South China/West Philippine Sea

[dos8dos]

I don't mean to belabor but this treaty is still in force indefinitely.

 

the MDT was RATIFIED by both the senate of the US & RP

 

learning from history agreements are BROKEN sometimes, just as hitler did to stalin, so its PRUDENT not to rely heavily on the TREATY. we have to build up some form of capability for the defense of our nation.

 

its GOOD for us that we have a TREATY but you cant expect the US to guard our territory for us when its our DUTY to do so.

 

I think the key word there is that the president "may" commit forces. It is different from saying will commit for one to strongly believe indeed the US forces will be beside us fighting should there be a war.

While the US sending forces to fight our fight remains a possibility, I don't think it is automatic despite the mdt being in force indefinitely.

 

just dont expect that the US will be on the side of the filipinos when the FIRST SHOT is fired, filipinos alone will have to absorb the FIRST SHOT coz we dont hold JOINT PATROL with the US

 

remember the US will not join the fray IMMEDIATELY, they will observe first before making a DECISION on what kind & how STRONG the force they need to send to counter the aggression

 

the US govt need not declare war, all they have to do is send their boats in the vicinity of the FIGHT & tell the chinese they need to PASS BY

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[jopoc]

US will not engage in war against China just for us. i dont think they fight the war for the Ph unless there is a "compelling" reason for that.

[dos8dos]

^i dont think the US govt will renege on their obligation under the MDT, the widely EXPECTED assistance from the US may not come IMMEDIATELY, so we have to make SACRIFICES of our own on the onslaught

Edited June 4, 2012 by dos8dos

[fatchubs]

^i dont think the US govt will renege on their obligation under the MDT, the widely EXPECTED assistance from the US may not come IMMEDIATELY, so we have to make SACRIFICES of our own on the onslaught

 

This I agree ...

 

 

Incidentally, the US will not renege on this treaty. They could always claim that they have already provided us with hardware and other military aid to strengthen our military forces even if they actually are not physically present in the combat. Whether these are enough to defeat the Chinese is another story.

 

If ever, should the US eventually decides to join the fray, do anyone here thinks it is because of the interest of the Philippines or is it because of their best interest? Yes we have a mutual defense treaty, but who thinks they need us more than we have the need for them now? The treaty was signed in the 50's when the US is trying to make their presence felt in the Asia Pacific.

 

 

As far as the increased military presence of the US is concerned, this is essentially shielding the Philippines from a possibility of an armed attack. The Chinese will have second thoughts about firing the first shot with the US there since I don't think anyone of them would want to take the ire of the other. Further, as the US promised, they will not renege on the treaty and this act is in compliance to Article II of the MDT wherein it states "In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."

 

Is that enough to conclude that the US definitely will fight our fight? I still don't think so. It's just like having a security guard at home. You expect the security guard to defend you from armed robbers but it isn't a guarantee that when the time comes the guard will be able to protect you from the robbers moreso offer his life to protect you.

 

Bottomline, we all are second guessing whether of not the Americans will be fighting our war. Agreements have been broken, what assurance is there that it will not happen this time around? Only time will tell, thus there is no guarantee to say they really will be fighting with us at this point unless somebody can come out and claim he can clearly read Obama's mind and knows how he will handle the situation should the Chinese fire the first shot. And if there is no certainty, then it is not automatic.

[heatseeker0714]

the MDT was RATIFIED by both the senate of the US & RP

 

1.) learning from history agreements are BROKEN sometimes, just as hitler did to stalin, so its PRUDENT not to rely heavily on the TREATY. we have to build up some form of capability for the defense of our nation.

 

2.) its GOOD for us that we have a TREATY but you cant expect the US to guard our territory for us when its our DUTY to do so.

 

 

 

3.) just dont expect that the US will be on the side of the filipinos when the FIRST SHOT is fired, filipinos alone will have to absorb the FIRST SHOT coz we dont hold JOINT PATROL with the US

 

4.) remember the US will not join the fray IMMEDIATELY, they will observe first before making a DECISION on what kind & how STRONG the force they need to send to counter the aggression

 

the US govt need not declare war, all they have to do is send their boats in the vicinity of the FIGHT & tell the chinese they need to PASS BY

 

1.) Hitler never had any good faith from the very beginning with regard to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Said Treaty was given the go signal by Hitler to his Foreign Minister Ribbentrop so that he won't have to worry about them commies while he had his attention on Britain. Numerous authors, historians and his Nazi minions have already proved that had that Austrian Corporal succeeded in bagging Britain, he would just rest and re-equip the Whermacht for a few months before initiating operation Barbarossa (the attack of the USSR) Hitler has said it so many times that Nazism and Communism cannot co-exist in Europe. It was only the Sovs who acted in good faith with regard to that Treaty with Stalin refusing to order any Soviet units to fire back at German Units till the 3rd day of the attack because he thought that there was only a miscommunication between the German Field Units and the German High Command.

