The Phraseology of Subservience

Issue 50 --- Analysis: The Phraseology of Subservience


What is the difference between a treaty and an agreement, or an
agreement and an arrangement? What does military exercise mean? Does the
ongoing Balikatan 02-1 conjure subservience to US interest? It is time to
analyze the phraseology of government pronouncements as regards the
controversial Balikatan 02-1.

BY DANILO ARAÑA ARAO
Bulatlat.com

In communication, concessions may be attained through words and phrases
that make controversial points harmless and acceptable. Through the
years, government has used a phraseology that creates a semblance of
normalcy out of an otherwise volatile situation.

An illusion of economic growth is created by official statistics and
statements that fail to explain high cost of living and low wages, among
others. Government measures the success of its development programs
and projects by the number of industry players and amount of investments
instead of the quality and quantity of jobs created, not to mention
technology transfer to local enterprises.

The government’s treatment of the controversial Balikatan 02-1,
however, shows the lack of mastery of this kind of phraseology.



Balikatan: Military exercise or what?

Government describes the Balikatan 02-1 that started last January 31 as
a “military exercise.” On the surface, this appears to be true if one
considers that there have been annual activities called Balikatan for
the past 18 years.

The current “exercise,” however, is qualitatively different from the
past ones. While the Balikatan 2001 lasted only for 15 days (i.e., April
26 to May 10), the Balikatan 02-1’s timeframe is indefinite since it
could last from six months to one year.

Last year’s activity took place in Cavite, Tarlac and Pampanga, typical
of past exercises which were held in areas where armed groups are not
known to be hiding. This year’s activity is in Zamboanga and Basilan,
the heart of military operations against the Abu Sayyaf, Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) and the New People’s Army (NPA).

That a shooting war may erupt during the conduct of Balikatan 02-1 has
already been proven by confirmed reports that a MC-130 US Air Force
cargo plane was shot twice while on a training mission flight in Central
Luzon last February 1.

The character of the current Balikatan is also defeated by statements
from government officials like National Security Adviser Roilo Golez who
admit that “the 150-600 U.S. soldiers will be at the rear of combat
sorties in Basilan.”

For his part, Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes was quoted as saying,
“When you train, there is such a thing as `live test’ or `field test’.”
That the Balikatan is not just a military exercise is buttressed by
Reyes’s other statement: “In the course of this joint effort, we expect the
Abu Sayyaf neutralized and the hostages rescued.”

Even US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was evasive in directly
answering queries about the US soldiers’ direct involvement in military
operations against the Abu Sayyaf, particularly in rescuing American couple
Martin and Gracia Burnham. Consider this partial transcript of his
January 20 interview with NBC’s Meet the Press:

Q: Will we seek to rescue the missionaries?
Rumsfeld: Who's "we"?

Q: The United States and the Philippines.
Rumsfeld: The Filipinos have four (thousand) or 5,000 troops on Basilan
Island, trying to rescue the missionaries.

Q: Will the United States assist them in that effort?
Rumsfeld: We will be participating in training with them in various
ways, yes. We certainly are anxious to have those missionaries released or
recovered.

VFA: Agreement or treaty?

Government claims that the Balikatan 02-1 is sanctioned by the 1999
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), 1987 Constitution and 1951 Mutual Defense
Treaty (MDT).

Article XVIII, Sec. 25 of the 1987 Constitution states that upon the
expiration of the Military Bases Agreement (MBA) in 1991, foreign
military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in Philippine
territory, except under the following conditions:

1. Under a treaty concurred in by the Senate;

2. When Congress requires, ratified by the people in a national
referendum held for the purposes; and

3. When such treaty is recognized as such by the other contracting
State.

The VFA is not considered a treaty by the US. While the Philippine
Senate ratified the VFA in 1999, the US Congress did not.

It was treated only as an executive agreement by the US government and
was thus signed only by then President Bill Clinton. The same is true
for the counterpart VFA (i.e., VFA 2 which provides for legal treatment
of RP soldiers visiting the US) which was not also ratified by the US
Congress.

One may also ask a practical question: If the 1999 VFA is indeed a
treaty, why is it not titled so (i.e., Visiting Forces Treaty)? Would this
not be more practical in order to put it in the same level as, say, the
1951 MDT?

As regards the MDT, it is true that this provides for the entry of US
troops in the Philippines, but only during times of external aggression.
While Art. II of the MDT provides for the maintenance and development
of “individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack,” this
does not cover capacity building for internal concerns like the presence
of the New People’s Army (NPA), Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and
even the bandit group Abu Sayyaf.

Indeed, the operative term here is external aggression.

MLSA: Arrangement or agreement?

The Mutual Logistics Support Arrangement (MLSA) meanwhile, was secretly
signed by Philippine and US defense officials. As early as President
Arroyo’s US state visit in November 2001, there have been media reports
about this arrangement which sources claim to be just “a revised name
for the ACSA.”

The AFP claims that the MLSA only covers the ongoing re-fuelling of US
aircraft and recreation of US troops before they move on to other
destinations." It adds that apart from outlining the policies governing
transit operations by US aircraft and vessels in the Philippines, the
proposed agreement would mean added equipment for the military.

It may not use the terms “pre-positioning” or “forward deployment” of
US forces and “stockpiling” of US supplies and equipment, but it is
clear that in essence, the MLSA and ACSA are the same. It may be recalled
that in November 1994, the proposed ACSA sought to expand the Americans’
limited access to include military rights to supply, refueling and
repairs, storage, certain services on the part of the Philippine military

This simply means that regardless of the terms used, the MLSA implies
the use of Philippine territory as a launching pad for possible US
intervention.

In November 2001, the MLSA was then called an “Agreement,” but the
complete draft leaked to the public in early January 2002 already used the
term “Arrangement.” The latter is apparently a less binding term than
the words “agreement” and “treaty.”

Words fail Arroyo administration

The Arroyo administration realizes that it is politically suicidal to
admit subservience to US interests, hence its decision to hide between
words and phrases in justifying the nature of the arrival of US troops
in Mindanao. But since the administration has miserably failed to
deceive the people with contradicting statements, protest actions are
escalating as the US troops continue to stay in the country.

The apologists of US interest cannot be expected to master the art of
deception through words and phrases. Objective social conditions speak
the reality of subservience, notwithstanding the insistent denial of the
powers-that-be. Bulatlat.com