planes that were bought in 2008 when he first sat as defense secretary under President Gloria Arroyo.
Teodoro has been pre-occupied by his presidential ambitions demonizing China, that he has become remiss in sending collection notices to the United States who is way behind in delivering its four $500 million per year commitment or $2 billion in defense assistance from 2003 to the current year 2006.
International law is definitely not one of the defense secretary’s forte’ as he uses two sleds, the other is the United States rules-based order, which is international law gone rogue.
Since World War II, the United States has not formally declared war through Congress, but it has engaged in over 100 military interventions and major armed conflicts worldwide.
In contrast, international law finds its true purpose in the pursuit of peace.
Read: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18T9axURHt/ THE PHILIPPINES CHOSE TO ALIGN WITH THE U.S. NOW IT REGRETS IT. by Joshua Kurlantzick | September 18, 2026 | World Politics Review
Leave a Reply