Why did Senator Trillanes attack Foreign Affairs Secretary del Rosario? We don't understand...

Senator Trillanes, the "Back Channel" negotiator with China, fires a broadside at Foreign Affairs Secretary del Rosario, PH govt's fightingest official today

BAKIT???? SENATOR TRILLANES, WHY 'ATTACK' SERETARY DEL ROSARIO FOR STANDING UP TO CHINA AND FOR DENOUNCING CHINA'S HIGHHANDED TACTICS AGAINST THE PHILIPPINES? MEDYO MALABO ANG MGA DAHILAN MO, SENATOR!

OUR VIEW:

Firstly, with regard to your reason that you were “assigned for a long time to that area and we did what had to be done without making noise in the media. We were able to protect our territory without making a big thing out of it in the press.”

Senator Trillanes, may we remind you that you were then a junior officer, so junior (and remained a junior officer until you had your "falling out" with the Navy), you would not have been allowed by your Flag-Officer-in-Command to even utter a word in his presence unless asked. You then belonged to the category of soldiers who Lord Tennnyson wrote about, "Theirs was not to reason why, theirs but to do and die." So you could not have spoken -- not even in your wildest dreams, to the press about military operations.

Secondly, Senator, lest you forget, there was nothing exceptional about being "able to protect our territory without making a big thing out of it in the press..." because the military organisation's role IS TO PROTECT OUR TERRITORY REGARDLESS OF THE PRESS. FULL STOP!

Furthermore, you are wrong to say that the Philippine Navy (we assume you are speaking of the service command you once belonged to) did not make "a big thing out of it in the press." Well, Senator, we've got news for you... Oh yes, they did or tried at the very least!!! But media then perhaps had other things to fry so it was media that did not make "a big thing of it."

In fact, if you remember, the Navy then had N-7, the assistant chief of naval staff in charge of liasing with the public, with the press or media, with the civilian world in general, in other words, let's get it right, Senator, NAVY ANNOUNCED and ISSUED PRESS RELEASES TO MEDIA regarding its achievements. So, let's cut the crap, shall we, Senator?

NOW, on your direct attack at Secretary del Rosario telling him “I hope that would be the approach of the DFA and that it just lets the DND do its job on the ground without making any unnecessary scandal when there is still none."

ARE YOU SAYING that you approve of what China is doing, that it is not a scandal and that we should keep silent about it? Now, we are frankly at a loss... WHY ON EARTH SHOULD THE HIGHEST FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFFICIAL OF THE LAND BE SILENT ABOUT CHINA's BELLIGERENT ACTIONS AGAINST THE PHILIPPINES?

Are you forgetting that Secretary del Rosario's duties include handling foreign policy on behalf of the president of the republic and ennunciating the country's stand on matters that affect relations with another country, especially with a hostile country like China? Really, we don't understand why this bellicose attitude towards Secretary del Rosario who is only doing his job to defend the country's position from a foreign affairs policy standpoint! BUT WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM SENATOR?

AND FINALLY, Senator, when you lecture Secretary del Rosario and tell him not to be an "alarmist", we think you are WRONG! UTTERLY, DIABOLICALLY WRONG! We think that Secretary del Rosario is doing what any honorable and responsible government official is doing: HE IS INFORMING THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION MUST BE FOUND TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM! It is one way to assert our nation's rights and possibly (yes, we say, 'possibly' because there is never a guarantee that things will ideally pan out in the end -- not with hostile and ambitious China anyway), avert an even worse scenario that will find us all with our pants down.

Appeasement is not the solution to the China problem, Senator... As one of the founders of this Defenders Community, an illustrious Operation Merdeka hero and who, incidentally, was also a naval officer, said, "Knowing that he will not meet any resistance is the best encouragement any bully can ever have."

To be perfectly honest, Senator, we were not expecting you to throw your support to Secretary del Rosario but really, your firing a broadside at him takes the cake.

~~ By Admins, Defenders of Philippine Sabah & Spratly Claims

THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER REPORT: 

Trillanes to DFA: Don’t be alarmistBy Philip C. Tubeza2:33 am | Wednesday, January 16th, 20132 337 322
Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV on Tuesday scored the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) for its “alarmist” posturing against China in the territorial dispute in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). 

Trillanes, who conducted back-channel talks with China at Malacañang’s behest last year, said the DFA should let the Department of National Defense (DND) do its job and apprehend intruders in Philippine-owned areas in the sea, and not announce everything to the media. 

“I was assigned for a long time to that area and we did what had to be done without making noise in the media. We were able to protect our territory without making a big thing out of it in the press,” said Trillanes, a former junior Navy officer, in a media forum in Manila. 

“I hope that would be the approach of the DFA and that it just lets the DND do its job on the ground without making any unnecessary scandal when there is still none,” he said. 

“We are becoming alarmist when that is not necessary,” he added. 

Trillanes said the DFA should quietly confirm any foreign incursions in Philippine territory without broadcasting it to the world. 

In his time, he said, “our Navy boarded and immediately searched ships that (entered) the country’s territory and you didn’t need to announce that.” 

He said the Philippines then took actions to assert its authority over the disputed territories, “without declaring war or agitating anybody.” 

To read more click on link here.

