ENDEAVOR

“Let me be absolutely clear. For more than 60 years, the United States and the Philippines have been bound by a mutual defense treaty. And this treaty means our two nations pledge – and I’m quoting – our “common determination to defend themselves against external armed attacks, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone.” In other words, our commitment to defend the Philippines is ironclad and the United States will keep that commitment, because allies never stand alone. (Applause.)”

(Remarks by President Obama to Filipino and US Armed Forces at Fort Bonifacio; Manila, The Philippines 9:56 a.m. PHT; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary; April 28, 2014)

For more than a decade, a procession of American leaders have used the phrase “ironclad commitment” to depict the United States’ position with respect to the Philippines, its long-term Pacific ally.

There is an interesting backstory to President Barack Obama’s use of the term “ironclad commitment” that is well worth reminiscing today. I was prompted to look this up in my files after coming across the Manila Bulletin’s banner headline yesterday, July 31: ‘We are family’, with the sub-head: ‘Austin says PH, US more than allies’.

Beneath the banner headline was a photo that showed President Marcos in Malacañan Palace placing his hands behind Secretary of State Antony Blinken (to his right) and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin (to his left), who came for the fourth PH-US Ministerial Dialogue with their counterparts, Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo and Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro.

As I was then serving as Press Secretary, I could still recall the scenario when President Obama made a two-day state visit to the Philippines on April 28-29, 2014.

He arrived in Manila in the afternoon of April 28 and proceeded directly to Malacañan to meet with President Benigno S. Aquino III. After their tete-a-tete, President Obama agreed to take questions from the press. The press corps designated the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Christian Esguerra to pose their pooled question: “Would the Mutual Defense Treaty apply in case the Philippines’ territorial dispute with China escalate into an armed confrontation?”

The following day, April 29, Esguerra and fellow reporter TJ Burgonio wrote:

“Asked if the US will defend the Philippines in case territorial disputes in the South China Sea escalate, Obama said, “Our goal is not to counter China; our goal is not to contain China. Our goal is to make sure that international rules and norms are respected, and that includes in the area of maritime disputes.”

This formed the basis of what the Inquirer and other major newspapers reported the following day, April 29. Note that there is a 12-hour difference between Manila time and Washington, D.C. time. President Obama’s statement was made in Manila in the afternoon of April 28, which was early morning in Washington, DC.

When he went to the American cemetery in Fort Bonifacio the following day, it was still evening of April 28 in the US east coast. So, his statement containing the important catch-phrase “ironclad commitment” was dated April 28 in the White House Press Secretary’s stationery – the same day as the “no firm commitment” story which was dated April 29 in Manila. While the press release recorded the time “9:56 a.m. PHT”, no mention was made of the time – and date – difference.

By the way, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was with President Obama’s party in that two-day visit.

Hence, if researchers will trace back how the term “ironclad commitment” became a catchprase to encapsulate the essence of US policy toward the Philippines, it is possible that the nuancing would not be observed, much less reported.

Fast forward to current events: In two years, President Marcos has done much to reposition the Philippines as a staunch US ally following the lukewarm stance adopted by his predecessor, former President Rodrigo Duterte. Recall that following the July 2016 arbitral ruling upholding the Philippine position and rejecting China’s nine-dash line theory of hegemony over the South China Sea, he distanced himself from the US and fended off criticisms from human rights advocates in America and at home who deplored the violent trajectory of his all-out anti-drug war.

An article written by retired US Coast Guard Rear Admiral Richard Tinney, published earlier this week in the California-based Philippine Post, provides interesting commentary:

“(China) has ignored a 2016 ruling from an international tribunal made under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Despite that ruling, China claims it has “indisputable sovereignty” over almost all of the South China Sea, and has rejected that its vessels, like its coast guard’s “monster,” are operating in the Philippines’ EEZ. My hat is off to the Philippines and the other nations who have held fast and continue to stand up to these illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities.”

He said that the US must continue to invest in capacity and capability in the Indo-Pacific – for our Navy, our Coast Guard and our partners such as Japan and the Philippines.” Recall that last month, President Marcos joined US President Joe Biden and Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in signing a trilateral cooperation agreement that foreshadowed the “We are allies” declaration made by Secretary Austin the other day.

Ten years after the EDCA was forged in 2014, the number of bases covered by the agreement now include installations in Isabela and Cagayan that are proximate to Taiwan – as well as in Palawan – off disputed West Philippine Sea waters. Recall that Vice President – and now presidential candidate – Kamala Harris went to Palawan, too, to affirm the US’ solidarity with the Philippines in light of current geopolitical tensions.

Beyond memorable sound bites, concrete actions matter most in crisis situations. We end by quoting anew retired Rear Admiral Tinney: “Our partners must see that we are committed to the rule of law and to them. US presence emboldens our allies as they confront aggression in their waters. Sovereign claims require sovereign presence.”