http://www.sohu.com/a/285493239_162...&spm=smpc.content.fd-d.4.1546081698994Q2Oognk
环球网
58万文章 213亿总阅读
查看TA的文章>
2
菲防长突然称可能会废除美菲共同防御条约,美方赶紧表态
2018-12-29 17:21
【环球网报道 记者 赵衍龙】12月28日,菲律宾国防部长洛伦扎纳(DelfinLorenzana)表示,已经指示国防部律师审查菲律宾与美国的共同防御条约(MDT),旨在决定“是否该维护、加强或废除该条约”,菲律宾《每日问询者报》当日披露了这一消息。
报道称,洛伦扎纳表示,如果对1951年菲律宾和美国之间的《共同防御条约》(MDT)的审查结果显示“该条约与菲律宾的国家利益不再相关”,就有可能废除该条约。
洛伦扎纳当天在新闻发布会上说到,该条约签订于1951年,当时有一场激烈的冷战,“我们今天还有冷战吗?这和我们的安全还有关系吗?”
洛伦扎纳强调,审查的最终目标是“维持、加强或废除它”。不过,洛伦扎纳也表示这不是菲律宾政府的正式行动,只是指示国防部这样去审查。
《马尼拉公报》29日报道,菲律宾一名反对派议员星期六表示支持对菲律宾和美国之间的《共同防御条约》(MDT)进行审议的提议。
马格达洛党籍众议员加里·亚历哈诺(Gary Alejano)表示,有必要重新审视1951年的《共同防御条约》,以澄清其“含糊”的规定。
美方反应:坚信同盟关系牢不可破
菲律宾GMA新闻网28日报道,对于菲律宾防长的此番言论,美国方面当日就作出回应称示,仍然相信美国与菲律宾之间的同盟关系。
美国驻马尼拉大使馆新闻专员Trude Raizen表示,“我们与菲律宾通过共同防御条约建立了强大而稳固的安全同盟”,“正如金成(美国驻菲律宾大使)大使所说,我们对这个同盟的承诺是绝对的,这是牢不可破的。”
《美菲共同防御条约》规定,当两国任何一方受到外国军队攻击时,两国将互相帮助。这包括“对任何一方的领土,或其管辖的太平洋岛屿领土、其武装部队、太平洋上的公共船只或飞机”的武装攻击。返回搜狐,查看更多
声明:该文观点仅代表作者本人,搜狐号系信息发布平台,搜狐仅提供信息存储空间服务。
阅读 (3万)
World Wide Web
580,000 articles
21.3 billion total reading
View TA's article >
2
share to
The Philippine Defense Minister suddenly said that the US-Philippines joint defense treaty may be abolished, and the US has quickly stated its position.
2018-12-29 17:21
[Global Network Reporter Zhao Yanlong] On December 28th, Philippine Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana said that he has instructed the Defense Department lawyers to review the Philippines and the United States' Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), aiming to decide whether to maintain or strengthen Or abolish the treaty," the Philippines Daily Inquirer reported on the same day.
According to the report, Lorenzana said that if the review of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States in 1951 reveals that "the treaty is no longer relevant to the national interests of the Philippines," it is possible to repeal the treaty. .
Lorenzana said at the press conference that the treaty was signed in 1951, when there was a fierce cold war. "Do we still have a cold war today? Is this related to our security?"
Lorenzana stressed that the ultimate goal of the review is to "maintain, strengthen or abolish it." However, Lorenzana also said that this is not the official action of the Philippine government, but only instructed the Ministry of Defense to review it.
The Manila Bulletin reported on the 29th that an opposition member of the Philippines expressed support for the proposal to review the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States.
Gary Alejano, a member of the Magdalen Party, said it was necessary to revisit the 1951 Common Defence Treaty to clarify its "ambiguous" provisions.
US response: firmly believe that the alliance relationship is unbreakable
The Philippine GMA News Network reported on the 28th that the US side responded to the Philippine Defense Minister’s remarks on the same day and still believes in the alliance between the United States and the Philippines.
Trude Raizen, the US Embassy in Manila’s Embassy, said, “We have established a strong and solid security alliance with the Philippines through a joint defense treaty.” As Ambassador Jin Cheng (US Ambassador to the Philippines) said, our commitment to this alliance is absolute. This is unbreakable."
The US-Philippines Common Defence Treaty stipulates that when either side of the two countries is attacked by foreign troops, the two countries will help each other. This includes “armed attacks on the territory of either party, or the Pacific island territory under its jurisdiction, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific”. Go back to Sohu and see more
Disclaimer: This article only represents the author himself, Sohu is the information publishing platform, and Sohu only provides information storage space services.
