Vassal and suzerain

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

5/12-13/2012

The world knows the so-called "special relation" existing between the Philippines and the United States is one of a vassal and of a suzerain state. It has never been one between two sovereign states where the concept of national interest is pursued within the framework of what is mutually advantageous. It is from this context where Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin committed a serious diplomatic blunder. It now appears that their hasty mission to Washington D.C. was a pilgrimage made by the representatives of a vassal state to seek reassurance given the heightening tension with the rulers of the re-emerging Middle Kingdom.

Indeed, the pilgrimage turned out to be pathetic because they acted more like lackeys than as diplomats seeking to obtain reassurance from our current naval stand-off with China in the Scarborough Shoal or Panatag Shoal. They blindly equated our interest as equivalent to US interest, thus resulting in our being denied the right to invoke our alliance under the existing Mutual Defense Treaty. As emissaries of a vassal state, del Rosario and Gazmin failed to look back- that our alliance with the US was extracted from us in exchange for our alleged freedom, and not one we purposely sought in order to supplement our national interest brought about by our natural weakness as a state.

As one exacted from us after World War II, the US always had the upper hand on how to interpret the alliance, and that interpretation was always along the lines that would advance their interest.

To begin with, Secretary del Rosario should not have trumpeted the purpose of his homage, like issuing a statement saying his trip was "to seek a reaffirmation from the US of its commitment to come to the country's aid if shots were fired and Philippine sovereignty is threatened." It was a costly blunder because he and Gazmin failed to read that Philippine interest is not exactly parallel to that of the US interest in the region. Rather, the thrust of the US policy is to pursue further its ties with China than in defending a lackey state that has dared to embroil itself in some kind of jingoistic adventurism. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was blunt when she said, "the United States would not take sides in the sovereignty disputes in the area, but as a Pacific Power it was in its interest to ensure freedom of navigation in the sea lanes in the region."

The two even failed to observe the basic diplomatic code of keeping one's mouth shut, or if not to sound out to their counterpart what should be stated in the joint communiqué after the meeting; that either the US make an official stand she is on our side as far as our standoff with China at the Panatag Shoal is concerned, or not to make any reference to the crisis and to our military alliance if the US is not prepared to give any unequivocal support to our claim. For our failure to make an advance feeler on what should have been stated in that joint communiqué, the US felt it was free to say anything, like declaring that it would not take sides on our current dispute with China. Invariably, that put our position stranded in the middle of the West Philippine Seas which was embarrassing, for we could not possibly order our small flotilla to leave the area without losing face.

For that faux pas, del Rosario now tries to salvage the blunder by putting up some qualifiers that we could still draw the US to our side. Secretary del Rosario now says the US will honor the MDT if the Philippines is attacked by China. That question in fact compelled Secretary Clinton to state she is not prepared to discuss any hypothetical questions, knowing that China is unlikely to attack the Philippines. Definitely, the US will not come to our defense.

Nevertheless, this column is not saying we have no valid and legitimate claim over those islands we now call the Panatag Shoal. The validity and legitimacy of our claim is geographical rather than historical because Panatag Shoal is just 124 nautical miles from Zambales, and is well within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone as defined and demarcated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, while the disputed area is more than 250 nautical miles from the nearest Chinese territory. As signatory to the convention, China cannot now give its own arbitrary qualification to justify its hegemonistic expansionism that could reduce the area into a virtual Chinese lake. In fact, the US Air Force once used the area for their strafing and bombing practice when their facilities at Subic was still operational with China not lodging a single protest. Our claim is not based on ancient times when the whole of the known world was ruled by Genghis Khan, but in recent times when the Philippines, though the US, had a free hand in operating in that area.

• rodkap@yahoo.com.ph