From: tjehl@sedona.intel.Com (Timothy Jehl)
Subject: Re: Phil Foreign Office Favors US Access to Bases
Originator: tjehl@mirage
Reply-To: tjehl@sedona.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corporation.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:42:32 GMT


In article <86449@netnews.upenn.edu>, news@netnews.upenn.edu (USENET News System) writes:
|> 
|> 	MANILA, Philippines (UPI) -- The Philippine foreign office reportedly
|> has urged President Fidel Ramos to forge a military access agreement
|> with the United States after Washington leaves Subic Bay Naval Base
|> later this year.

   The lack of renewal of the lease for the US military bases in the RP
shows that neither of these nations cares to be dictated to by any other
nation.  I frankly doubt that the US wants military access to the
Philippines on anything other than their terms, and also feel that
the Philipine government will not allow access on anything other than
that government's terms.  Therefore, by my rather convoluted reasoning,
there is little-to-no chance that such an agreement will come about.

|> 	A document submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said
|> potential disputes in the South China Sea and the reported effort of
|> North Korea to develop nuclear weapons made such an agreement vital.

   The United States should not become involved in regional disputes as
anything other than a part of a United Nations force (I hate writing
statements like this that I know will get flamed).  The US has a number
of "friends" in the region, and when friends have a dispute among
themselves, it is the best policy to stand back and let them resolve
it among themselves.  Besides, the US always get bad press when it
intervenes, regardless of its motivations.

|> 	``The forging of a post-bases, post-Cold War security collaboration
|> arrangement, including an access agreement...will address not only the
|> security needs of the Philippines but also the mutual interest in
|> preserving peace in the region,'' it said.

   I believe that the security needs of the Philippines can be adequately
met by the Philippines.  That nation neither needs, nor should it desire,
the "Big Brother" protection of the US.  Preserving peace in the region
is, of course, the desire of all intelligent human beings, but the
preservation of the peace should be done by negotiations among the
interested parties, not as a result of US intimidations of or on the
behalf of any of the affected parties.

|> 	The two countries remain bound by a 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty. The
|> Philippines has asked for a review of the agreement after the U.S.
|> pullout.
|> 	``In the security sphere, a review of the Mutual Defense Treaty will
|> enbable both countries to re-examine the post-bases scenario for future
|> defense cooperation, particularly in the light of emerging regional
|> flashpoints,'' the document said.

   *** Flame On ***
   The most important thing to do to the Mutual Defense Treaty is to give
it a more realistic title.
   *** Flame Off ***

|> 	It called for Manila to conclude a treaty of friendship and
|> cooperation with Washington ``to help restore the close and friendly
|> cooperation between the two countries'' and ``set the stage for
|> collaboration in non-security areas.''

   A treaty of friendship and cooperation between these two nations is
exactly what is called for in the post-Cold War/post-base world.  The
US and the Philippines should get together to discuss the ways they can
work together in the emerging world, but defense/military presence should
not be a major topic of discussion, as this is not the direction that
our relationship should be evolving.

Tim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino