A presentation script by Corazan Valdez Fabros at 'International Conference aganist the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of Arms Race' in Seoul, Korea, April 16-18, 2009

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　U.S. Basing Without Bases in the Philippines
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　by Corazon Valdez Fabros

Friends, before I begin my short presentation, allow me to extend warmest greetings of peace and solidarity from the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases (No Bases Network) to the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space as well as to the Korean Committee for this International Conference with whom our common aspiration for the abolition of foreign military bases as well as nuclear weapons is deeply shared. Special greetings are extended on behalf of the STOP the War Coalition Philippines.
On a personal level, I wish to express my gratitude for being part of this important gathering of friends (both new and from a long association in shared vision and struggle many of whom I am very happy to meet once again in this gathering). Thank you all from the bottom of my heart for the warm welcome. Your solidarity and our shared struggle for peace and justice will always be a source inspiration.
Introduction

Let me begin by reading a quote from a declaration by US Senator J. Beveridge back in 1900:

“The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. Lines of navigation from our ports to the Orient and Australia; from the Isthmian Canal to Asia; from all Oriental ports to Australia, converge at and separate from the Philippines. They are a self-supporting, dividend-paying fleet, permanently anchored at a spot selected by the strategy of Providence commanding the Pacific. And the Pacific is the ocean of commerce of the future. Most future wars will be conflicts for commerce. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. And, with the Philippines, that power is and will forever be the American Republic.”

(“Our Philippine Policy,” Congressional Record, Senate of the United States of America, January 9, 1900)

That was more than a century ago. In 1992, the Philippines ceased to be the “permanently anchored” fleet that Senator Beveridge had described it to be when it shut down the complex of US military bases and installations in our country. Subic Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base were once described by American analysts as some of the most important basing complex in the world.” Since its colonization of the Philippines starting in 1899, the US had used its bases in the Philippines to intervene in China and Soviet Siberia. Throughout the Cold War, they were key to projecting US power in Asia, used as springboards for the US’ war in Korea and Vietnam and for interventions in Indonesia and Thailand. Within the Philippines, the bases were used in operations against communist and separatist rebels.

Now, about 17 years after the historic withdrawal of US military troops from Philippine soil, the United States has re-established its military presence in the Philippines. The US military has come back as part of its “global war against terror.” Not anymore in the form of big military infrastructures but with the more sophisticated, flexible military presence. The Philippines has become a laboratory of the US military for its prospects in other parts of Asia and the Pacific.

Basing Without Bases thru the Visiting Forces Agreement

In 1998, the Philippine government signed the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States formalizing a long-standing secret negotiation. Despite a strong people’s movement to reject the agreement, the Philippine Senate ratified the agreement. That ushered in a new chapter in Philippine-US relations, which started the regular arrival of US troops for military training and exercise involving as many as 6,000 US troops at one time. After the 9-11 attacks in 2001, the Philippine government gave the US permission to fly over the country’s airspace, use its airfields and ports, and travel on its sea-lanes. And with the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) signed in November 2002, the US was allowed to store and pre-position equipment in the country, construct structures and be provided with the full range of logistics and operational services it requires during deployments.

The RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) violates the Philippines’ sovereignty and justifies the prolonged (even permanent) presence and combat involvement of US troop on Philippine soil despite the absence of any basing treaty.

The VFA, as it is implemented today, practically reverses many of the victories in the struggle to remove foreign bases from the Philippines.

The VFA have the following one-sided provisions in favor of the United States:

　１． Does not specify or limit the number of US troops allowed entry into the Philippines. The numbers can range from 10 to 1000 and beyond;

２． Does not specify or limit the areas in the Philippines that the “visiting” troops can access. With the broadness of the agreement, US troops can access military camps, civilian facilities and even areas of actual armed conflict such as Sulu or Basilan;

　３．Does not specify or limit the duration of the stay of the “visiting” US forces. It is so broad and vague that it allows the continuing, even if rotational, presence of US troops in the Philippines;

　４．Does not specify or limit the activities being undertaken by the “visiting” US forces. It does not explicitly prohibit direct combat involvement of US forces, neither does it set a limit on the number of activities, including joint exercises that could take place within a year;

　５．Too broad and too vague when it comes to the treatment of “visiting” US forces such that it can mean the US can deploy an unlimited number of troops, for an unspecified duration, anywhere in the Philippines, for a broad range of activities, that may not be limited to “exercises”.

