Part One of Two: Secrets Government Keeps from Our People
Digging deep into the US archival database, a June 9, 1975 memorandum by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that has been declassified last July 2006 blows the “iron-clad” commitment of President Joseph Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to the Philippines, to just an obnoxious horse pucky.
The document entered as “State Secret” was addressed to the US Embassy in Manila and the Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific based in Hawaii and pertains to the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the US and the Philippines.
It is best to quote the memo, in toto, in order to preserve its authenticity. I have, however, inserted [parentheticals] to identify acronyms used to aid comprehension.
Kissinger laid the premise, “Under Article V of the MDT, treaty commitment is defined to apply in the event of armed attack (1) on metropolitan territory of either party; (2) on island territories in Pacific under jurisdiction of either party; and (3) on armed forces, public vessel and aircraft of either party in Pacific.”
This may shock Malacanang and our lazy security cluster, “In USG [US government] view, Spratly Islands do not fall within either of the first two categories of Article V relating to territories.”
He explains the inapplicability, “First category evidently covers those territories over which a party is recognized as sovereign.
“As you are aware, USG regards question of sovereignty over Spratlys (including “Freedomland” or “Kalaayan”) as undetermined, and we take no position on merits of claims of various disputants.
“We note that at time MDT [was] signed, GOP [government of the Philippines] had asserted no claim to any of Spratly Islands, and had protested neither Vietnamese nor Chinese claims, which had been reiterated at time of negotiation of [the] 1951 Japanese Peace Treaty. USG announced publicly at that time it considered sovereignty question undetermined.
“Furthermore, Spratly Islands all fall out- side Philippine territory as ceded to us by 1898 treaty with Spain. USG maps accompanying presentation of MDT also exclude Spratlys from territories covered by MDT.”
The former secret document qualified further, “4. [The] second category, island territories under either party’s “jurisdiction”, was intended to cover other territory which a party administered by international agreement but was not sovereign over, e.g., UN [United Nations] trust territories and (at that time) Okinawa.
“We are not aware of any Philippine-administered territory falling within this category.
“As you are aware, US does not consider Japanese Peace Treaty created de facto Allied Power trusteeship over Spratlys, and we would not regard the Spratlys as thus being islands under jurisdiction of either party (or both).”
The document even struck a provision that might be construed as antithetical to Philippine interests. While granting that the position adopted in the preceding category “does not mean [the] Philippines could not expand territory over which it is sovereign”, the State Department “do not see legal basis at this time for supporting the claim to Spratlys of one country over that of other claimants.”
Kissinger defined the preeminent principle as customary law which is presently favorable to China – “Continuous, effective and uncontested occupation and administration of territory is a primary foundation for establishing sovereignty in absence of international settlement, but Philippine occupation could hardly be termed uncontested in face of claims and protests of Chinese and Vietnamese.”
He added the US government would welcome and recognize international settlement agreed to by all claimants, although he acknowledged this would be “cold comfort in light of present political realities.”
The document concurred with the US Embassy in Manila’s view that government of the Philippines is aware that the State Department considered “sovereignty undetermined”, would be more likely to invoke third category of Article V in the event of Vietnamese or Chinese attack on Philippine garrisons in the Spratlys.
Kissinger, however qualified, “we do not believe this aspect of treaty gives either party carte blanche to deploy forces anywhere in the Pacific with the assurance that the other party will be bound by the MDT in the event of attack on those forces.”
He said commitment in the event of attack on forces must be construed in context of overall purpose and provisions of the treaty citing that the “Preamble sets forth collective defense purpose of MDT and reaffirms parties’ commitments to principles and purposes of UN charter, while in Article I parties undertake to refrain from ‘threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with un charter.’
The Secretary of State provided a thin distinction, “Under most foreseeable circ*mstances, the treaty would apply if either party were attacked on high seas or in international air space.” Almost all of the South China Seas is claimed by China as territorial seas, specifically the Spratlys, Paracels, Pratas, Hainan and the Penghu (Pescadores).
