China accuses the Philippines of political provocations

[seven7seven]

Philippines is important in respect to its strategic location and as a potential platform for US to launch attacks on Chinese naval forces. But would USA ever dare fight China directly or vice versa. Probably not.

If Philippines becomes too emboldened because of perceived US support, China should pressure Philippines politically, economically and militarily, to lure Philippines into a false move that can justify China fighting a limited conflict with Philippines. Philippines would be ideal country to test out China's new military hardware, with little risk of damage, due to Philippines very limited defense capabilities.

With the appropriate justification, China can make sure USA will stay out of the fight, which USA would not want to get involved with directly anyway. Of course, USA would watch closely and evaluate Chinese capabilities and tactics.

 

[Jlaw]

We have a binding mutual defence treaty with the Philippines that has been in place since 1951 and we will most definitely honour it. In 2014 it was expanded due to this very issue, Chinese military expansion into the SCS.

U.S., Philippines Sign Defense Pact Amid China Tensions - Bloomberg Business

How did this mutual defense helped the Philippines in 2012 when China took over the Scarborough Shoals?

 

[Desertfalcon]

How did this mutual defense helped the Philippines in 2012 when China took over the Scarborough Shoals?

As the Philippines chose not to invoke their defence treaty with us concerning that, it really doesn't apply. We can't invoke provisions of the treaty for them.

It is refreshing though to have a Chinese poster admit that China, rather than handle the claims of that disputed territory peacefully, showed zero respect for it's neighbours and simply took it by force. I'm sure posters from the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. will equally appreciate your candour.

 

[Jlaw]

As the Philippines chose not to invoke their defence treaty with us concerning that, it really doesn't apply. We can't invoke provisions of the treaty for them.

It is refreshing though to have a Chinese poster admit that China, rather than handle the claims of that disputed territory peacefully, showed zero respect for it's neighbours and simply took it by force. I'm sure posters from the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. will equally appreciate your candour.

We learned a lot from the US. In fact we should learn more when it comes to dealing with little countries.

edit: Plus the whole world know the US cannot and will not fight China direct on. The effects of Korean war and Vietnam war is still fresh in your memory after all these years.

 

[Desertfalcon]

In fact we should learn more when it comes to dealing with little countries.

"Little countries"? Once again, thank you! Notice posters from SCS countries the true colours shown here by this honest Chinese poster; the arrogant disdain, that China holds your beloved homelands in.

 

[sweetgrape]

"Little countries"? Once again, thank you! Notice posters from SCS countries the true colours shown here by this honest Chinese poster; the arrogant disdain, that China holds your beloved homelands in.

Of course, they are little countries, if not? big country? , seems you say they are not little countries means you respect them, hehe.

What China and your USA are? we all know, don't hide yourself, be honest, don't be hypocritic, that's too tired, are you American tired? seems you are very good man in the world

We China have show our claim, but still not start war with other countries, if USA in our place, Vietnam and Phillippine have miss more than hundred thousand soliders and innocent people, just like you did in Iraq, Libya, NJU, Panama, Vietname. talking about arrogant, how can we match you?

Seems you very respect your neighbor, you respect Cuba? Mexico? looting huge land from Mexico is your respect, good job, hehe, yes, now you are respecting Mexico, very very good, who know when you want more?

You do even not the member of UNCLOS, but here teach us how to respect the treaty, what a joke, is it arrogant? yes, it is, you are the only one superpower, world police, like meddling, or, do what you like, you mess up the world, but still need to pretend to good police who seek justice,

World police, continue, we will keep "enjoy" your show, hehe.

 

[Desertfalcon]

seems you say they are not little countries

That's right. We don't. The Philippines with almost a hundred million people, Indonesia with 250 million people, Vietnam with 90 million people, little countries? No, when you Chinese posters brag about the utter disrespect you show your neighbours in seizing disputed territory rather than respecting the other countries as equals, when you brag about how they can't do anything about it, when you talk about "learning how to deal with those little countries", we Americans know you are doing more than anything we can say. Your neighbours here on PDF can see first hand, the complete arrogance of China, the utter disdain, the total disrespect, that Chinese posters have toward their neighbours in the region. Please, please, you Chinese posters just keep talking! The more China talks and brags, the more the countries of the SCS will see your true nature.

 

[Aepsilons]

How did this mutual defense helped the Philippines in 2012 when China took over the Scarborough Shoals?

THREATS by some quarters to unleash military countermeasures on a giant neighbor not only seem surreal but also becloud the country’s peaceful resolution approach. Efforts at building at least a minimum credible deterrent capability have always been a part of the country’s South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) action plan, but the military option can but be a means of last resort. Until that finality, it is best seen as a supporting tool of diplomacy, as something already subsumed in the diplomatic track albeit in a silent mode: it is the big stick while speaking softly. Anyway, the Philippines is a long way from putting its military act together in a credible manner.

The problem with the Philippines’ approach to the South China Sea challenge is that its military aspect is not anchored on the Philippines’ own capabilities but rides on the “ironclad” security guarantee under the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty. The brighter other side of this challenge, of the proverbial Chinese coin, could be the possible opportunities that await the country’s awakening to the need to upgrade its own armed defense services, which have suffered from neglect from, among other factors, focusing on local insurgencies, and which furthermore today face new security concerns such as terrorism sans borders and massive natural disasters brought by climate change. Also on that other side might hopefully be the realization of the need to reexamine the country’s mutual defense arrangements with the United States for their validity and relevance to the country’s needs and interests.

The Philippines appears to infuse credibility to its military option by invoking the PH-US Mutual Defense Treaty when there is not even a mutual understanding between the two countries on the application of the treaty. In what might have been a fit of strategic ambiguity, the US Ambassador to the Philippines refused to clarify how “ironclad” the MDT guarantee was, raising questions on the true intensions of the treaty ally. One can recall that at the early onset of the potential conflict situation in the Spratlys involving China, the US declared that the PH-US MDT did not apply as the Spratlys archipelago was not part of the “metropolitan territory” of the Philippines.

The MDT Article IV defines the subject of the Treaty as being “ that (of) an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties” and Article V defines armed attack on either of the Parties in the Pacific Area as deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific (N.B.: The Philippines has no island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Area) or on the armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific. Much later in the intensifying conflict situation and after both Parties to the MDT had been mutually invoking the MDT, the US suddenly announced that it was not taking sides in the South China Sea disputes and insinuated into the situation its very own vital national interest in ensuring freedom of navigation in the area.

The Philippines must see its way clear to realizing that the PH-US MDT is not mutual and therefore is hardly of any value in addressing its own national security interests, not to mention that it is not relevant to the position of the Philippines in the conflict situation in the South China Sea. One must be in a desperate state of denial to construe the express terms of the treaty and the pronouncements of US senior officials otherwise.

The PH-US MDT has long been anachronistic and belongs to a bygone era as shown by its references to the collective security arrangement under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and to the development of a system of regional security in the Pacific. The preambular paragraph 3 of the MDT provides the raison’etre for the treaty as “Desiring (further) to strengthen their present efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area.” That system of regional security took the form of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) which was effectively dead soon after its birth as what happened to its counterpart in Central America, the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). The ANZUS may still be active but it covers another part of the Pacific area of hardly any concern to the Philippines.

It is now 64 years since the MDT came into effect and clearly time has passed it by; the continuing validity and duration of the treaty are subject to a condition that has failed to materialize. True the MDT has a provision (Art.VII) that “This treaty shall remain in force indefinitely.” This is a rather curious effectivity clause. In geopolitics, a State has no permanent friends nor enemies, only permanent interests.

In contemporary lingo, there is no such thing as a BFF treaty alliance. The MDT as an alliance treaty merely formalizes indefinitely the protectorate status of the Philippines, a country whose fortunes ebb and flow with the geopolitical and economic vicissitudes of the protector-State. At best the MDT is an unequal treaty with a one-way application. Abrogating the MDT might thus be a matter of national self-respect for the Philippines as it appears to compromise the primary State policy enunciated in its 1987 Constitution for the country to “pursue an independent foreign policy” (Section 7).

To be sure, an independent foreign policy does not necessarily mean neutrality or a neutralist policy. It does not necessarily call for eschewing bilateral or multilateral security alliances. The MDT may be abrogated in order for it to be replaced by a new one or none at all in keeping with contemporary realities and a reasonable projection of the future.

@Jlaw

 

[sweetgrape]

That's right. We don't. The Philippines with almost a hundred million people, Indonesia with 250 million people, Vietnam with 90 million people, little countries? No, when you Chinese posters brag about the utter disrespect you show your neighbours in seizing disputed territory rather than respecting the other countries as equals, when you brag about how they can't do anything about it, when you talk about "learning how to deal with those little countries", we Americans know you are doing more than anything we can say. Your neighbours here on PDF can see first hand, the complete arrogance of China, the utter disdain, the total disrespect, that Chinese posters have toward their neighbours in the region. Please, please, you Chinese posters just keep talking! The more China talks and brags, the more the countries of the SCS will see your true nature.

So, what's the population of China?

If We were USA, you think we will just reclaimming and sitting here discuss with them? hehe. respect or disrespect? it is important for me? just like, anything what we do that you don't like, you will criticise, and hype it, so, in fact, you America like or not, for me I don't care, included Vietnamese, Phillippine, Japanese attitude.

Don't hide you real purpose here, no need, for us, it is transparent, meddle around, messing up the world, hehe, keep jump, do you think you respect other countries, and world rule? hehe, big joke.

Don't talk too much, first join the UNCLOS, and, we not only can keep talking here, more, we will reclaim more island and make them bigger, deploy more weapon on and around there, for the freedom of navigation, hehe, you US Navy also are welcome, .

 

[xunzi]

True, but would you rather Philippines be your pawn or the pawn of your competitor?

Well you have to ask the Pinoy. It seems they change their mind every few decades.

 

[21stCentury]

Well you have to ask the Pinoy. It seems they change their mind every few decades.

Which is why I said a limited war will need to take place between Philippines and China to settle the differences, only then will Philippines come to its senses and then China can offer a hand of friendship and a new beginning between the two nations.

 

[Aepsilons]

Which is why I said a limited war will need to take place between Philippines and China to settle the differences, only then will Philippines come to its senses and then China can offer a hand of friendship and a new beginning between the two nations.

You mean a limited naval clash? Perhaps limited in the sense of the PLAN's South Sea Fleet's muscle flexing, but to the Philippines? I suppose their entire fleet would be annihilated. Including their newly acquired cutter-frigates. Will the United States risk open war ? I highly doubt it. It will mostly watch and give verbal support to Manila, perhaps even some drone assistance , that's all.

The Philippine Navy would cease to exist in such a contingency. I doubt the folks in Manila are that suicidal.

 

[21stCentury]

You mean a limited naval clash? Perhaps limited in the sense of the PLAN's South Sea Fleet's muscle flexing, but to the Philippines? I suppose their entire fleet would be annihilated. Including their newly acquired cutter-frigates. Will the United States risk open war ? I highly doubt it. It will mostly watch and give verbal support to Manila, perhaps even some drone assistance , that's all.

The Philippine Navy would cease to exist in such a contingency. I doubt the folks in Manila are that suicidal.

That's how you make them come to their senses, and only then can China and Philippines start fresh. After I also propose that China help Philippines rebuild and develop its economy and become the guarantor of Philippines security.

 

[Aepsilons]

That's how you make them come to their senses, and only then can China and Philippines start fresh. After I also propose that China help Philippines rebuild and develop its economy and become the guarantor of Philippines security.

No, i don't think that is necessary. The Filipinos are compromising people, allow their leaders to find the wisdom in cooperating with Beijing.

There is no need for senseless violence against the Filipinos.

 

[21stCentury]

No, i don't think that is necessary. The Filipinos are compromising people, allow their leaders to find the wisdom in cooperating with Beijing.

There is no need for senseless violence against the Filipinos.

I like to separate civilian population and military. That way civilian Filipinos will not be harmed, but it will be a field day on the Filipino military. Sink the entire Philippines navy to the bottom of the sea if that's what it will take.