Beginning in early 2002, a US military unit, composed of about 100 to 450 US troops in rotation, has based itself indefinitely in southern Mindanao. In 2006, another agreement was signed, establishing a Security Engagement Board (SEB) and expanding the scope of US troops’ role in the country. Then, in 2007, a Status of Visiting Forces Agreement (SOVFA), giving similar legal privileges given to US troops by the VFA, was signed with another US ally, Australia, which in the past few years has also begun to be involved in military operations in the Philippines.

Between 2002 and 2006, the US had been providing an average of $54 million per year in military aid to the Philippine government, up from $1.6 million annually in the period after the closure of the bases and before the signing of the VFA.

What we have in the Philippines today are not Main Operating Bases (MOB) that serves as the hub of operations just like what we see at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and Camp Humphreys in Korea. Instead, we have Forward Operating Sites (FOS), smaller, more sparse bases that could be expanded and then scaled down as needed; for storage of prepositioned equipment that normally involve a small number of troops on rotation. What we have are - Cooperative Security Locations (CSL) owned by the Philippines or private facilities and infrastructures run by the Armed Forces of the Philippines or private contractors.

FOSs and CSLs are also called “lily pads” intended to provide the US “mission presence” and “limited access” in the Philippines where they have ongoing military missions lacking the breadth and capability to qualify as true forward presence but nonetheless contribute to the overall US posture overseas. “Limited access” is done through exercises, visits, and other operations. This limited or temporary access not only allows the US to station its troops closer to possible sites of intervention; they also allay domestic opposition to US presence. Humanitarian missions are designed towards “winning the hearts and minds” of people.

Permanent Military Presence

The Joint Special Operations Task Force – Philippines based in Zamboanga fits the description of Forward Operating Site. The JSOTF-P headquarters inside Camp Navarro acts as a Forward Operating Site having a small permanent presence and supporting sustained operations. This facility can host a rotational force and pre-positioned equipment. The FOS is often associated with bilateral and regional training exercises and activities.

The JSOTF-P occupies a facility “sealed by walls, concertina wire, and sandbags. The actual size of the area could not immediately be seen from the outside. Their communication facilities (satellite dishes, antenna, and other instruments) are visible.” The US, based on its own defense posture review, does not intend to put up its Main Operations Base. The thrust is to have as many Cooperative Security Locations and Forward Operating Sites which are more flexible, cheaper to maintain, concealed and thereby less prone to controversy and protest.

The structures that are being built thru the Mindanao Economic Development Assistance have been “permanently occupied” since 2002. The presence of the US troops, even if on a rotational basis, has become permanent, ‘permanently occupied’ by the US forces, 365 days a year for more than six years now.

The RP-US Mutual Logistics Support Agreement also makes the JSOTF-P Headquarters in Zamboanga possible, a pact that compliments the VFA by providing logistical support for the “visiting” US troops. The MLSA was signed as a 5-year executive agreement in 2002 and was recently renewed in November 2007. The extension is done to provide a legal framework for the ‘permanently occupied’ facilities by the overstaying US troops in Mindanao.

Combat involvement

There is high probability as well as existing accounts that the US forces are engaged in combat operations. The United States Institute for Peace, a US government funded institution, describes the role of the US forces deployed in Mindanao in its February 2008 report. The deployment of US forces in Mindanao was not for humanitarian missions or civic actions, but for specific military objectives.

