EDCA is about deterrence, not conflict

Those arguing against expanding the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the additional four new locations miss the whole point when they declare it is tantamount to preparing for conflict, or that our efforts to enhance the capability of our military through modernization could get us embroiled in a war over the Taiwan issue which, in their view, is “none of our business.”

Totally wrong. We, together with like-minded countries, want to prevent an armed conflict from occurring within our area. At the same time, we want to deter any more incursions into our territory. No one can dispute that we have been very patient in the face of the aggression that China has been repeatedly demonstrating for so many years, where we have been filing diplomatic protests for every instance of bullying against our fishermen and the harassment to which they have been subjecting our Coast Guard personnel in areas that are unquestionably within our exclusive economic zone.

La Salle professor Richard Heydarian – a foreign policy and economic analyst whom I have a high regard for because the points he raises on various issues are rational and highly cerebral  – correctly pointed out that “diplomacy can only be effective when deployed from a position of strength, otherwise one has limited leverage when dealing with rivals and hostile powers. Worse, diplomacy from a position of weakness is tantamount to glorified surrender.”

And that is precisely how people should view the “potential strategic value of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement,” he says, as well as the ongoing efforts to establish the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) alliance and a possible Japan-Philippines-US (JAPHUS) alliance that could serve as mechanisms of “integrated deterrence” aimed at preventing major power conflicts and “nightmare scenarios such as military adventurism against Taiwan…”

EDCA is a key pillar of the bilateral defense and military cooperation between the Philippines and the US, and the approval of four additional locations was a major decision of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., knowing full well that it would boost the collective defense capabilities of both nations. It is also meant to promote interoperability, as well as address existing and potential security threats, including natural disasters, that could hit vulnerable areas in our country.

All of these agreements – the Mutual Defense Treaty, the Visiting Forces Agreement and EDCA – form part of our defense and security strategy to protect our sovereign rights over our maritime territory. At the same time, they can potentially serve as mechanisms of deterrence by preventing threats or actions that could escalate into confrontation, leading to armed conflict or possibly war.

I came across an article written by Erick Nielson Javier of the National Defense College of the Philippines, and published online in March last year at The Diplomat. Titled “Rethinking the Philippines’ Deterrence in the South China Sea,” Javier puts across the argument that “Manila should change the narrative from a focus on ‘how to defend’ against China toward a more active strategy of deterring China.”

Recalling the Julian Felipe (Whitsun) Reef incident that began in March 2021 where over 200 Chinese “fishing ships” were anchored in an area that was clearly within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, Javier emphasized “the importance of coordinated maritime patrols of the Philippine Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force in securing the country’s waters and asserting its territorial claims” and the urgent need to have a fallback – “strong deterrence” – in case diplomacy fails.

Despite diplomatic protests filed against this blatant incursion, China refused to recall the vessels suspected of being maritime militia – but eventually dispersed when the Philippines dispatched military aircraft on overflight missions, increased the presence of Philippine Navy vessels, including our warships BRP Jose Rizal and Antonio Luna, along with Philippine Coast Guard vessels that conducted sovereignty patrols in the region, and later joined by the US Navy’s Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group and Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group.

In the opinion piece by the chairman of the Global Council of the International House of Japan and former Asahi Shimbun editor-in chief Yoichi Funabashi titled, “To counter China’s ‘reactive assertiveness,’ ‘quiet deterrence’ is called for” and published in Japan Times, the author wrote about China’s behavior of “reactive assertiveness” as an excuse for aggressive actions in the South China Sea.

“China repeatedly took coercive action against neighboring countries in disputes over territorial rights to a number of reefs and reacted with outrage to minor actions by its neighbors, which it described as ‘provocations’,” Funabashi said, illustrating how China “may feign passivity and claim it has no choice but to respond to ‘provocations’ by others, but in reality, it was the instigator.”

Let me be clear, however: We will continue to find ways and means for a peaceful resolution to the issues surrounding our maritime territory in the West Philippine Sea. Yet there is also no doubt that now more than ever, we have to make a firm stand that what is ours is ours, and that we will not give up even one square inch of our territory to any foreign power, as clearly and firmly enunciated by President BBM.

We do not want conflict. All we want is to protect our territory and assert our sovereign rights, and we have made that clear to all our allies. That is also the reason why we are in unison with like-minded nations who want to ensure freedom of navigation and recognize the importance of maintaining security and stability in international waters as a driver of economic prosperity in the region.

At the end of the day, absolutely no one wants conflict – only peace and stability.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]