Potential Panetta replacement puts Philippines in its place; Philippine strategic blunder over Scarborough invites snide remarks from China

IS AMERICA FEEDING THE EGO OF CHINA? COULD THE DECLARATION OF POSSIBLE SUCCESSOR (picture shown) TO U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA have triggered Beijing's snide remark that the Philippines is being a "troublemaker" because we are pressing our claim to Scarborough Shoal? 

QUESTION: Why does this potential successor to Panetta have to open her big mouth? ANSWER: Because our government officials have committed a monumental blunder, in fact, a strategical blunder of untold proportions; and having done that, these same officials continue to hang to the belief that America will be our saviour! Grow up PH Govt officials and leaders!

LAST 29th November, the possible successor to US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said there was a risk of Manila “mistaking U.S. support for an opportunity to be much more assertive in staking their claims. I think we have to be careful that we don’t feed that dynamic.”

Ms Michele Flournoy, former US undersecretary of defence for US policy, also said, “I do think there is a danger of some of our friends occasionally misreading, or miscalculating, in terms of the support that they have from the United States.” 

Sanamagan! Although we must say that she is right to be straightforward (at least we know where Pinas stands!!!) The Philippines should NEVER HAVE ACCEPTED to withdraw our ships even under US pressure. NEVER!!!!! If it is truethat PH was indeed under pressure from the United States back in mid-2012 to agree with China for the withdrawal of ships, the Philippines should have asked for a quid pro quo, i.e., for an official American commitment that the US would help Pinas to eject the intruders should the agreement not work. Otherwise, should have been no go!

HERE'S THE REPORT: 

Former U.S. Official: Don’t Mistake Support on South China Sea
December 14, 2012, 6:41 PM
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images 

A former senior U.S. defense official viewed as a possible successor to Leon Panetta as defense secretary said the Philippines has recently mistaken U.S. renewed engagement in the region as an opportunity to more assertively pursue territorial claims against China. 

Michele Flournoy, who served as undersecretary for defense policy until February 2012, said last month while the U.S. needed to send clear signals of support for its allies in the region, it also needed to ensure that support didn’t lead allies to act provocatively. 

Naming the Philippines specifically, she said there was a risk of Manila “mistaking U.S. support for an opportunity to be much more assertive in staking their claims. I think we have to be careful that we don’t feed that dynamic.” 

The comments by Ms. Flournoy came during a question-and-answer session at Australian National University on Nov. 29. Video of the remarks was posted on YouTube this week. 

“I do think there is a danger of some of our friends occasionally misreading, or miscalculating, in terms of the support that they have from the United States,” Ms. Flournoy added.

Let's get things right. The United States will always have its interest in mind first and foremost. Miss Fournoy is right to be straightforward. We cannot blame the United States for not siding with us because at the end of the day, it was the Philippines that committed the blunder and stuck to the belief that the US would come to Philippine aid. So sorry Messieurs Philippine officials! The Spratlys and Scarborough are NOT PART OF THE US-PH Mutual Defence Treaty. Philippine officials must have known that. They have been completely do-lally!

Today, we must face the fact that China now has de facto control (and sovereignty) of Scarborough. They can declare that Scarborough is land mass which, if they do, can change the EEZ dynamics. 

AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS OR POTENTIAL ENORMOUS PROBLEM WILL BE? If they do that, they will be able to declare that waters from Scarborough land mass stretching 200nautical miles from Scarborough Shoal (from Panatag itself + 12 nautical miles from the shoal itself) belong to them which will ultimately deprive the Philippines of everything down to the Philippines own 12 nautical mile territorial waters (from our baseline). In other words, if China declares that the 200 nautical miles of waters from Scarborough-Panatag Shoal itself are part of China Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the act could effectively rope Zambales and all the islands inward, i.e., inside Luzon itself, as in navally blockaded by China. Our officials or leaders who AGREED TO order the withdrawal of our ships back in July did not think of potential consequences. Complete dumbos!

The Philippines should NEVER HAVE ACCEPTED to withdraw our ships even under US pressure. NEVER. If it is true that PH was indeed under pressure from the United States back in mid-2012 to agree with China for the withdrawal of ships, the Philippines should have asked for a quid pro quo, i.e., for the US commitment that the US would help Pinas to eject the intruders should the agreement not work.

To accept to withdraw our ships -- whatever the pressure, was a tactical, nay, a strategic blunder of untold proportions.

President Aquino is responsible for this fiasco. At the end of the day, he has the ultimate command responsibility. President Aquino is lucky that Philippine media is do-lally and that Pinoys have not fully absorved the enormity of the atrocious tactical blunder committed by his government.

By Anne de Bretagne
Defenders of the Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims
15 December 2012

WHAT IS AMERICA'S REASON FOR NOT OFFERING HAND-ME-DOWN MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO THE PHILIPPINES?

Last month, the United States offered to sell to Thailand many second-hand equipment, according to the report, but not to the Philippines. As a major non-NATO ally of the US, Thailand can benefit from this kind of military deal, asserted the report. The thing is the 

Philippines also was conferred major non-NATO ally status by the US during George W Bush visit before he left office or sometime in 2008, so why wasn't the Philippines offered the deal first or at the very least, was not offered the deal too?

