“We continue to violate our Constitution just to accommodate the entry of nuclear weapons by the US“
We continue to violate our Constitution just to accommodate the entry of nuclear weapons by the US.
The lame excuse often said by the United States is that its presence in the South China Sea is to protect the territorial integrity of the countries against China’s aggression.
Such assertion is rather misplaced and reckless.
Putting the allegation ahead of actual aggression presupposes violation of the country’s territorial integrity; that no state can be accused of violating international law unless such has actually been committed.
It is the fact that aggression has been committed.
There is no such thing as anticipatory aggression, and must be specific.
Besides, the countries affected must have experienced actual threat for which US policy makers are now making much rankle to justify its presence in the South China Sea.
By then the world is deceived that its presence in the South China Sea is not to protect the territorial boundaries of countries in the region.
It gives justification that its exercise of hegemony characterized by unilateralism to influence the policy of other countries.
Countries littoral to the South China Sea are conditioned to accept its insistence based on what it calls “rule-based” principle which the US itself unilaterally laid down.
Consequently, all questions about its presence is automatically overshadowed by its pre-eminent presence in the South China Sea.
Neither can it be said there are other interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine which the US unilaterally declared to prevent the European powers from further colonizing South America.
Neither can the US presence in the Philippines or in the region shape its sphere of influence to compel other countries to abide by what the US wants.
In fact, the US has no claim whatsoever to any of the territories in the SCS to legitimately protect its interest.
The only right it has is its right of freedom of navigation which is limited to the exercise of the right itself.
For instance, to allow the US to have military bases here does not include the collateral transfer of right to countries which the Philippines did not sign an agreement with.
The US can never transfer its right under the freedom of navigation like allowing its allies to freely navigate in areas not designated as international waters, nor have those bases rented in a treaty or agreement to secure their own defense or much more to allow the re-export of weapons purchased from the US or any of its allies.
The US continues to patrol the SCS which it calls “rule-based” principle floating on the plethora of pure imagination.
Our military agreement with the US is personal to us.
The agreement has to be made into a treaty, not an executive agreement, and ratified by the Senate.
All treaties have to observe some rules, regulations and limitations specific to the issue of jurisdiction to servicemen stationed inside those bases.
The grant of independence by the US to the Philippines in 1946 and the termination of the US military bases in the country in 1991 formally ended our supposed US Bases agreement.
That indicated US has no territorial claim or interest in this country except to promote a possible proxy war with China.
It was Spain that demarcated the boundary of the Philippines facing the whole of SCS to indicate limitations of our border.
In fact, many of the islands in the SCS are much closer and proximate to the Philippine archipelago than to mainland China.
None of the islands closer and proximate to the Philippine archipelago was uncannily contested by the US as successor-in-interest of these territories like questioning why the boundary was not located in the middle of the SCS to make the division more or less equitable and fair.
It is from this stand point why the US issued a disclaimer to any claim by the Philippines, China and other countries like Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. This means that the US has no territorial interest in the SCS except those areas that overlapped 200-mile limit provision made by UNCLOS which was ratified only in 1984. The Treaty of Paris has been in existence for more than 100 years, and the US has not raised any question to invalidate the treaty.
The Treaty of Paris is now questioned when the Philippines is not even a signatory to that Treaty.
As said, the US never made a protest against the treaty because it acknowledges it has no claim in the area.
This also explains why the US insists in reviving the Philippine-US military bases agreement despite the fact that the Philippines issued a terminal date for ending the stay of the US bases in our country.
The renewal of the US military bases in the Philippines is the only lifeline of the US to justify its presence in the South China Sea.
Otherwise, it has no basis to regularly patrol the Strait of Taiwan
Our Constitution states the bases agreement should be made in the form of a treaty and not an executive agreement, and should be ratified by the Philippine Senate.
It should not even be called “visiting forces or enhanced defense cooperation agreement.”
In fact, we continue to violate our Constitution just to accommodate the entry of nuclear weapons by the US.
