Lorenzana to Locsin on MDT: Vagueness to spell chaos in crisis
Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana on Tuesday renewed his call for a review of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States, saying the accord needed to be cleared of ambiguities that could cause confusion during a crisis.
In a statement, Lorenzana said the ambiguities must be cleared to prevent the Philippines from getting embroiled in a war “we do not seek and do not want.”
He said the pullout of the US military bases in 1992, when the Philippines lost its “security umbrella,” should have triggered a review of the treaty.
Lorenzana cited China’s aggressive seizure in the mid-1990s of Panganiban Reef, saying the “[United States] did not stop it.”
Internationally known as Mischief Reef, Panganiban is within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea, but China has transformed it into an artificial island on which it has developed a military outpost.
Confusion and chaos
“I do not believe that ambiguity or vagueness of the Philippine-US MDT will serve as a deterrent. In fact, it will cause confusion and chaos during a crisis,” Lorenzana said, disputing Foreign Secretary Teddy Locsin Jr.’s statement last week that the treaty needed no amendments and that its “vagueness” gave it its “deterrent character.”
“The fact that the security environment now is so vastly different and much more complex than the bipolar security construct of the era when the MDT was written necessitates a review of the treaty,” he said.
The Philippine proposal for the treaty’s review was among the key topics when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with President Duterte and Locsin during an overnight visit to Manila last week.
During his meeting with Locsin on Friday, Pompeo promised that the United States would fulfill its obligations under the treaty and defend the Philippines against any “armed attack” in the South China Sea.
He said the United States was committed to ensuring that China “does not pose a threat” of closing the strategic waterway.
“Our commitments under the treaty are clear. Our obligations are real,” Pompeo said, becoming the first US official to publicly state Washington’s intent to defend a poorly armed ally specifically in the heavily disputed sea.
China’s sweeping claim
China claims nearly the entire sea, including waters claimed by the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam.
It has ignored a 2016 ruling of the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that invalidated its sweeping claim and declared it has violated the Philippines’ sovereign right to fish and explore resources in the West Philippine Sea, waters within the country’s EEZ.
President Duterte, who came to office two weeks before the decision came down, has refused to confront China with the ruling, preferring friendly relations with the Asian economic powerhouse.
But the United States, which says it has a national interest in keeping the South China Sea open, conducts freedom of navigation operations in the region, sailing warships near China’s artificial islands in an apparent challenge to the Asian giant’s insistence on dominating the region.
Lorenzana said the United States, “with the increased and frequent passage of its naval vessels” in the contested waters, “is more likely to be involved in a shooting war.”
“In such a case and on the basis of the MDT, the Philippines will be automatically involved,” he said.
Ambiguity a deterrent
But an expert in maritime laws said clearing the ambiguities of the MDT, particularly pertaining to the South China Sea, could only help China.
Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines’ Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, told reporters on Tuesday that he agreed with Locsin that ambiguity was a deterrent, though he also agreed that the treaty must be reviewed.
“The problem is that the Philippines, in a way, has been approaching the issue in too legalistic and too simplistic a manner that they want everything spelled out in black and white when precisely having things spelled out in black and white will more likely help the other side, the ones we’re trying to protect yourself against,” Batongbacal said.
“If you are too specific, you might be signaling to the other countries or the other potential aggressors what they can do in order to achieve their objectives without triggering the MDT. So ambiguity will be useful in that context,” he said.
The treaty, however, needs a review so that it can be adapted to new security challenges, he said.
He said the South China Sea was just one aspect of the treaty.
“There are also other challenges that the Philippines and the [United States] can work together on and some of them are not specific within the scope of the MDT,” he said.
Batongbacal cited counterterrorism as one area of cooperation that was not contemplated at the time of the writing of the treaty.
“So for both present and future challenges, a review will always be useful,” he said. “A review does not always mean you are going to renegotiate the whole MDT. It’s really more of assessing how the countries can further cooperate.” —WITH A REPORT FROM AP
