The Philippines Rally Against US 'Imperialism'

STUDENTS in the Philippines have formed demonstrations of dissent against the presence of US military forces in the country.

US forces have been stationed on the islands in a joint training operation with the Filipino military. Angry protesters have described the presence as US interventionism, condemning the visit of western military by burning the US flag.

The exercises, which involve around 7,000 US and Philippine troops, have come amid a troubled time for Philippine/Chinese relationships, some suggesting this motivated a US response.

One sign held by a protester in Manila read: “US imperialism, No 1 terrorism.”

The exercises are to continue until 27 April.

The existence of these drills, nicknamed Balikatan (shoulder-to-shoulder), is established in law. It would take over a year to deconstruct the Mutual Defence Treaty of 1951, which promises close military accord between the US and the Philippines.

 

It is important to point out that the exercises are annual- in fact it’s in its 28^th year. But a growing dissent from educated Filipinos cannot be ignored.

 

The concerns of the protesters now could be as justified as they ever have been. The treaty promises military unity against either country’s enemies. With Philippine relations with China souring (though at no point near war) the Philippines have a lot more to lose, and the United States a lot more to gain.

Tensions between the two Asian countries have been stretched by the contested ownership of a reserve of natural gas and oil found in the South China Sea. For the US, oil trade with a friendly Manila will be more profitable than trade with a friendly Beijing. 

Last Sunday, a Filipino navy plane found eight Chinese fishing vessels moored in the Scarborough Shoal Area, sparking the deployment of the Philippine’s largest US made warship and causing a standoff in the much disputed and highly profitable waters.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario told Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing on Wednesday that Manila would: “defend itself against any provocation.”

 

This response wouldn’t have thrilled Washington, and military backing wouldn’t flatter them.

 

The protesters are also right to question the treaty’s legitimacy; if the Philippines were to ‘defend themselves’ against a Chinese military force, the US would be unable to accompany them in a skirmish against the world’s largest and most dominant economic power. All three parties know this.

 

Manila would benefit more from concentrating on improving diplomacy and trade relations with China and its South-East Asian cousins, even if that means moving slightly away from their American relations, and parting ways with a treaty that gives them very little.