Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones,
h.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
Let me re-order my responses so to communicate the message better.
If you feel it's not bad timing on PH's part (note I didn't say "If you feel it's GREAT timing", since
THAT would be straw), then we'll just have to disagree.
I would actually argue that the SND’s statements are not meant for the US alone (see further below), and is actually coupled with backend discussions that already put these statements into context.
Kim is not
Goldberg, and Lorenzana’s ties run deep.
While I recognize that these are . . . interesting . . . post-WWII times for the US, if the goal is to completely avoid waves then there will never be a good time for anything significant.
'Naku ha, those are motherhood statements.
"Complete subservience" is furthermore pure straw.
There's a gulf between mature disagreement, and the childish level of scorn towards both the
US and the PH-US MDT itself, that we've seen from the highest level of PH.gov.
Comments about subservience and mendicancy are related. See further below.
The sooner the US gets accustomed to a Philippines that is willing to go its way on occasion the sooner the relationship matures. The better it will actually be for both countries.
More motherhood statements and straw?
The Philippines HAS been going its own way on occasion since the Clark and Subic boot-out, but
again, never with the childish level of scorn towards both the US and the PH-US MDT itself, that
we've seen from the highest level of PH.gov.
You are
partly correct in saying that Philippines went its way with the bases boot-out. But it was a half-arsed departure from precedent because it was only the Senate that went its way. To the very end, Manglapus was pushing for an extension of the US bases treaty, and it was the Senate that rejected it.
The Executive department never wrapped its head around what that boot-out really meant. Which is why the government continued to fund the AFP conservatively, as though it still had full access to the Pentagon's coffers.
That, along with the organizational excesses that came with not having to worry about where funding came from, is what led to the force-deficiencies that modernization has been trying to patch for the past 20 years.
It also gave China the opening it needed in Mischief Reef, and the rest is history.
Furthermore, the sooner the Filipino people break out of a mendicant mindset that expects the US to everything for us, that is actually needs to weigh options instead of just "going along", sooner it will actually appreciate the "why" behind the importance of such relationships.
To achieve that goal, sometimes we need to bend the relationship in ways it was never bend before. Think the PMA bamboo analogy.
"Mendicancy" and a total reliance on the US ...are more motherhood and straw, adroth.
At best they are generalities that are only borderline related to the thread-topic, which is that
PH DND Sec wants to try to get a US commitment to include KIG under MDT coverage.
As you noted, the EU is willing to make its own army. Israel gets away with spying on the US, and so on. Yet . . . they remain allies.
Malacanang’s message has three audiences directed at three partly-intertwined problems.
The first problem is with the Filipino psyche. In US-PH relations, this problem manifest itself in the following schools-of-thought:
“The US cares about us and will never abandon us”
“The US is obligated to protect us”
“We must go along with everything the US says because we don’t want them to abandon us”
“The US abandoned us. How dare they”
The common denominator is treatment of the US as a foreign-policy crutch. Attitudes towards this crutch range from mendicant-acceptance to resentful dependence. Consider the following survey on Filipino impressions about the US.
Filipinos like the US even more than Americans do – Pew Research
Data from the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project show Filipino respondents have positive views on the US, Americans, and US Presidents – even better than Americans themselves
Rappler.com
Published 6:26 PM, April 22, 2014
Updated 12:56 AM, April 23, 2014
https://www.rappler.com/nation/56085-philippines-usa-pew-research
< Edited >
Data from the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project show a higher percentage of Filipinos surveyed – 85% to be exact – having a more "favorable" view of the American people. Americans come second in the survey, with 84% saying they have a "favorable" view of themselves.
< Edited >
74% of Filipinos surveyed, meanwhile, expressed confidence that China "will never replace the US as the world's leading superpower."
< Edited >
Not surprisingly, 81% of Filipinos surveyed saw the US as a "partner" of the Philippines.
< Edited >
This dependence doesn’t just manifest itself in normal common-tao discourse, it runs deep even in the AFP, where JUSMAG and FMS are still looked upon as substitutes for development of a proper procurement service. Easier to be told what you need, rather than doing the hard work to actually figure things out yourself . . . AND actually living with the choices that you made.