 

2.) No serious member here in this thread in particular as far as i know or in the country in general has espoused that the US guard our territory for us.

 

3.) Just like my answer in number 2, i haven't come across anyone expecting the US to be there when them Chicoms fires the first shot against us. All of the talk going around is about US reaction, not them being in the thick of things if and or when them Chicoms fire the first shot.

 

4.) We can never tell. Remember that US Sub suddenly surfacing in Subic a few weeks ago. For all that we know, there are a number of them submerged in the area monitoring the situation. Besides, if they drag their feet in coming to our aid militarily, they lose face and whatever credibility they have in the area. When the Panatag Shoal Issue was starting to heat up, i'm sure they already have contingencies in place if the situation escalates. The Pentagon just like any government bureaucracy isn't that efficient, but they're not that negligent either.

[heatseeker0714]

 

If ever, should the US eventually decides to join the fray, do anyone here thinks it is because of the interest of the Philippines or is it because of their best interest? Yes we have a mutual defense treaty, but who thinks they need us more than we have the need for them now? The treaty was signed in the 50's when the US is trying to make their presence felt in the Asia Pacific.

 

 

Believe me, they will join the fray militarily. To do so otherwise would put them in such a bad light that no amount of legalese and or damage control would repair their image in this part of the world.

[fatchubs]

Believe me, they will join the fray militarily. To do so otherwise would put them in such a bad light that no amount of legalese and or damage control would repair their image in this part of the world.

 

Your POV is noted ...

 

Let me just ask this. Is it always necessary to "fight" just to be able to defend your little bro from a bully? If the bully and little bro is in a fist fight and you know little bro is the underdog, do you need to attack the bully also instead of defending little bro by standing in between and successfully stopping the fight? Would taking the "peaceful" resolution put damage to big bro's image?

 

 

I believe the US will try and shield us from any attacks. If ever the untoward incident happens, they will be in a difficult position to balance their relationship with China as well as their commitment to the Philippines.

 

None the less, I'm strongly bias towards a peaceful resolution. Meaning, why should you escalate this into a bigger war had the US join the fray when everything can be resolve peacefully even after the first shot had been fired. My personal view and belief is that should this hypothetical event happen (assuming one crazy Chinese fire the first shot) and the Philippines counters) the US will as much as possible use moral suasion to end any military aggression. It's hitting 2 birds in one stone. They would not have to combat the Chinese together with the Filipinos which will only strain their relationship with China and at the same time be able to play its role of a big brother defending us by persuading China to stop further attacks. Remember the MDT is all about supporting each other when one is under attack. So if the US without firing any shot will be able to restore a ceasefire, what is the need to join the fray?

 

As I said we are all just second guessing here based on our personal views/expectations. . At the end of the day it is the president of the US to decide. But until that decision has been made, or at least a public announcement of what they intend to do (in this case to go to battle with us) then nothing is guaranteed for one to assume that they will be joining the fray. And for the Philippines, prudence dictates that a "no action" from the US as default rather than assuming that they will be there fighting with us.

 

 

[dos8dos]

^with all the speculation with the MDT, all i can say now is that washington as always will have to qualify first the extent of aggression. washington will have to discern a SKIRMISH from a FULL ASSAULT, this assessment will help determine what type of assistance they will send to their ally such as the phil.

 

in my humble opinion as far as the row in the shoal is concerned a SKIRMISH is the most likely thing to happen & washingtons response will simply be a STERN WARNING or REBUKE just like with north korea when they killed a few south korean sailors

 

i just hope in the event filipino sailors shed blood, the nation will be UNITED in meeting the chinese aggression with the mettle to put up a good fight

Edited June 4, 2012 by dos8dos

[camiar]

Sir, how do you define or interpret "obliged to come to its aid"? Does it mean going into combat side by side only? Does providing military aid such as money to upgrade military equipments or weapons also constitute such?

 

I would interpret the MDT to mean that either country (both PHL and USA)shall provide whatever aid necessary to "resist armed attacks" by external forces.

 

The MDT works both ways. If the US Fleet gets attacked in the Asia-Pacific region by another armed force, PHL is obliged to provide aid to the US Fleet. We may not even need to provide fighting troops, but we can provide behind-the-lines support and military bases to help the US fight off its attackers. Conversely, if the Philippine territory or its military forces are attacked, of course we should expect the US to help us fight off our attackers.

 

The terms of the treaty is quite clear. Both countries shall come to each other's aid if either country's armed forces are attacked in the Pacific. But one condition is that neither the US nor PH should act in a way that would provoke an armed conflict. If we militarily provoke China and starts the shooting, we'd better be prepared to finish it on our own, because in that case, the US is not obliged to help us.

Edited June 4, 2012 by camiar

[camiar]

US will not engage in war against China just for us. i dont think they fight the war for the Ph unless there is a "compelling" reason for that.

 

The mere geographic location of the Philippine archipelago is compelling enough reason for the US. PHL is essential to their strategic defense stategy in keeping their international shipping routes open.

