An Ally is not what you are; it is what you do…

Treaties and alliances should always be mutually beneficial to parties concerned. It is a declaration of commitment to each other, whereupon participation is assured, and reliance amongst them is guaranteed not only in the present but also in the future. A treaty of alliance should never be rendered onerous by time. Such that the benefit will only inure to one party, and the burden to the rest. Parties to an alliance or treaty have a responsibility, to ensure that each worthiness as an ally is maintained and un-eroded. This will vest each one the legal and moral right to demand the performance of an obligation committed by the other parties to a treaty. Unjustified complacency and the absence of reasonable diligence which rendered a party incapacitated to perform his end of the commitment due perhaps among others to ill-preparedness, are acts of the irresponsible and a conduct unbecoming of a respectable nation.

In the limelight is the Philippine and US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) signed in 1951, a military alliance characterized not by mutuality in its strictest sense, but rather by colonialism in the real sense, since it was construed as a document legitimizing the presence of military bases in the Philippines in lieu of reparation. Although, both countries has committed to the defense of the other in case of attack, it is only the United States who maintained an ever present capability. The Philippines on the other hand, unconsciously and inadvertently allowed the erosion of its meager ability overtime even after the US bases were closed. Thus effectively, the treaty in fact is no longer for mutual defense but aptly a treaty in defense of a former colony. It is apparent that the Philippines had remiss on its obligation not only to itself, but to the treaty as well. That is corollary, to achieve the needed military capability towards the fulfillment of its end of the alliance. In stricter cases, like in an ordinary contract of services for example, the incapacity of a party to a contract would have result to rescission or cancellation.

The Philippines would be a burden to itself and its allies especially at this time that its sovereignty is threatened by another foreign power. However, to cancel out and compensate for this glaring deficiency despite of the constitutionality question, the Philippines signed the visiting forces agreement that is necessarily more to be in pursuit of the US interest in Asia and the Pacific region. It is again the failure on the part of the Philippines to cope up with the changes in defense architecture, technology and geopolitical landscape to re-embrace neo-colonialism; it is as usual dependent on the US military power and thereby essentially reducing itself into a patron of the US policies and interest rather than a self-asserting partner of its principal interest under the MDT. Never did It gained the necessary ability to back the essence of its own foreign policy with military muscle. Its vulnerability forces it to realign its own policy and courses of action with the US which it knew so little about. Hardly an act of an independent nation that has self-determination.

Unless the Philippines can translate to a sustained action its resolve to be self-reliant in the field of economics and defense, aiming for superiority rather than mediocrity, it will not be able to determine itself and further its own interest; it will remain subservient to that of its patron; it will always represent the weakest link in the chain of any military alliance; the Achilles heel in any united front.