”In the aftermath of 9/11, the United States grew particularly concerned that Mindanao could become a training ground and sanctuary for international terrorists. This concern led to expanded U.S. military assistance to the Philippine government and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). U.S. military assets were deployed in the southern Philippines to assist efforts to pursue groups designated as international terrorists, including members of the Indonesian Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and the local Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).” The role of the US forces is not limited to “training” Filipino troops but also involves directly participating in tactical operations and missions.

The United States Institute for Peace report further stated that American targets also included so-called MILF lost commands, which were linked to terrorism. American Special Forces under the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) established expanded counter-terrorism operations, providing the AFP with intelligence, training, and weaponry. The objective was to assist the AFP in its efforts to reform, modernize, and enhance its ability to fight terrorist groups. U.S. policy instruments in Mindanao include diplomacy, conditionality of U.S. economic and military assistance programs, and more punitive measures on the counter terrorism front.”

Intelligence gathering as a combat role

The Armed Forces of the Philippines has admitted that the US troops are engaged in intelligence work, especially against military targets such as the Abu Soya, so-called terrorist groups and the so-called “rogue” MILF units. These intelligence-gathering operations of US forces are part and essential to actual combat operations. “US troops are part of the hostilities because they provide intelligence and support to the AFP against the MILF.” US troops conduct actual surveillance and intelligence operations on the local populace. The power to spy on the people can easily be abused especially since existing agreements are silent on the parameters of the engagement.

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) by US forces has been well documented in Mindanao. The US military has a fleet of various unmanned spy planes, from a palm-size remote-controlled aircraft to sophisticated high-altitude; long-range remotely piloted vehicles designed for long-endurance photographic reconnaissance and electronic surveillance missions, and as attack aircrafts.

“Humanitarian missions”

The term “humanitarian mission” and “civic actions” have become the standard response of both the AFP and the US Embassy every time US forces figure in incidents that are not covered by the VFA, such as operating spy planes, or being part of an AFP military convoy that was ambushed by rebels.

“Humanitarian missions” are all part of the “communications strategy” being employed by the US to justify their continued presence in the country as contained U.S documents, such as ANNEX A, Strategic Communication, USPACOM Pacific Joint Training Strategy. They are meant “to educate elected officials, opinion leaders and the public on the importance of military training; build public trust and support of training activities; portray the cost of readiness and potential impact of not being ready…and highlight the military as good stewards of the environment.” The document further states that "Military participation in school activities (reading weeks, career fairs, etc) is a highly effective community relations tool at the “grass roots” level.” Joint Training Strategy has clear strategic military objectives along the lines of securing US political and military interests.

The Continuing People's Resistance to US Military Occupation

With its long history of anti-bases struggle in the Philippines, the people’s movement for peace and sovereignty has called for the immediate abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement and all other laws related to it.
Recently, campaigns were launch especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision on the “Nicole” case (the first ever to reach the court, not even during the 50-year presence of U.S. military bases in this country), has exposed the continuing special treatment of U.S. military personnel who evade jurisdiction of the Philippine court system whenever they abuse local people.
The JUNK VFA Movement and the SCRAP VFA! Movement are broad campaign networks of coalitions, organizations and individuals united in the pursuit of genuine sovereignty.
Noting especially the Task Force Subic Rape and the women and men behind it who stood by “Nicole” in her legal case against her rapist American soldier Daniel Smith and supported her throughout her fight for justice. Nicole’s case has convinced us that no woman in the Philippines or anywhere else is safe from future abuses and violence as long as the Visiting Forces Agreement exists.

No Bases! Network

The International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, formally launched in Ecuador in March 2007, pursues a campaign focusing on the global military infrastructure with priority placed on bases of the United States and Europe. Network membership is part of the larger global struggle for peace, justice and nuclear abolition. It is steadily developing into a network of predominantly local grassroots groups challenging the global expansion of hundreds of foreign military and intelligence facilities.
A review of recent initiatives and actions has shown us that organising our struggle on a global level has enhanced its effectiveness. Local campaigners find moral support in the fact that many others around the world struggle for similar goals, facing similar obstacles; campaigners learn from each others’ experiences; and sharing information on specific bases, their functions and their legal status has improved our understanding of the whole network of military bases globally. Value added for the global No Bases! Network is found also in the ability to jointly build a knowledge base and to build international solidarity among fellow civil society campaigns, scholars and political actors.

