The gray zone

Article 5 of the 1951 mutual defense treaty states that an armed attack—which would compel one partner to come to the defense of the other—includes an "armed attack on a metropolitan territory of either of the parties or on the Island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific."

The recent incident when China coastguard attacked and robbed a Phil. Navy vessel with axes knives and spears may well fall within the Article 5 of the mutual defense treaty. In recent separate pronouncement however, by Marcos and Sec. Austin, the attack must result to a dead Filipino before the treaty can be invoke, which in my opinion had changed the context of the provision. This seems to indicate that the US has no keen intention of confronting China for the South China sea or the West Philippine Sea. It is more apparent that all the preparations and prepositioning in the Pacific by the US forces are intended primarily for the defense of Taiwan, which of course is to its primary interest. The Philippine interest it appears runs second, that is, optimistically speaking. The change in the context is a plus for China since it can utilize the gray zone of the treaty which was effectively enpanded by Marcos and Austin's pronouncement through the employment of violent action short of killing Philippine personnel. China had actually raised the knot from bullying and intimidation to mauling and destruction of Philippine personnel and vessels respectively. This is a case of policy accomodation that favors the interest of a more powerful ally. Given the fact that the AFP is figuratively still on an IV, and that China will maintain and accelerate its offensive action, how may the Philippines respond independent of US position to prove its resolve?