IN PICTURE: Then junior naval officer turned senator Trillanes before the press during the internationally media-hyped Oakwood Mutiny

CLARIFYING THE PHILIPPINES-UNITED STATES MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY

Locked in a stand-off with China over Scarborough Shoal, and following several hostile pronouncement bordering on military action intents by China against the Philippines, the Dept of Foreign Affairs issued a statement concerning the Philippines-United States Mutual Defence Treaty (document posted below the statement.)

To read about the US re-affirming its intention to honour the terms of the treaty, click on news link here

Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario:Regarding the Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty

[May 9, 2012] 

In view of inaccurate information on the subject of whether or not the U.S. is prepared to respond to its commitment to the Philippines under the Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), the Department of Foreign Affairs would like to establish as a matter of record that:

1. The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) on August 30, 1951 in Washington, D.C.

2. As stated in the MDT’s preamble, both the Philippines and the U.S. desire to publicly declare, through the MDT, their sense of unity and common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific Area. (refer to the 3rd paragraph of the MDT’s preamble.)

3. Article IV of the MDT states: “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.”

4. Article V of the MDT further provides that “an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on:

• a. the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or
• b. on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, and
• c. its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.”

5. On January 6, 1979, U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in his letter to Philippine Foreign Secretary Carlos P. Romulo, cited Article V of the MDT and stated that “… as provided in Article V, an attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific would not have to occur within the metropolitan territory of the Philippines or island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific in order to come within the definition of Pacific area in Article V.” (underscoring supplied).

6. On May 24, 1999, US Ambassador to the Philippines Thomas C. Hubbard wrote a letter to Foreign Secretary Domingo L. Siazon affirming that “the US Government stands by its statements in the Vance-Romulo letter of January 6, 1979.” Moreover, in the same letter, Amb. Hubbard cited Defense Secretary William Cohen’s statement that “the US considers the South China Sea to be part of the Pacific Area.” (underscoring supplied).

7. On June 23, 2011, Secretary Hillary Clinton reaffirmed to Secretary Albert F. del Rosario during their meeting in Washington, D.C. that the U.S. “will honor its treaty obligations to the Philippines.”

8. In her remarks to the media after the said meeting, Secretary Clinton declared: “The Philippines and the United States are longstanding allies, and we are committed to honoring our mutual obligation.”

9. During the question and answer session in the same media event, Secretary Clinton was asked by a correspondent from ABS-CBN this question: “What will America do if China attacks Filipino forces in the Spratly Islands? Secretary Clinton’s reply was: “Well, as to your first question, the United States honors our Mutual Defense Treaty and our strategic alliance with the Philippines. I’m not going to discuss hypothetical events, but I want to underscore our commitment to the defense of the Philippines.” (Source: “Remarks with Philippines Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario After Their Meeting,” Washington, D.C., June 23, 2011)

10. On November 16, 2011, Secretary Clinton and Secretary del Rosario signed the Manila Declaration which states: “The Republic of the Philippines and the United States today reaffirm our shared obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty.” (Source: “Manila Declaration on U.S.-Philippine Alliance, 16 November 2011)

11. On April 30, 2012, during the Two Plus Two meeting in Washington, D.C., Secretary Clinton reiterated that the U.S. “reaffirms our commitment and obligations under the mutual defense treaty.” (Source: “Remarks during Press Availability,” State Department, Washington, D.C. April 30, 2012)

12. As additional information, under the US Constitution, the US President as Commander-in-Chief may commit US armed forces into action overseas although the US president is obliged to notify the US Congress within 48 hours of such action, as provided for under the U.S. War Powers Resolution of 1973. The same Resolution requires that such commitment of U.S. armed forces could not go beyond 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without US congressional authorization. This means that a U.S. congressional authorization is needed only if the engagement of U.S. armed forces abroad would go beyond 60 days.  

13. It is important to note that, even in the absence of an actual armed attack against either the Philippines and the U.S., Article III of the MDT provides that the Philippines and the US, “through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack in the Pacific.” (underscoring supplied).

14. The recently concluded Two Plus Two meeting, at the Ministerial level, is a new mechanism for such high-level consultations.

Posted on Philippine Sabah Claim Forum

PHILIPPINES-US MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY

MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY  

Between the THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and the THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

The Parties of this Treaty   Reaffirming their faith in the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific area.  

Recalling with mutual pride the historic relationship which brought their two peoples together in a common bond of sympathy and mutual ideals to fight side-by-side against imperialist aggression during the last war.  

Desiring to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and their common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area.  

Desiring further to strengthen their present efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area.  

Agreeing that nothing in this present instrument shall be considered or interpreted as in any way or sense altering or diminishing any existing agreements or understandings between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America.  

Have agreed as follows:  

ARTICLE I. The parties undertake as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relation from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.  

ARTICLE II. In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.  

ARTICLE III. The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack in the Pacific.  

ARTICLE IV. Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.  

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 maintaininternational peace and security.  

ARTICLE V. For purposes of ARTICLE IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.  

ARTICLE VI. This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.  

ARTICLE VII. This Treaty shall be ratified by the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Manila.  

ARTICLE VIII. This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other party.In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.Done in duplicate at Washington this thirtieth day of August, 1951.  

For the Republic of the Philippines: (Sgd.) CARLOS P. ROMULO (Sgd.) JOAQUIN M. ELIZALDE (Sgd.) VICENTE J. FRANCISCO (Sgd.) DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL   

For the United States of America: (Sgd.) DEAN ACHESON (Sgd.) JOHN FOSTER DULLES (Sgd.) TOM CONNALLY (Sgd.) ALEXANDER WILEY