Reading (30,000)
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/03/23/us-foreign-policy-is-failing-in-the-philippines/
US foreign policy is failing in the Philippines
23 March 2018
Author: Luke Lischin, National War College
In spite of the United States’ renewed focus on great power competition in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the war against terrorism will remain salient to US strategy. In few places is this clearer than in the Philippines.
The United States’ ongoing efforts to bolster its military aid under the remit of counterterrorism cooperation reflects Washington’s desire for continued influence in the region. Unfortunately for the United States, military aid to the Philippines without diplomatic and economic policies to match will not be sufficient to mitigate Chinese influence.
In September 2017, the United States upgraded its Operation Pacific Eagle mission in the Philippines to an Overseas Contingency Operation in recognition of the presence of the so-called Islamic State (IS) on the island of Mindanao. The details of the operation are scant — 200–300 US Special Forces personnel are currently serving in an advisory capacity, and US$20 million is committed to the reconstruction of Marawi.
Although the United States deployed about double that number of operators during the height of Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines, the current deployment is a notable accomplishment given President Rodrigo Duterte’s desire to expel them from the country. Pacific Eagle’s designation as an OCO effectively removes caps on military and civilian spending in support of the operation, clearing the path for its budget to grow significantly. Bourgeoning counterterrorism funding is a tantalising incentive for Manila to cooperate closely with Washington, but it belies the fact that success for Pacific Eagle will not ‘come cheap’.
A lasting peace in the Philippines remains out of reach as the Abu Sayyaf group has returned to the fore alongside other pro-IS militants. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) remain poorly trained and underequipped. Meanwhile, the Moro peace process continues to wither on the vine as the legislation negotiated to end the conflict awaits consideration in the Senate.
Polling suggests that the Philippines is receptive to US military engagement. Although Philippine confidence in US leadership remains strong, it is in decline. Similarly, the AFP remain stalwarts of the US–Philippine alliance — a situation that Duterte openly laments.
The United States can feel justifiably confident in pursuing Pacific Eagle with the support of the military and the public, but it cannot count on the Philippine Congress. Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque Jr has repeatedly downplayed the significance of US–Philippine cooperation on counterterrorism and Duterte has gone as far as blaming Washington for masterminding a botched counterterrorism operation. Even in pursuit of an ostensibly shared goal, Duterte cannot be counted upon to do more than cynically embrace US–Philippine cooperation and begrudgingly accept US funds and supplies.
While the US seeks to preserve its relationship with the Philippines through military ties, China seeks to contest US influence by using trade, investment, and economic aid as an avenue to expanding security ties. Productive economic relations with both the United States and China are vital to the Philippines’ economic wellbeing, which makes it unlikely that trade and investment with one country will overshadow the other in the near term.
As things currently stand, the United States dwarfs Chinese contributions to the Philippine economy in terms of both foreign direct investment and the value of remittances. According to the Philippines Statistics Authority, the top contributors of approved Foreign Direct Investment to the Philippines in 2017 by percentage were Japan (30.3 per cent), Taiwan (10.3 per cent), Singapore (9.6 per cent), the Netherlands (9.1 per cent), and the United States (8.3 per cent), while China contributed just 2.2 per cent.
Even so, Beijing advances an economic policy that is more coherent and ambitious than anything put forward by Washington, especially since the latter withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Until the United States manages to formulate an economic strategy for the Philippines, it will continue to rely on reinvigorating its security ties with Manila in order to offset China’s nascent efforts to expand its policies in that same area.
As Duterte criticises and scapegoats the United States, he continues to seek greater security assistance from China. The quality and quantity of Chinese military aid to the Philippines pale in comparison to US contributions, but it has garnered the effusive gratitude of Duterte. In 2017, China provided approximately US$300 million in military aid and disaster assistance, marking the beginning of what Duterte heralded as ‘the dawn of a new era’. In December of the same year, Beijing and Manila completed talks to expand cooperation in these areas. By February 2018, Duterte proposed sending his troops for counterterrorism training in China as a means of ‘creating balance’.
Duterte continues to play down the significance of enhanced Chinese military capabilities in the South China Sea, even while incidents such as the unilateral survey of Benham Rise by Chinese vessels stoke national anxieties over Philippine sovereignty. As the Duterte administration continues to engage in apologetics and paper tiger rhetoric to assuage the public’s anxieties over Beijing’s intentions, Washington must appreciate that its defence ties with the Philippines face a challenge.
Pacific Eagle cannot hope to repair US–Philippines relations while keeping China at bay on its own. The United States will need to come to this realisation as it engages with its allies and potential partners in the region through weapons sales and military diplomacy. Ad hoc policies that rely on US defence capabilities and military aid are poor replacements for a long-term foreign relations strategy. As President Donald Trump‘s administration enters its second year in office, it is running out of time to formulate one.
