“The security architecture of each state in the region must take into account the core security interests of other states”
It is expected that the country’s national officials dealing with highly vital and sensitive international relations and national security matters are well acquainted with diplomacy and, especially for defense officials, adept in international security concepts and principles.
Trade and the economy, peace and prosperity built on stable relations, are dependent on how well our officials conduct these matters with the international community.
One of the modern principles of national security in the context of regional and international security emerged from the continent that was plagued by “forever wars” and World War I and II, Europe which then faced the Cold War with NATO and the Warsaw Pact facing each other.
To end the constant fear of another war, the notion of “indivisibility of security in Europe” was agreed upon.
The concept broadly states that the security of any state is inseparable from others, especially in its region. It was included in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 setting the ground rules for the interaction of two antagonistic blocs.
Hence, the security architecture of each state in the region must take into account the core security interests of other states and each would be involved in setting the security conditions that affect each other.
This “indivisibility” principle assured peace in Europe and made “détente” possible. It started eroding when the US backed NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and the rest is history: the US launched the Maidan coup against independent Ukraine president Yanukovych, installed puppet Zelenskyy, Russia prepared for war and, in February 2022, launched the Special Military Operations into Ukraine.
Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the Global Security Initiative at the Boao Asia Forum in April 2021 which asserts, “… no state shall strengthen its own security at the expense of others.” The policy incorporates the principle of “Indivisible Security” and stands for common, comprehensive, cooperative, and long-term security, rejecting bloc antagonism and group politics, and opposing unilateralism.
The ASEAN majority’s official statements are supportive of China’s GSI, and abides by the principle of “respecting security interests of nations in the Asian community” too, as reflected in two major security agreements, the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) and Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (SEANWZ) treaties, as well as numerous other many security agreements with China.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, the ASEAN chair for 2025, clearly expressed recognition of the principle of “Indivisible Security” when in November 2024 he said, in a visit to South Korea, “For me, every country has the right to conduct any program to strengthen its national defense, but not the right to engage in provocations… This is because such actions will only escalate regional tensions…”
Since February 2023, the Philippines has turned away from the independent foreign policy of relating peaceful and responsibly with all countries, including and particularly neighboring ASEAN and China.
The Philippines collaborated with the US’ “assertive transparency” operations to provoke and malign China’s anticipated conflict-management counteractions as “China bullying.”
The provocative height was reached when the US-Philippines tandem, under the guise of “military drill,” installed Typhon missile launchers in northern Luzon.
From temporary status, the launchers are made permanent and, now, the US compels the Philippines to purchase the systems able to launch Tomahawk 2,500 km. range nuke-capable missiles that not only China, but also Russia, have declared as threats to national and regional security.
These launchers are part of the US ACE (Agile Combat Employment) strategy to disperse across Asia-Pacific pre-emptive/retaliatory missile strikes from China, Russia and North Korea.
The Philippines is allowing itself to be a target – perhaps nuclear retaliation — for and in behalf of US warmongering and profiteering. What have the Filipino people done to Marcos, Teodoro and the AFP to deserve this?
The Philippines’ defense secretary Gilbert Teodoro reacted rancorously and incoherently to the diplomatic response from China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson who called the Philippines’ plans to acquire the Typhon missile from the US “provocative and dangerous… enabling a country outside the region (the US)” to increase regional tensions and spark an arms race which is “extremely irresponsible.”
Teodoro’s rambling, crude and propagandistic response to China’s diplomatic and wise response based on the principle of “Indivisible Security,” shows he is grasping at straws to explain rationally the Philippine position on the Tyhon missiles provocation or his dangerous ignorance of the global security considerations is laying out the genuine security program of the country now in deep peril from a “next war.”