The Network works through: Communication strategies; Research/Analysis (Global Observatory and outreach to researchers and analysts in the US and other continents working on bases related issues; Outreach to new groups and to new allies; Regional coordination, research and monitoring, strategic alliance building, lobbying and advocacy, public global actions and supporting local struggles; Rapid response which may be crucial to win a political battle especially in countries that are for the first time “offered” a military base. The No Bases! Network will support and stand in solidarity with those who struggle for the abolition of all foreign military bases and military aggression worldwide.
These are periods of deep economic insecurities not only in Asia and the Pacific but globally. It is also a period of great opportunities and hope. We have to continue building our critical mass of advocates calling for peace and abolition of foreign military bases. Let us renew our organizing work with greater vigor and commitment. Our meaningful presence here today, right where the policies of the Empire impacts adversely on the lives of people and environment is a strong and visible expression of our unrelenting struggle for a peaceful world. Thank you.

―References:―
At the Door of the East: The Philippines in United States Military Strategy by Herbert Docena (Focus on the Global South)

Unconventional Warfare: Are US Special Forces Engaged in an ‘Offensive War’ in the Philippines? By Herbert Docena (Focus on the Global South)

Citizens Peace Watch Final Report of Fact-Finding Mission to Zamboanga City and Sulu, February 2008, http://www.focusweb.org/philippines/docs/CPWReport.pdf

Bases of Empire, The New Zealand Connection (Peace Researcher, November 2008)

Daniel B. Schirmer and Stephen Shalom, eds. The Philippines Reader: A History of Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Dictatorship, and Resistance (Boston: South End Press, 1987).

Citizen’s Peace Watch – On US Military basing in Mindanao, An Appeal for Truth and Vigilance In the Midst of Deceit, October 2008

SCRAP VFA! Movement Unity Statement, April 2, 2009

JUNK VFA Movement position paper before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

..........................................................

* Corazon Valdez Fabros: Co-convener of STOP the WAR Coalition Philippines, a member of International Coordinating Committee of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Base (No Bases Network)

　　　　　　Permanent People’s Tribunal Second Session on the Philippines
　　　　　　　　　(March 21-25, 2007, The Hague, The Netherlands

VERDICT
March 25, 2007

（excerpts)

5. The role of the United States of America

We need to see the worsening Human Rights crisis in the Philippines in the context of the United States’ strategies for global economic and military hegemony and the ensuing US led so-called “war on terror”.

The military and security agreements between the Philippines and the United States were part of the series of treaties and agreements that were imposed upon the Philippines right after the granting of formal independence by the United States to the Philippines at the end of the Second World War in 1948. The agreements assured the continued domination by the United States over the country and over the Armed Forces and internal security in particular. This was so even though the Philippines was already given formal independence.

US troops have returned to the Philippines, despite the removal of the US bases in 1992, on the basis of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in 1999 and the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) in 2002. Under the guise of a so-called “war on terror”, US troops have been stationed and deployed especially but not only in the southern Philippine island of Mindanao. Since 2001 there has been a continuous presence in the country of up to thousands of US soldiers ostensibly for counter-terrorism “trainings and exercises” but which in many cases are in reality coordinated combat operations with the Philippine armed forces. These grossly violate national sovereignty and Philippine territorial integrity.

Because of its strategic location, the Philippines is vital for the US projection of military force in East Asia to as far away as the Middle East. The country’s ports and airfields have already been used by the US as transit points and refueling stations in its wars of aggression against the people of Afghanistan and of Iraq. It is for this reason that the US seeks to maintain its control over the Philippine state and its armed forces, and seeks to defeat all progressive forces opposed to the US presence and intervention in the country.

