Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
National Security, Economic Stability and Environmental Integrity Alert: The
Emergence of Additional EDCA Sites in the Philippines
Dejay Amo Nachor
In this position paper, I endeavor to provide a geopolitical analysis on the
emergence of additional EDCA sites in the Philippines. To narrow it down, I will focus on sociopolitical (national security in relation to national core interest) and socioeconomic (localized economic changes and environmental impact) aspects.
Under sociopolitical aspect in relation to national security as part of national
core interest, the following are the key questions and highlights to be discussed: A.1. As signatory of defense cooperation, a) what is the extent nature of establishing additional EDCA sites in the Philippines particularly in relation to national security? (how will it endanger the Philippines? Taking into consideration the continuous upheavals and military tensions between mainland China and Taiwan and the mediation of United States strategically dispensing the Philippines as a leap board.) Is it bringing war closer to our waters and our people? a.1.a. Why is it necessary to add new sites the mere fact that there are already five (5) existing sites? Are these existing bases have been “modernized and fully- equipped”? “infrastructure upgrades (such as hangers, air defense surveillance radar systems, ground based air defense systems, and naval operating bases)”-De Castro, 2016 a. 1.b. From a geostrategic point of view, what is the implication of putting up two new bases situated in the northern tip of Luzon particularly in Cagayan? (taking into account the proximity between Cagayan and Taiwan) Can this be considered a “US military tactic,” a strategic military positioning to abet Taiwan (with the raising tension between PROC and ROC), or the perpetuation of sprawling US tactic to complicate “anti access/ area denial strategy” over China, or letting the Philippines (endangering even in the spirit of mutual defense cooperation) to be a “leapboard” and “bridge” towards its geopolitical agenda in the Indo-Pacific?
Under the socioeconomic aspect, the following are the key questions and highlights are to be discussed: B.1. With the emergence of additional EDCA sites, what are the direct implications towards economic stability and environmental integrity particularly on the identified location? b.1.a. How will these new EDCA sites activate economic changes? What are the economic risks? What economic trajectory may prevail over the conflicting stance between the national government and the provincial government (e.g. Gov. Mamba’s opposition) how does local political problem alter the economic course of the province? When their economic plans and visions are compromised(re-opening of Appari Port; an economic potential of Cagayan and also Balacbac Island, in Palawan, which is dubbed as “the next Maldives” according to Cong. Jose Alvarez) , how will the national government preposition the assurance of livelihood and food security to the people. (Cagayan, according to PSA 1 st Sem 2021 census, although belonging to a least poor cluster, is still at 8.8 per cent poverty incidence among families, and Balacbac a second class municipality with 42, 527 population [2020 census]) ; lose of livelihood (e.g. potential of becoming a trading hub and tourism) equates to lack of income and lack of income leads to hunger and other societal problems. b.1.a. In establishing these new EDCA sites , what are the negative environmental impacts?(testing of missiles, live fire drills) Is there any possible threat to rare native flora and fauna? (particularly in Balacbac Island in Palawan where it harbors such as the estuarine crocodile and the Philippine mouse deer).
These are the parameters of my position as I would like to ground my position in: a) National security (as part of national core interest); b) Localized Economic Changes (LEC) ; c) Environmental impact.
B. What is my topic not all about?
My topic is not all about political survival, sociocultural autonomy or the review or removal of the Mutual defense treaty, or review of foreign policy and international relations.
I have decided not to talk about these because I specifically delve more into low politics concern, contrary to the following: a. Political survival (conflict between China and the United States); b. Sociocultural autonomy (whether the Philippines has been undermined by the US or not) c. The review or removal of the Mutual defense treaty (this is another separate and more complex discussion, still related to high politics); d. The review of foreign policy and international relations
C. What are the biases, prevalent narratives, and recurring themes in my context? a. Mutual defense 1. The two countries signed a Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) on August 30, 1951. The treaty stipulates that “an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace” and declares either nation would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its own peace and safety and constitutional processes (Advincula-Lopez, 2022). 2. In the light of the changing security environment, a more expanded form of defense cooperation was forged between the two countries in 2014 through the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). This agreement covers non-traditional security concerns such as terrorism, maritime security, transnational crimes, humanitarian assistance, and human- made disasters (Advincula-Lopez, 2022). 3. Worsening Philippines–US security ties would not only undermine America’s primacy in Southeast Asia but also usher in a Southeast Asia dominated by China and devoid of any institutions and norms that symbolize American principles, values, and interests. Confronted by Duterte’s hostility and efforts to dismiss the alliance, Washington maintained a calm demeanor and reminded its ally of the US’s dependability as a security partner and the considerable military assistance it had extended in the past (Simon and Baker, 2017 as cited in De Castro, 2023). 4. b. Humanitarian and disaster relief 1. In addition to the five existing sites, these new locations will strengthen the interoperability of the U.S. and Philippine Armed Forces and allow us to respond more seamlessly together to address a range of shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, including “natural and humanitarian disasters” (U.S. Department of Defense, 2023). c. Modernization of AFP 1. The EDCA allows the US to construct or modernise facilities for both countries to use for, among other things, air operations and pre-positioning equipment. Although the EDCA is part of a long-term AFP modernisation effort, it also increases the US military’s rotational presence, including for joint training, exercises and disaster relief (Crabtree and Laksmana, 2023). d. China’s maritime expansion 1. Evidently, the competition between the United States and China has intensified since the Trump administration, and the two sides have clashed in the areas such as the economy, military, politics, technology and human rights. This conflict presents countries in the Indo-Pacific region with the challenge of navigating foreign policy with these two hegemonic powers. The Philippines is one such country facing the challenge of maintaining a balanced relationship with the two countries as a major concern for a strategic triangle (Chao, 2022). 2. From a geostrategic point of view, the Philippines could become neutral or, worse, friendly to China and create a strategic gap in the first-island-chain that runs from Japan through Okinawa to Taiwan, and the Philippines. This gap would hamper the effective implementation of the US offshore balancing strategy that restricts Chinese maritime expansionism from the coast of China to the South China Sea and way into the Western Pacific (Roskin, 2016 as cited in De Castro, 2023). 3. China’s use of gray zone operations, particularly in the maritime domain, has posed significant risks not only to the Philippines but also to other maritime nations in the Indo-Pacific. By remaining below the threshold of war, its use of non-military or non-kinetic tools to pursue its maritime ambitions has made it difficult for countries to develop cohesive and effective countermeasures (Puzon, n.d.).