THREE possible reasons (add yours if you can think of other reasons): 

(1) US believes that its presence in the country is enough deterrence and so believes that Philippines does not require further beefing up of its defences -- which I honestly think cannot be US reason; frankly, US presence in PH is not good enough deterrence. Realistically, the Philippines is hardly equipped to protect itself from incursions by hostile or even not-so-hostile intruders despite America's defence umbrella hovering over the archipelago.

(2) Philippine defence budget is not big enough, hence it is safe to say that the US equipment being offered are still expensive by PH procurement standard

(3) But I do think that one of the real reasons -- and it makes sense, is that US wants to get Thailand on side in the brewing mano-a-mano with China; the US needs to pool all its allies in the region under its defence umbrella so what better way than to entice a good, defence-knowledgeable client like Thailand to buy all of US second-hand equipment?

Just the same, I am not pleased that Pinas was not America's first choice as dumping ground of said US second-hand defence materiel :-( And to think that a couple of weeks ago, I was suggesting in a post that PH inquire about the soon-to-be-decommissioned Oliver Hazard Perry frigates with a view to making an offer to purchase.

By Anne de Bretagne
For the Defenders of Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims
15 Nov 2012

Link to Bangkok Post article: US offers cheap planes, warships [to Thailand]

In photo: USS KAUFFMAN is the 28th "long hull" - version in the OLIVER HAZARD PERRY class and she is one of the last frigates the Navy built in the 20th century.

Commissioned 28 February 1987, KAUFFMAN's mission is to escort and protect Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups. KAUFFMAN is one of only twelve Frigates with the enhanced MK 92 MOD 6 CORT Fire Control System which, when combined with the ship's two helicopters, 76mm gun, and state of the art anti-submarine warfare system, provides KAUFFMAN an effective offensive and defensive capability in today's multi-threat environment.

KAUFFMAN has a crew of approximately 250 personnel. This relatively small crew size results in a close knit team that relies heavily on the technical skills and leadership abilities of each and every Sailor while providing ample opportunities for professional and personal growth.

For more information about USS Kauffman click on the history and general characteristics links.

KAUFFMAN always in the lead: Shipmates, Mission, Success.

Link: http://www.public.navy.mil/surflant/ffg59/Pages/AboutUs.aspx

US offers cheap planes, warships

• Published: 26/10/2012 at 03:15 PM

• Online news:

 The United States has offered to sell Thailand second hand military equipment ranging from helicopters to frigates at a special price, a Defence Ministry source said on Friday.The US Defence Department made the offer in talks last week in Washington between permanent secretary for defence Gen Thanongsak Apirakyothin and US Defence Assistant Secretary Marc Lippert. 

Thailand is eligible for the sales as a non-Nato ally of the US, the source added. 

The offer includes 1,150 humvees used in military operations in Iraq, three Black Hawk helicopters for the army, two Perry Class frigates for the navy and five F-16 jet fighters. 

"The discussion did not go into details. The offer is amicable,'' the source said. 

Thailand and the US will mark 180 years of bilateral relations next year. 

The arms sale are expected to be further discussed when US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta comes to Thailand for talks with Defence Minister ACM Sukumpol Suwanatat and armed forces chiefs. Mr Panetta will be in Southeast Asian for the Asean Summit on Nov 15-16 in Phnom Penh.rces

SPRATLYS: SLOCs and various choke points, importance to US and to other nations

By: Anne de Bretagne

Philippine Sabah Claim Forum

Nov 15, 2011

This diagram illustrates the various choke points (SLOC) in the region thar are vital to the US (and of course, to China). They are the shortest routs to the Indian Ocean. If, for whatever reason, those lanes are blocked, US military vessels and commercial ships will lose precious time, at huge cost, if they have to turn around Australia to reach the Indian Ocean; this becomes even more critical in time of crisis when the US Navy must deploy, for example, to the Gulf. The US will not, can not allow any nation to block these sea lanes.

I was asked a question by a student in international diplomacy in another thread: "What interest shall the US protect, then, in the region?"

My brief answer: 

There are 3 lanes/chokepoints in the region: (1) Malacca Strait, (2) Sunda, (3) Lombok Strait... These are the lanesthat provide the shortest routes from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean for large ships, US Navy and US merchant marine ships (tankers).

The US needs unimpeded sea lines of communication for their' own traffic (military and for commercial purposes -- to ferry tankers for example).

For example, the US needs these sea lanes to be able to access the Gulf from their Pacific base as quickly as possible especially in time of crisis... A detour, eg., around Australia if say, Malacca Strait, the shortest route to the Gulf, is closed for some reason, its non-access would hugely impede US naval deployment by one hell of a long tim,e by many days if not weeks, and that's not good enough.

So what interest does US have in the region? To ensure the free flow of sea traffic, for trade and military purposes. It is in US interest to "protect" the region from, say, a blockade by an ambitious nation in the region

Again, the SLOC in that region is as vital to the US as to the Chinese and to every nation in the region.

Besides, big tankers, huge naval vessels, aircraft carriers cannot go through a different route (within the time required) because the waters are shallow, hence, the US has no choice but to "borrow" those SLOCs.

The importance of the Spratly is that it is a choke point as well. Any one nation that controls the Spratly could very well block passage to the Malacca and the Sunda Straits, hence it is in the interest of the US that no "armed sea conflict" arises over the Spratly and will prevent such conflict arising by any means possible.

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