[fatchubs]

From the very same article:

 

 

He committed the US to building a cooperative relationship with China, which has expressed misgivings over the strengthened US focus on the region and it's strengthened defence ties with Australia.

 

"We will do this even as we continue to speak candidly to Beijing about the importance of upholding international norms and respecting the universal human rights of the Chinese people," Mr Obama said.

 

 

 

No question, US will not renege on its commitment to defend the Philippines, Mrs Clinton and the US Defense Secretary have reiterated that already.

 

However, they will also not try to get the ire of the Chinese which will put a dent to their relationship or worst, burn the bridges with them if they are serious in "building a cooperative relationship". Its a tough balancing act which can't be achieve if the US will fight with us against the Chinese. Thus it only strengthen my belief that most likely US will resort to moral suasion or a peaceful way of defending the Phil. rather than being up in arms with our military in fighting the Chinese.

Edited June 5, 2012 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

You have a point there ... the speech could be sugar coated. I also agree on two other points which you said. First, the US wanted its presence felt in the region and this is being done through its allies in the region. Second, by doing so they are indirectly telling the Chinese that they are still "THE" force to contend with as far as the region is concerned.

 

Note however that time and again, the US has reiterated for a peaceful resolution to our issue with the Chinese. Granted that China fires the first shot, why should the US further add fuel to the fire by fighting beside us when then can most likely resolve this scuffle through a peaceful negotiation with the Chinese? Would you think the Chinese want this to turn into a WAR from a scuffle? Will the US look bad if they "defended" us by asking the Chinese to stop any further aggression rather than being up in arms with our military forces for the same objective?

 

Just a hypothetical question ...

 

a scuffle between Chinese and Filipino troops patrolling the area happened wherein the Chinese fired the first shot. Does the MDT calls for the US going to war with us versus China (to supposedly get even) even if there was no more military aggression on the Chinese after the incident?

 

In other words up to what extent must the US join the fray based on the MDT? Should they join our forces in our counter strike efforts or should they just be there on stand-by only to open fire when there is further aggression from the Chinese? My view is its the latter.

Edited June 5, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[fatchubs]

Fire the first shot. So is this only one shot and then we don't retatliate?

 

As for your second point, US participation will depend on the gravity of the carnage the Chinese will inflict upon us. If it's just one shot and we don't retaliate coz it's only a warning shot, then I don't think the US will engage China but if it results in the sinking of one or a couple of our ships, then the gloves come off.

 

I was thinking in the line of the previous reported incident regarding RP patrol and Chinese fishing vessels then comes the Chinese Patrol ships.

 

What if a misunderstanding happened that day. China first fired a warning shot, RP refuse to nudge so another shot was fired now aiming at the RP vessel. RP retaliated but obviously lost the scuffle. End of action for the day. Subsequently, China did not make further moves.

 

So what's next? US "automatically" must comes in for "resbak" together with the RP troops despite no further attacks? If that would be the case, up to what extent? Sinking just one of their ships too? Destroy all vessel in sight in the area? When should the US call it quits?

 

What now is the role of the security council in this situation?

 

If China fires the first shot which would cause us to retaliate and will eventually result in the sinking of one or a couple of our ships, then all bets are off, the US is duty-bound to honor the treaty. As Obama said, the US commitment to the Philippines would never waver.

 

 

And what about Obama's commitment of building a cooperative relationship with China? Is it your POV that the MDT should be given more weight than the other commitment? Why is it so? Don't you think striking a balance between those two commitment is the WIN-WIN solution?

Edited June 5, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[camiar]

For the sake of clarity in our discussion, may I suggest to define the phrase "fired the first shot" to mean a premeditated armed attack which led to casualties or substantial damage.

 

Warning shot and accidental firing which does not cause any harm other than ruffle some nerves, should not be considered "firing the first shot".

 

This is the point why we should only put professional navy and coast guard presonnel in the area, and keep the area off limits to politicians. A lot of bad things can happen due to lack of discipline.

Edited June 5, 2012 by camiar

[fatchubs]

Like I said, the US will enforce the MDT only if the gravity of the offensive action of China would be grave like the sinking of an RP ship. I don't think the US will act if it's only shots. But I think Secretary Clinton or President Obama will have something to say about this. In the scenario you painted, the Chinese didn't sink an RP ship, so I don't think the US will act on it but Secretary Clinton or President Obama will have something to say about this.

 

Actually I was thinking of sinking an RP ship as a result of the cross fire between the two sides.

 

Let's repaint the scenario again ... RP patrol saw the Chinese fishing vessel in the area approach it. The Chinese patrol vessel noticed the incident, went to the area also. Misunderstanding followed. China fired a warning shot, RP did nudge, China fired another shot this time aimed at the vessel, a crossfire followed. RP lost the scuffle as their vessel sank. No further Chinese military aggression followed.

 

I guess by this scenario it is already "grave". So what's next? US with RP to join forces to sink a Chinese ship to get even then call it quits?