Uncertainty clouds RP-U.S. agreement
Uncertainty clouds RP-U.S. agreement
The Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) between the Philippines and the United States is expected to be signed during or immediately after the visit here of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell later this week.
Since the negotiations began since President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo's visit to the U.S. last January, no one is certain whether the MLSA would establish new U.S. bases, which are forbidden by the Philippine Constitution following the withdrawal of these bases in 1992 after the Senate made a historic vote rejecting a new bases treaty.
All we have are assurances that: (1) no new bases will be established; (2) the constitutional ban will be respected and (3) the MLSA is not a treaty but an executive agreement that does not require Senate ratification.
The MLSA seeks to allow the U.S. to provide "logistic supplies, support and services" in the pursuit of its security commitments to the Philippines, within the framework of the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Mutual Defense Treaty.
"Support and services" includes billeting, transport and communication facilities, construction incident to operations and storage services.
It is not clear how long these facilities will be in place, and this is the source of fears that, given the U.S. concerns in Asia in connection with its campaign against international terrorism, the facilities could become more or less permanent and the presence of U.S. forces could be open-ended.
The American and Philippine governments have decided to steer clear of the political traps of Senate ratification by treating the MLSA as an executive agreement.
The MLSA could be signed even before we know its contents. To get public support for the MLSA, it is not enough that the President and new Foreign Secretary Blas Ople echo the assurance of U.S. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone that it is but a "relatively low-level agreement between military to military".
Ricciardone said the provision is "a simple kind of accounting procedure between us and other friendly countries ... We do things for you, and you do things for us and we agree how to account for it with each other."
The possibility of putting up fixed bases as the anchor of U.S. strategic defense like it was during the Cold War is deemed remote. Bases are now considered expensive and politically messy.
Bases have been replaced by capability for flexible and mobile deployment of forces in trouble spots. But there is uncertainty that the facilities to be established under the agreement could serve as platforms for U.S. forces engaged in military action in third countries that are targets of the war on terrorism.
If the MLSA is just an "accounting procedure" then there should be no problem disclosing its contents before it is signed. But from the definition of logistic, support and supplies, the MLSA may be more than a technical procedure.