Luke Lischin is an academic assistant at the National War College.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National War College.
环球网
58万文章 213亿总阅读
查看TA的文章>
2
- 分享到
菲防长突然称可能会废除美菲共同防御条约,美方赶紧表态
2018-12-29 17:21
【环球网报道 记者 赵衍龙】12月28日,菲律宾国防部长洛伦扎纳(DelfinLorenzana)表示,已经指示国防部律师审查菲律宾与美国的共同防御条约(MDT),旨在决定“是否该维护、加强或废除该条约”,菲律宾《每日问询者报》当日披露了这一消息。
报道称,洛伦扎纳表示,如果对1951年菲律宾和美国之间的《共同防御条约》(MDT)的审查结果显示“该条约与菲律宾的国家利益不再相关”,就有可能废除该条约。
洛伦扎纳当天在新闻发布会上说到,该条约签订于1951年,当时有一场激烈的冷战,“我们今天还有冷战吗?这和我们的安全还有关系吗?”
洛伦扎纳强调,审查的最终目标是“维持、加强或废除它”。不过,洛伦扎纳也表示这不是菲律宾政府的正式行动,只是指示国防部这样去审查。
《马尼拉公报》29日报道,菲律宾一名反对派议员星期六表示支持对菲律宾和美国之间的《共同防御条约》(MDT)进行审议的提议。
马格达洛党籍众议员加里·亚历哈诺(Gary Alejano)表示,有必要重新审视1951年的《共同防御条约》,以澄清其“含糊”的规定。
美方反应:坚信同盟关系牢不可破
菲律宾GMA新闻网28日报道,对于菲律宾防长的此番言论,美国方面当日就作出回应称示,仍然相信美国与菲律宾之间的同盟关系。
美国驻马尼拉大使馆新闻专员Trude Raizen表示,“我们与菲律宾通过共同防御条约建立了强大而稳固的安全同盟”,“正如金成(美国驻菲律宾大使)大使所说,我们对这个同盟的承诺是绝对的,这是牢不可破的。”
《美菲共同防御条约》规定,当两国任何一方受到外国军队攻击时,两国将互相帮助。这包括“对任何一方的领土,或其管辖的太平洋岛屿领土、其武装部队、太平洋上的公共船只或飞机”的武装攻击。返回搜狐,查看更多
声明:该文观点仅代表作者本人,搜狐号系信息发布平台,搜狐仅提供信息存储空间服务。
阅读 (3万)
World Wide Web
580,000 articles
21.3 billion total reading
View TA's article >
2
share to
The Philippine Defense Minister suddenly said that the US-Philippines joint defense treaty may be abolished, and the US has quickly stated its position.
2018-12-29 17:21
[Global Network Reporter Zhao Yanlong] On December 28th, Philippine Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana said that he has instructed the Defense Department lawyers to review the Philippines and the United States' Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), aiming to decide whether to maintain or strengthen Or abolish the treaty," the Philippines Daily Inquirer reported on the same day.
According to the report, Lorenzana said that if the review of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States in 1951 reveals that "the treaty is no longer relevant to the national interests of the Philippines," it is possible to repeal the treaty. .
Lorenzana said at the press conference that the treaty was signed in 1951, when there was a fierce cold war. "Do we still have a cold war today? Is this related to our security?"
Lorenzana stressed that the ultimate goal of the review is to "maintain, strengthen or abolish it." However, Lorenzana also said that this is not the official action of the Philippine government, but only instructed the Ministry of Defense to review it.
The Manila Bulletin reported on the 29th that an opposition member of the Philippines expressed support for the proposal to review the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States.
Gary Alejano, a member of the Magdalen Party, said it was necessary to revisit the 1951 Common Defence Treaty to clarify its "ambiguous" provisions.
US response: firmly believe that the alliance relationship is unbreakable
The Philippine GMA News Network reported on the 28th that the US side responded to the Philippine Defense Minister’s remarks on the same day and still believes in the alliance between the United States and the Philippines.
Trude Raizen, the US Embassy in Manila’s Embassy, said, “We have established a strong and solid security alliance with the Philippines through a joint defense treaty.” As Ambassador Jin Cheng (US Ambassador to the Philippines) said, our commitment to this alliance is absolute. This is unbreakable."
The US-Philippines Common Defence Treaty stipulates that when either side of the two countries is attacked by foreign troops, the two countries will help each other. This includes “armed attacks on the territory of either party, or the Pacific island territory under its jurisdiction, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific”. Go back to Sohu and see more
Disclaimer: This article only represents the author himself, Sohu is the information publishing platform, and Sohu only provides information storage space services.
