| Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Can we rely on the MDT? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 4 2005, 05:33 PM (3,427 Views) | |
| geko | Jan 4 2005, 05:33 PM Post #1 |
|
Trainee
  ![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
maybe this is a silly question but in our school the mutual defense treaty was discussed but can we really expect the USA to help us in the event that a foreign country invade the Philippines? i mean are they really obliged or they can optionally not intervene? |
 |
 
|
| ColdDeadFish | Jan 4 2005, 06:11 PM Post #2 |
Major
|
The US have an option not to intervene as the US president has a prerogative to declare temporary war before submitting it to Congress or it can just queue the request to declare war along with other congressional matters. This should not worry us on an isolated scenario but it should make us worry on a global war as we will be like 1942 all over again. The US gave higher priority on the war in Europe than the war in the pacific. The MDT gave the US such leeway, AGAIN! Further, we are technically not invaded until our MAJOR cities are threatened, thus an invader can technically occupy 90% of our country yet they have not fallen into the category of invading the RP. One sided from where I sit. The guys who drafted it "call a spade a spade", from where I came from, we "call a spade a shovel". |
| |
|
|
|
| Kookie | Jan 4 2005, 06:49 PM Post #3 |
Member
|
 If that is the case then this a very unfair treaty in my opinion, why did the politicians allowed this treaty to be approved ? I thought the American government is sincere in its promise to protect or help our country in case of trouble. So if the Chinse forces forcibly occupy our Spratly Islands camps, the US is not going to help us because there is no major city in the Spratly! We should stop insisting being friends with America if they treat us like beggars. 
|
|
|
|
| Viking | Jan 4 2005, 07:53 PM Post #4 |
Trainee
|
Since the treaty has the same obligations for both countrys, where is the injustice ? You must remember if the treaty had demanded an automatic response you would have had Philippine troops in Afganistan now.
MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY the way i read Article V is that even a isolated attack on a city or a ship is considered an "armed attack" And regarding the Spratlys the legal nut is "island territories under its jurisdiction" since this concerns international law, and disputes that havent been settled, i am not sure if and how the Spratleys fit in. AND before you start to post flamers  Remember this is not my opinion about your ownership to the Spratleys, It is just my opinion how the treaty COULD be read.
|
| Draft beer, not people | |
|
|
|
| caterwaul | Jan 4 2005, 07:56 PM Post #5 |
Member
|
but we are just that kookie , we are beggars for their hands me down and tiratirang gamit... 
|
|
|
|
| ColdDeadFish | Jan 4 2005, 08:32 PM Post #6 |
|
Major
|
The Philippines would have sent troops to Afghanistan if the US have declared war on Afghanistan, but then again who do you declare war with? All the countries that the US have declared war unto, the Philippine has sent its treaty commitments, like in the Korean War for instance. The Afghan war is a proxy war, the US never declared war on Afghanistan, they just refused to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate goverment of Afghanistan. Instead, the US aided a rebellion against the taliban self imposed rule. There was no injustice made. Point here is that the MDT suppose to secure our external security, the problem is that it was designed to handle bilateral war but does not guarantee commitments on a full scale regional much less a global war. Even on a bilateral war, the article stipulates that.... ".....and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes". The word "act" does not represent deterrence, if for example China attack a PN craft in the Spratlys, the US can file a diplomatic protest in the UN Security Council, that in itself "is an act to meet the common dangers in accordance with the constitutional processes of the US". At that point the US has undertaken its treaty commitment. So what will the President of the RP do to seek retaliation due to National fervor? The President will be between a rock and a hard place, he is suceptible to nationalist outrage. A popular coup is only what it needs to depose him. Else we will just feel sorry and ashamed over the shameless act undertaken upon us. What most forumgoers favor is building the capability to retaliate as to project deterrence. All we are sponsoring for is that the JUSMAG system allows the RP to freely look for retaliatory capability if the US deems that they will not be able to provide the RP for economic, political or security reasons. We should have the right to self determination on retaliatory capability. This capability should not be hostaged by a bureaucratic mechanism called the JUSMAG. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| flipzi | Jan 5 2005, 02:44 PM Post #7 |
R-A-T-S
|
 You hit it right, Fish. :thumb: The Scarborough takeover is one clear example of how weak that treaty is. Since, the MDF cannot be relied upon to defend our interest in the Spratly's and other disputes or concerns not covered by the MDT, ... ... it is best that we develop our capability to handle such threat. I believe that it is about time we junk the JUSMAG or whatever agreement is tied with it that suppresses our desire to PROTECT OUR INTEREST WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THE MDT. |
 " Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them! - Art. II Sec 1, Philippine Constitution " " People don't care what we know until they know we care. " getflipzi@yahoo.com | |
|
|
|
| Opitmal | Jan 17 2005, 01:22 PM Post #8 |
|
Unregistered
|
what will happen to us if we junk the MDT? consequences?? 
|
|
|
|
| maniegom | Jan 17 2005, 01:46 PM Post #9 |
Member
|
Personally, the same as we are now, blaming everything on the US instead of looking at ourselves and taking the responsibility for our country's mistakes. No matter what misfortunes befall our nation, I still wonder why we constantly blame the US for our woes when it is that same country that we rely on for help? Why are we so quick on putting all the blame on the US when it is also that same country that bails us out in our time of need? Take the latest tsunami incident that hit South East Asia, isn't the US also there helping out and where are we? There are other nations like Japan, UK and others who made pledges, but the question is what country immediately sent their forces out to help? Answer: USA! Oh sure we sent forensic experts and medical personnel out there too of which is a noble deed considering what we have compared to them. The other thing we should remember though is that the US sent the Marines from Okinawa when we got severely hit by the two storms in Quezon before the tsunami incident. And we still love to blame them for all our short comings. Sometimes, I wonder why we have such a knack to bite the hand that helps us? |
|
|
|
| bombeat | Jan 17 2005, 05:55 PM Post #10 |
|
Recruit
|
nasabi mo lang yan maniego dahil amboy ka at empleyado ng mga kano...ano naman ang bigay nila sa atin kung di mga bulok na gamit at di naman sila ang biggest contributor sa tsunami kungdi ang mga europeans, napilitan lang silang bumigay ng mas malaking tulong dahil binira sila sa UN... mga ungas |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Military and Law Enforcement · Next Topic » |
2:48 PM Jul 13