Visa-bonanza

By Reyshimar Arguelles

The Visiting Forces Agreement between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines or VFA has always been a topic of derision. Ever since the Estrada administration signed the agreement on top of the existing Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951, several scandals involving US military personnel have incited a careful review of the agreement. 

 

From the Subic rape case that saw the conviction of Lance Corporal Daniel Smith to the murder of Jennifer Laude, these scandals have added fuel to a nationalistic fire that equated them to the current state of Philippine sovereignty. The VFA is condemned as nothing more than an act of surrendering national dignity to a superpower that operates outside the realm of national law.

 

Citing Section 3(d) of the agreement, opponents of the VFA have criticized the government for giving US forces legal leeway in that soldiers and other military personnel will not be subject to local laws. There are, instead, provisions requiring the Philippine government to coordinate with US authorities in cases of “particular importance.”

 

It does not take an expert in foreign defense policy to determine the one-sidedness of the VFA, but it should not take us long that the VFA and other defense treaties we signed into with any other superpower almost often involve a compromise. We give up a part of our sovereignty on the pretext that we would benefit from allowing foreign forces on our soil. 

 

While it functions as a way for our military to train under the tutelage of one of the world’s most powerful armed forces, the VFA is also seen as a deterrent against our territorial rival from across the lake. In its struggle for regional dominance, the US has acted on the principle of containing the expansionist ambitions of the People’s Republic of China. But even with the VFA and other treaties in place, there seems to be no stopping Chinese forces from entering our exclusive economic zone and building a beachhead in the form of makeshift island-bases disguised as civilian installations. 

 

Nevertheless, security analysts have noted the importance of US military presence as a shield against China’s aggressive movements in the region. Things could get much worse the region lacks a counterbalance to China’s nefarious plans. 

 

To some, the VFA serves as a necessary evil that helps secure territorial waters and equips the country with the necessary knowledge and tools for conducting anti-insurgency campaigns and handling disputes caused by China’s incursions. But there is nothing good coming out from an agreement that considers us as nothing more than a chess piece. 

 

There are several reasons why the VFA goes against national interests, which is something that the Duterte administration wants to point out — albeit for the wrong reasons. 

 

After the US canceled the visa of Senator Bato dela Rosa — who is the subject of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act which sanctions government officials involved in human rights abuses — President Duterte vented his anger at the US by threatening to abrogate the VFA. 

 

Spokesperson Salvador Panelo says that the issue is not just about Bato being the architect of the President’s bloody drug war; it’s about fighting for our sovereignty and taking back our dignity. 

 

Really? It took the administration that long to figure out the taxing nature of defense treaties. It should have taken such a stand from the outset. But it is clear that Malacañang is not taking its job seriously, resorting only to narrow tirades because a minion couldn’t cross borders.

 

How petty can we get that, after several scandals and the onerous provisions of the VFA, the government is finally taking a stand on an issue based on someone’s own petty inconveniences? 

 

If we really need to review military treaties and agreements, we need to do so by putting national interests first and foremost — and not because someone loses the privilege of traveling to the US because US law says so.