Section 8 of the declassified document pertains to attacks on Philippine forces present in third countries, which is irrelevant this discussion. But later he made a careful distinction, “Deployment for defense of third country territory, however, is funda mentally different from case where deployment is for purpose of enlarging Philippine territory.”
To be more precise, he said hypothetical attack on [Philippine] garrisons in Spratlys presents different case in the sense that the US government has not recognized sovereignty of any third state over islands occupied by Philippine government.
Sadly, Secretary of State Kissinger specifically cited a decisive irony, “we have also not recognized [Philippine] sovereignty over islands.”
In this situation, he said while the US would not term Philippino occupation as illegal invasion of another state, neither can we term this deployment as aspect of collective defense purpose of Mutual Defense Treaty.
Rather, he said, we view purpose of [Philippine] garrison as establishing and enforcing a claim to sovereignty over openly disputed territory. “MDT does not obligate us to support this type of deployment in event of armed attack.”
Kissinger emphasized, “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 boot-strapped into commitment for defense of territory not included in first two categories by deploying forces in such territory.”
Driving the final nail in terms of realpolitik, he concluded, “As a practical matter, we see precious little chance Congress or the American people would support US intervention in Spratly dispute.
“If the [Philippine] 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.”
His last sentence was more graphic and ominous in presenting an analogy, “Furthermore, contrary interpretation would also create difficulty for us if [Philippines] ever tried to invoke MDT with respect to Sabah… or possibly if NATO were invoked by either side in the Greece-Turkey territorial disputes.”
Signed, Kissinger.
I spit on Joe Biden and Austin’s iron-clad commitment. He gave freezing ice to Bongbong Marcos, ice that turned into water even before the naïve junior landed back in Manila.
Does our president really believe this mumbo-jumbo spin of an American president seeking reelection in November, and with Donald Trump leading in the polls at that?
His father has already correctly read this during his watch. Addressing the National Press Club in Washington DC on September 1982 during his state visit to the US, Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Sr. told the American media in no uncertain terms:
“The United States is not necessarily bound to immediately react because the provisions of the Mutual Defense pact is that you will immediately (sic) take steps to meet the contingency in accordance with your constitutional processes.
“What does that mean?
“That means you will go the Senate, and the House of Representative.
“What does mean? That means delay.
“While we are dying there!”
Loud laughter and applause followed from the audience.
Thirty-six after the Kissinger Memorandum, our Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario met with Secretary State Hillary Clinton in Washington DC on June 23, 2011, and she was asked, “on the South China Sea, how concerned are you about China’s recent aggressive actions against Vietnamese and Philippine vessels off their coasts? And do you regard this as a serious threat to regional stability? And also, what is your response to comments from a senior Chinese official earlier this week, saying that the U.S. really had no role to play in helping resolve these disputes?”
Clinton replied, “we don’t, as the United States, take a position on competing sovereignty claims over land features. And as the secretary said, there is customary international law; there is the law of the seas. What is theirs is theirs and then what is disputed should be resolved peacefully.
“However, if there are claimants to land or sea features, then they should respect the international law and do everything we can to try to resolve these disputes because, ultimately, territorial disputes have to be resolved by the claimants. But the United States is prepared to support the initiatives led by ASEAN and work with the South China Sea’s claimants to meet their concerns.”
As a follow-up question, the secretary of state was asked by ABS-CBN Correspondent Rodney Jaleco, “The Spratly issue is what preoccupies many Filipinos right now as far as foreign affairs is concerned. And one question that keeps cropping up is: What will America do if China attacks Filipino forces in the Spratly Islands?”
Clinton rendered a doublespeak, “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.”
This was also basically her substantial answer when visited the Philippines.
Speaking at a US House committee briefing last week, Indo-Pacific Command (Indopacom) chief Adm. John Christopher Aquilino said the Philippines can invoke the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) if a sailor or a member of its military is killed.