Beyond big ticket items, long-time service Timawans even lament how JUSMAG assistance is sought for things as mundane as per-diem for officers who go on overseas training . . . instead of properly funding such travel in-house through proper fiscal planning and responsibility.
How do you turn something from a crutch, into something is simply viewed as an advantageous arrangement? You make it optional. That’s what where the PMA bamboo analogy comes in.
You can’t straighten crooked piece of bamboo just by bending it to its preferred. If you did it will just bend back to its crooked state. You bend it beyond the preferred state, so that when it bends back, it springs to the intended shape.
Malacanang’s statements are hyperbolic at best and “childish” at worst. But at the end of the day, it is a “bamboo” solution for the domestic audience. You need, at the very least, to question the default assumptions of US-PH relations.
Uproar over the anti-US rhetoric is to be expected because it is unfamiliar, almost sacrilegious, in its content. But if we are to “move the needle” on this matter, something other than business-as-usual is called for.
Enter activities like exercises with Russia. No JUSMAG to provide guard rails, to remind the PN to make sure that these activities are actually logistically supportable. Mistakes will be made (e.g., BRP Davao del Sur reportedly ran into engineering issues coming back from Vladivostok). Lessons will have to be learned.
Integral to success is belief in our ability to succeed. At some point, an adolescent – even an overaged one -- has to ride the bike without training wheels . . . dive into the deep end of the pool before he/she is completely ready.
Second audience is China. Keep them off guard . . . and wondering about what our intentions really are. Buy time to shore up our positions. How? See
here.
Third is the US. This is discussed further in the next section below. But the important bit to note for now is as follows:
If the out-of-left-field pronouncements of one administration is enough to damage US-PH relations, then the “special relationship” was never as strong as advertised in the first place.
The US now has a better ambassador than in early 2016, and knows how to take the administration’s statements in stride and ascertain commander’s intent.
The US is not as “evil” as its critics claim. Nothing ever is because there are ALWAYS two sides to everything. It is also not the charitable institution that many of its admirers believe. If there is an over abundance in admirers, there is a need to overplay the negative to move the needle towards a more balanced view of the real state of affairs
...and as you noted, the US-NATO treaty is tighter than US-PH. Hence Euro NATO members (as
"the EU") have a lot more rope to play with.
Not so PH, which has furthermore been careless
with its shorter cordage.
One can't upslope a weaker PH position to the durability of NATO.
One can, however, downslope the negative effects of US politics even on NATO, onto the much
weaker position of PH.
Israel? US backing for Israel is rather arguably stronger than even for NATO, and has been for
decades (Simple test lang: how many Israeli citizens in US Congress and Senate? Ask that for,
say, Belgians or any other European country? How about for Filipinos?) Upslope, downslope.
I am under no illusions about the Philippines having even remotely the same leverage as either NATO or Israel, or enjoys the same perception of value.
Past Philippine behavior hasn’t helped that perception one bit. We have been inept in multiple spheres. Not the least of which is how we live up to our defense obligations. No country has had a better front-row-seat to AFP fiascos than the US. Understandably, the AFP has had to contend with US stereotypes.
The US has its own assessments about where it believes the Philippines should direct its resources. Consequently, the assistance and advice it provides is geared towards specific shared concerns, and little else. See
JUSMAG.
Our history has also shown that our compliance with the assessments has been predictably favorable. Our decisions have remained within loosely defined – or implied -- US-centric boundaries. As a Timawan in the DND once lamented during the Aquino administration . . . we were painfully hesitant to ask for anything meaningful. We were a known-quantity, that would take what was given.
Anything beyond this . . . the Philippines is on its own.
If it wants anything more, such as firmer assurances with regard to China, it needs to refresh the relationship. It needs to prompt a reassessment of existing pre-conceived notions and calculations. The first step in that is to actually ask for it.
Reception to such overtures can be shaped by how the stage is set. “Antics” that serve to implement the bamboo solution for domestic politics, simultaneously serve to signal a need for a rethink. It is an effort to shape perceptions of value. By signaling that we are willing to go it alone, we are, not only signaling our own house to get its own act together, we are also giving the US reason to refresh its assumptions.
It is, by the way, worth noting that the Philippines is very careful not to alienate our other local partners. This is a "drama" aimed at the one ally that know better than to think that we
really want to cut ties.
