“The path forward should emphasize diplomacy, international law, and strategic partnerships to ensure peace and stability in the region”
Recent events in the South China Sea, particularly China’s aggressive actions against Philippine vessels at the Second Thomas Shoal, have reignited the debate over the applicability of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States.
Law professors from San Beda University assert the conditions for invoking the MDT have been met, urging the United States to respond to what they perceive as common dangers.
This commentary will analyze the arguments for and against this assertion, referencing historical and legal precedents, and evaluate whether the Philippines could indeed invoke the MDT.
We will conclude with a call for peace, diplomacy, and adherence to the rule of law, and offer recommendations for moving forward.
Arguments supporting the invocation of MDT
• Legal Provisions and Historical Context
The Mutual Defense Treaty, signed in 1951, is a key document underpinning the defense relationship between the Philippines and the United States.
Article IV of the MDT commits both nations to act to meet common dangers if an armed attack occurs in the Pacific Area.
Article V expands this to include attacks on either party’s metropolitan territory, island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific, or armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific.
The law professors argue the June 17 incident, where Chinese personnel used bladed weapons against Philippine inflatable craft, constitutes an armed attack as defined by the MDT.
They also reference the 2023 Bilateral Defense Guidelines, which clarify an armed attack includes incidents in the South China Sea involving Philippine or US armed forces, coast guards, aircraft, or public vessels.
• Historical and Legal Precedents
The invocation of the MDT can be supported by historical precedents where mutual defense treaties were activated or considered in response to aggression.
For instance, during the Cold War, the US invoked similar treaties to provide military support to allies under threat.
The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in favor of the Philippines invalidated China’s extensive claims in the South China Sea, reinforcing the legal basis for Philippine actions and justifying a robust defense response under the MDT.
Arguments opposing the invocation of MDT
• Interpretation of ‘armed attack’ and diplomatic nuances
Opponents might argue the MDT’s invocation requires a clear and unequivocal armed attack.
The confrontation at the Second Thomas Shoal, while aggressive, may not meet the threshold of an armed attack involving significant use of force.
The use of non-lethal weapons and the absence of fatalities or severe injuries could be viewed as insufficient to trigger the MDT.
Moreover, invoking the MDT could escalate tensions and provoke a broader conflict, contrary to the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes.
Historical instances like the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 highlight the risks of military escalation and the importance of diplomatic channels to defuse potential conflicts.
• Strategic and Political Considerations
From a strategic perspective, the US may be hesitant to commit to a military response in the South China Sea, considering the complex geopolitical dynamics and the risk of direct confrontation with China.
The US might prefer a combination of diplomatic measures, economic sanctions, and increased military presence as a deterrent without formally invoking the MDT.
Can the Philippines invoke the MDT?
The arguments presented by the San Beda professors are compelling, especially given the MDT’s provisions and the 2023 Bilateral Defense Guidelines.
However, the interpretation of what constitutes an ‘armed attack’ and the broader strategic implications of invoking the MDT require careful consideration.
While the conditions for MDT invocation could arguably be met, the decision hinges on a complex interplay of legal definitions, historical context, and strategic calculations.
Call for peace, diplomacy, rule of law
In light of these developments, it is crucial to prioritize peace, diplomacy, and adherence to international law.
The Philippines should continue to assert its rights under the 2016 PCA ruling and explore diplomatic avenues to resolve disputes.
Engaging the United Nations Security Council, as recommended by the San Beda professors, could garner international support and pressure China to comply with international norms.
While the MDT provides a framework for mutual defense, invoking it requires careful deliberation.
The path forward should emphasize diplomacy, international law, and strategic partnerships to ensure peace and stability in the region.
By balancing assertiveness with prudence, the Philippines and its allies can navigate these challenges while upholding the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation.
The goal should always be to resolve disputes through peaceful means, reinforcing the commitment to a stable and just international order.