Against what the US State Department has already documented and validated through the years, saber-rattling ignoramuses like Aquilino, many with stars in their chevrons, speak irresponsibly dropping the Mutual Defense Treaty as if it were a walk in the park.
You hear careless invocation of the treaty from our Secretary of Defense, our National Security Advisers, incompetent spokesmen like NSC Jonathan Malaya and PCG Jay Tarriela, former Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Amboy talking heads like Richard Heydarian, Jay Batongbacal and Christian Esguerra. You hear this in President Bongbong Marcos’ speeches.
Let this article serve as a wake-up call to the nation.
Moreover, Ayungin Shoal which portends to be the latest flashpoint between China and the Philippines, is not a feature according to UNCLOS, that is available for sovereignty claim because it is a low tide elevation. This was confirmed by Ambassador Henry Bensurto in his testimony before Congressman Rodante Marcoleta.
And although Bensurto still insists that it is part of our “exclusive economic zone” theoretically because it is within 200 nautical miles from our Palawan baseline, we have defaulted that sovereign right when the Philippine Navy militarized the area in 1999 when we grounded the BRP Sierra Madre in one of its reefs. EEZs and militarization is an oxymoron.
Despite claims of Secretary Teodoro that the BRP is a commissioned navy ship, it does not qualify as a “vessel” under international maritime law, ipso facto the Mutual Defense Treaty, because it is incapable of navigation, that is moving on its own power. For chrissake, that ship is a derelict! How can it be commissioned?
International Salvage Law classifies BRP Sierra Madre as an “abandoned ship” but not yet a wreck as it is not submerged underwater. It is a pollution that endangers marine environment.
Resupply missions to the rusting navy ship, regardless of whether using small, wooden and civilian vessels, constitute a military activity.
Meanwhile, Beijing has reiterated its demand that Manila remove the BRP Sierra Madre from the Second Thomas Shoal, calling its presence a violation of China’s sovereignty.
The Chinese embassy in Manila said “Before the warship is towed away, if the Philippines needs to send living necessities, out of humanitarianism, China is willing to allow it if the Philippines informs China in advance and after on-site verification is conducted. China will monitor the whole process.”
“If the Philippines sends large amount of construction materials to the warship and attempts to build fixed facilities and permanent outpost, China will not accept it and will resolutely stop it in accordance with law and regulations to uphold China’s sovereignty,” the statement added.
President Marcos Jr. has aggravated the situation when he made an un-informed decision to rescind all pre-existing protocols regarding resupplying the Sierra Madre, deteriorating it into a “fair game”.
Is Bongbong any lucid, by sending us to the fringes of war?
To be continued.
Next: Reveal Marcos Secret Agreement with The Americans
is former diplomat who served as press attaché and spokesman of the Philippine Embassy in Washington DC and the Philippines’ Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York from April 1986 to 1993. Presently, he is vice-president for international affairs of the Asian Century Philippines Institute, a geopolitical analyst, author of books, columnist, a print and broadcast journalist, and a hobby-organic-farmer.
His best sellers, A Problem for Every Solution (2015), a characterization of factors affecting Philippine-China relations, and No Vaccine for a Virus called Racism (2020) a survey of international news attempting to tracing its origins, earned for him an international laureate in the Awards for the Promotion of Philippine-China Understanding in 2021.His third book, The Poverty of Power is now available – a historiography of controversial issues of spanning 36 years leading to the Demise of the Edsa Revolution and the Forthcoming Rise of a Philippine Phoenix.
Today he is anchor for many YouTube Channels, namely Ang Maestro Lectures @Katipunan Channel (Saturdays), Unfinished Revolution (Sundays) and Opinyon Online (Wednesdays) with Ka Mentong Laurel, and Ipa-Rush Kay Paras with former Secretary Jacinto Paras (Tuesdays and Thursdays). His personal vlog is @AdoPaglinawan.
(adolfopaglinawan@yahoo.com)
Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH
