The Philippines’ complex and often turbulent relationship with the United States, particularly regarding the South China Sea dispute, has long been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. The recent incidents, including a clash with Chinese maritime forces that resulted in injuries to Filipino soldiers, have once again brought the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the two nations into sharp focus. In this video, we’ll explore the historical, legal, and geopolitical dimensions of the MDT, examining whether the Philippines can genuinely rely on the United States for defense support amid escalating tensions in the South China Sea.
Historical Context of the Mutual Defense Treaty
The Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States was signed on August 30, 1951, and has since served as the cornerstone of the bilateral defense relationship. The treaty obliges both nations to support each other in the event of an armed attack on their metropolitan territories or on the island territories under their jurisdiction in the Pacific. However, the treaty’s wording is notably vague, particularly regarding the specifics of the commitment and the geographical scope of its application.
Historically, the United States’ stance on its defense obligations under the MDT has been characterized by strategic ambiguity. In the early 1970s, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger articulated substantial doubts about whether a Philippine military contingent in the Spratly Islands would fall under the protection of the MDT. Kissinger’s remarks highlighted the United States’ reluctance to be drawn into conflicts perceived as extensions of Philippine territorial ambitions rather than direct threats to its sovereignty.
Legal Ambiguities and Strategic Ambiguity
The MDTs language, particularly the clause that commits each party to act “to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes,” has been a source of ambiguity and contention. This lack of automaticity in the US military commitment has led to varying interpretations and expectations.
For instance, during the 1995 Mischief Reef crisis, Philippine authorities identified eight Chinese ships in the vicinity of the Philippine-claimed Mischief Reef. The Philippines lodged a diplomatic protest with Beijing after discovering that China had built a number of structures on the reef. The reef has been controlled by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1995. This incident raised tensions throughout the region and heightened concern throughout much of the industrialized/maritime world.
In 2012, the Scarborough Shoal standoff unfolded when the Philippine Navy attempted to apprehend eight mainland Chinese fishing vessels near the shoal. The Filipino inspection team claimed to have found illegally collected corals, giant clams, and live sharks on board the first vessel they boarded. However, as the Filipinos prepared to make arrests, the trawlers sent a distress call to Chinese authorities in Hainan Province. Two unarmed China Marine Surveillance (CMS) vessels arrived and positioned themselves just outside the narrow mouth of Scarborough Shoal’s lagoon. The uneasy standoff persisted until June 15, 2012, when the Philippines conceded by withdrawing its maritime vessels from the waters surrounding Scarborough Reef.
In both these incidents, the Clinton and Obama administrations refrained from direct intervention, reinforcing perceptions of US unreliability. Despite the existence of the Mutual Defense Treaty ,the US did not automatically come to the Philippines’ aid.
Instead, the narrative of the US-Philippines military relationship since 2012 has been one of counterbalancing China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea. In 2014, the US and Philippines signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). This pact, a response to China’s island-building activities, allowed for a greater US troop presence on Philippine bases. While Filipinos generally favored the US alliance, some questioned the legality of EDCA and its potential to inflame tensions with China which, unsurprisingly, viewed it with suspicion.
Duterte’s Pivot and Marcos Jr.’s Pushback
When Rodrigo Duterte became president in 2016, he initially pursued a more conciliatory approach towards China, downplaying the South China Sea disputes. Duterte sought to improve relations with China, emphasizing economic cooperation and downplaying territorial disputes in the South China Sea. He met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and signed several agreements related to trade, infrastructure, and investment. Moreover, Duterte expressed skepticism toward the United States and distanced the Philippines from its traditional ally. He criticized U.S. policies and military presence in the region, leading to tensions in bilateral relations. However, despite the rhetoric, US-Philippine defense ties remained strong. Joint military exercises continued, and the US continued to provide military aid.
The election of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in 2022 marked a renewed focus on the South China Sea. The Philippines, under Marcos Jr., has taken a more assertive stance against China’s claims. This shift was evident in the upgraded 2022 EDCA, which granted the US access to four additional Philippine military sites.
Bilateral Defense Guidelines
In May 2023, the US and Philippines unveiled the Bilateral Defense Guidelines (BDG). This comprehensive agreement further strengthened the alliance and directly addressed China’s South China Sea actions. Here are the key takeaways of the BDG:
- Mutual Defense Commitment: The BDG reaffirms that an attack on either nation’s their vessels, aircraft, military personnel, and coast guard forces anywhere in the Pacific theater, including the South China Sea, would trigger a response under the existing Mutual Defense Treaty. This bolsters deterrence against Chinese aggression.
- Modernized Defense Capabilities: The agreement prioritizes the modernization of Philippine defense systems, especially its navy, with a focus on interoperability with US equipment. This collaboration aims to create a more robust combined force in the region.
- Deeper Collaboration: The BDG outlines plans for enhanced joint exercises, information sharing, and capacity building. This fosters a more coordinated response to emerging threats, including those in cyberspace.
- Addressing Transnational Threats: The agreement recognizes the importance of collaboration beyond traditional warfare. The US and Philippines plan to work together on issues like piracy and terrorism.
The BDG represents a significant step forward for the US-Philippines alliance. By bolstering military capabilities, enhancing cooperation, and presenting a united front, the US and Philippines aim to counter China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea and ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific region.
Recent Confrontation
The recent clash at the Second Thomas Shoal is consistent with a troubling trend. China consistently obstructs Philippine resupply missions. In June 2024, Filipino navy personnel attempted to deliver crucial supplies to a military outpost aboard the grounded warship BRP Sierra Madre. Chinese forces seized two Philippine rubber boats that were delivering food and other supplies. Some Filipino navy personnel were injured during the incident. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken swiftly condemned China’s actions, emphasizing the importance of the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines. While not yet labeled an “armed attack,” tensions remain high.
Incidents like this highlight that the threshold for activating the Mutual Defense Treaty remains quite high. However, both the United States and the Philippines are now focusing on modernizing their defense capabilities, particularly in the maritime domain. They are developing a Security Sector Assistance Roadmap, which outlines investments and capacity-building efforts for the next decade.
Philippines Perception and Public Opinion
The geopolitical landscape in the South China Sea has long been a point of concern for the Philippines. As tensions between the United States and China persist, Filipinos closely monitor the implications for their nation’s security and foreign policy
In June 2023, a staggering 81% of Filipinos expressed worry about the potential escalation of tensions between the US and China. The fear is that such escalation could directly impact the Philippines’ national security. This sentiment underscores the awareness among Filipinos of the delicate balance in the region.
In the same note, a survey conducted in April 2024 revealed that 43% of Filipinos favor aligning with the United States in the event of heightened tensions in the West Philippine Sea. In stark contrast, only 3% suggested alignment with China. This preference for the US reflects the enduring importance of the US-Philippines relationship in safeguarding regional stability. However, it’s worth noting that 40% believed the Philippines should maintain a neutral stance, while 15% remained unsure.
This nuanced perspective acknowledges the need for a balanced approach to regional affairs. While security concerns drive the preference for the US, economic ties with China cannot be ignored. The Philippines relies on Chinese trade, investment, and tourism. Crafting foreign policy that maximizes economic gains while addressing security imperatives is essential.
The Role of the United States: Past and Present
Washington’s strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region have driven its engagement with the Philippines and other regional allies. The United States seeks to counter China’s growing influence and ensure the stability of critical sea lanes in the South China Sea.
Moreover, the updated guidelines represent a significant shift in American policy in the South China Sea, moving from “scrupulous noninvolvement” to a focus on deterrence against provocative Chinese actions in “gray zone” scenarios. This clarification addresses the ambiguity surrounding scenarios occurring in disputed waters or involving non-military Philippine government vessels, such as coast guard ships. This change reflects Washington’s growing perception of China as a strategic adversary and Manila’s continued commitment to rebuilding its external defense capabilities.
Despite these updates, challenges remain. The US’s global military commitments also play a crucial role in shaping its response to regional conflicts. With military engagements and security obligations across the globe, the US must balance its resources and strategic priorities. The capacity of the US to respond to a conflict in the South China Sea is influenced by its commitments in other regions, such as the Middle East, Europe, and the Korean Peninsula. Also, the absence of significant defense aid and advanced weapons systems to the Philippines raises concerns about the credibility of US commitments.
Comparative Analysis with Other US Defense Treaties
Comparing the US-Philippines MDT with other US defense treaties, such as those with Japan, South Korea, and NATO allies, can provide additional insights. These treaties often have clearer commitments and more defined mechanisms for cooperation. For instance, the US-Japan Security Treaty explicitly states that both nations will act to meet common dangers, with a significant US military presence in Japan serving as a deterrent against regional threats. The US-South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty similarly involves substantial US military forces stationed in South Korea, providing a clear commitment to defend against North Korean aggression.
In contrast, the US-Philippines MDT has historically involved less direct military presence and more reliance on strategic ambiguity. The recent upgrades to the EDCA and BDG represent efforts to bridge this gap, but the extent to which these measures will enhance the credibility of the US commitment remains to be seen.
End Note
The US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty is a cornerstone of the bilateral relationship and a key element in the broader security architecture of the Indo-Pacific region. While there are historical and legal ambiguities, recent developments such as the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement and the Bilateral Defense Guidelines represent significant steps toward strengthening the alliance. However, the evolving geopolitical landscape, the strategic interests of both nations, and the complex dynamics of regional and global politics will continue to shape the effectiveness and reliability of this treaty. The Philippines can rely on the US to a certain extent, but the depth of that reliance will depend on ongoing efforts to modernize defense capabilities, enhance cooperation, and navigate the intricate balance of security and economic interests.