Reading (30,000)
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/03/23/us-foreign-policy-is-failing-in-the-philippines/
US foreign policy is failing in the Philippines
23 March 2018
Author: Luke Lischin, National War College
In spite of the United States’ renewed focus on great power competition in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the war against terrorism will remain salient to US strategy. In few places is this clearer than in the Philippines.
The United States’ ongoing efforts to bolster its military aid under the remit of counterterrorism cooperation reflects Washington’s desire for continued influence in the region. Unfortunately for the United States, military aid to the Philippines without diplomatic and economic policies to match will not be sufficient to mitigate Chinese influence.
In September 2017, the United States upgraded its Operation Pacific Eagle mission in the Philippines to an Overseas Contingency Operation in recognition of the presence of the so-called Islamic State (IS) on the island of Mindanao. The details of the operation are scant — 200–300 US Special Forces personnel are currently serving in an advisory capacity, and US$20 million is committed to the reconstruction of Marawi.
Although the United States deployed about double that number of operators during the height of Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines, the current deployment is a notable accomplishment given President Rodrigo Duterte’s desire to expel them from the country. Pacific Eagle’s designation as an OCO effectively removes caps on military and civilian spending in support of the operation, clearing the path for its budget to grow significantly. Bourgeoning counterterrorism funding is a tantalising incentive for Manila to cooperate closely with Washington, but it belies the fact that success for Pacific Eagle will not ‘come cheap’.
A lasting peace in the Philippines remains out of reach as the Abu Sayyaf group has returned to the fore alongside other pro-IS militants. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) remain poorly trained and underequipped. Meanwhile, the Moro peace process continues to wither on the vine as the legislation negotiated to end the conflict awaits consideration in the Senate.
Polling suggests that the Philippines is receptive to US military engagement. Although Philippine confidence in US leadership remains strong, it is in decline. Similarly, the AFP remain stalwarts of the US–Philippine alliance — a situation that Duterte openly laments.
The United States can feel justifiably confident in pursuing Pacific Eagle with the support of the military and the public, but it cannot count on the Philippine Congress. Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque Jr has repeatedly downplayed the significance of US–Philippine cooperation on counterterrorism and Duterte has gone as far as blaming Washington for masterminding a botched counterterrorism operation. Even in pursuit of an ostensibly shared goal, Duterte cannot be counted upon to do more than cynically embrace US–Philippine cooperation and begrudgingly accept US funds and supplies.
While the US seeks to preserve its relationship with the Philippines through military ties, China seeks to contest US influence by using trade, investment, and economic aid as an avenue to expanding security ties. Productive economic relations with both the United States and China are vital to the Philippines’ economic wellbeing, which makes it unlikely that trade and investment with one country will overshadow the other in the near term.
As things currently stand, the United States dwarfs Chinese contributions to the Philippine economy in terms of both foreign direct investment and the value of remittances. According to the Philippines Statistics Authority, the top contributors of approved Foreign Direct Investment to the Philippines in 2017 by percentage were Japan (30.3 per cent), Taiwan (10.3 per cent), Singapore (9.6 per cent), the Netherlands (9.1 per cent), and the United States (8.3 per cent), while China contributed just 2.2 per cent.
Even so, Beijing advances an economic policy that is more coherent and ambitious than anything put forward by Washington, especially since the latter withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Until the United States manages to formulate an economic strategy for the Philippines, it will continue to rely on reinvigorating its security ties with Manila in order to offset China’s nascent efforts to expand its policies in that same area.
As Duterte criticises and scapegoats the United States, he continues to seek greater security assistance from China. The quality and quantity of Chinese military aid to the Philippines pale in comparison to US contributions, but it has garnered the effusive gratitude of Duterte. In 2017, China provided approximately US$300 million in military aid and disaster assistance, marking the beginning of what Duterte heralded as ‘the dawn of a new era’. In December of the same year, Beijing and Manila completed talks to expand cooperation in these areas. By February 2018, Duterte proposed sending his troops for counterterrorism training in China as a means of ‘creating balance’.
Duterte continues to play down the significance of enhanced Chinese military capabilities in the South China Sea, even while incidents such as the unilateral survey of Benham Rise by Chinese vessels stoke national anxieties over Philippine sovereignty. As the Duterte administration continues to engage in apologetics and paper tiger rhetoric to assuage the public’s anxieties over Beijing’s intentions, Washington must appreciate that its defence ties with the Philippines face a challenge.
Pacific Eagle cannot hope to repair US–Philippines relations while keeping China at bay on its own. The United States will need to come to this realisation as it engages with its allies and potential partners in the region through weapons sales and military diplomacy. Ad hoc policies that rely on US defence capabilities and military aid are poor replacements for a long-term foreign relations strategy. As President Donald Trump‘s administration enters its second year in office, it is running out of time to formulate one.
Luke Lischin is an academic assistant at the National War College.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National War College.