The Armed Forces today remains the same institution which served the Marcos regime. The junior officers who committed atrocities under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos are now generals and the henchmen in Arroyo’s repressive state machinery. The AFP continues to serve as an instrument of suppression and executor of extra-legal operations under the guidance and with the support of US counterinsurgency and anti-terrorism agencies, i.e. the CIA and the Department of Defense in Pentagon. The Arroyo regimes’ dependence on the US and the US trained armed forces is crucial for the survival of the regime.

The cost of such strict dependence in terms of gross violations of individual and collective rights, has been dramatically confirmed and documented in detail. The never ending military, police and paramilitary operations are the expression of all-out war, or so-called “holistic approach” in Operation Bantay Laya (OBL) or Operation Freedom Watch, a policy which has been carried out since 2002.

Bantay Laya is the latest formulation of previous counterinsurgency plans initially crafted under the Marcos regime. It is an end product of more than three decades of successive failures and frustrations of US-GRP-AFP in their attempts to crush and defeat the struggles of the people. The US, through Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency has been involved in conceptualization, planning, training of AFP personnel and execution of the plan. This work of cooperation is now done on the basis of the very controversial Security Engagement Board Agreement of 2006.

The Security Engagement Board created by this agreement is a joint committee of defense officials and military officials of both the Philippines and the United States. And the purpose of this committee is to oversee the anti-terror campaign in the country. The campaign was begun in 2001 as a campaign against the Abu Sayyaf in the south of the country, right after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York. It was a creation of the US and experimented in collaboration with the AFP against the Abu Sayyaf as an anti-terror campaign. In that campaign the US special forces and the AFP were abducting even suspects or families of Abu Sayyaf sympathizers and innocent members of communities in Mindanao. Only later was it decided to expand the campaign to cover the entire Philippines in the nationwide anti-insurgency campaign. Like the campaign against Abu Sayyaf, the nationwide campaign does not make any distinction between advocates who have a legal status and those involved in armed confrontations with the government. And it is being carried out by AFP instructed and supported in action by US Special Operations Forces (SOF).

These US Special Operations Forces are the most highly-trained elite units of the US Army who specialize in what is called Low Intensity Conflict Warfare. In other countries, the deployment of US Special Operations Forces, especially in Guatemala and Colombia, as well as in Indonesia during the Suharto dictatorship, have been exposed by among others the Amnesty International as having been responsible for training local troops that have been involved in dirty tricks, including abductions, extra-judicial killings, and even massacres of civilians who have been known to be sympathetic to armed insurgents in those countries.

Having run out of counterinsurgency options, Bantay Laya seems to be the US-Arroyo regime’s “final solution” to the long drawn-out conflict. A novel and significant component is it’s special emphasis on brutal and punitive measures against Congressional party-list representatives and constituencies and “neutralization” of institutions and organizations, through assassination of their leaders and ordinary members. Bantay Laya’s focus on the political component and white area operations is described by veteran reporter and columnist Amado Doronila in Philippine Daily Inquirer (21 June 2006):

“The blueprint of war outlined in ‘the orders of battle’ of Oplan Bantay Laya envisages decimation of non-military segments of the communist movement. It is not designed to engage the New People’s Army in armed conflict in field warfare. It is designated to butcher and massacre defenseless non-combatants. It is therefore a sinister plan for civilian butchery, a strategy which exposes the military and police to fewer risks and casualties than they would face in armed fighting with the communist guerillas.

The emphasis of this strategy on “neutralizing” front/legal organizations helps explain why most of the victims of the past five years have been non-combatants and defenseless members of the left. During that period the number of murdered aboveground members of the Left has far exceeded fatalities of the New People’s Army in armed encounters with security forces.

This strategy is blamed for the systematic massacre of non-combatants. It offers a huge potential for human rights abuses and atrocities. It makes the regime look more cold-blooded in its methods in trying to crush the insurgency than it’s predecessors, not excluding the Marcos dictatorship. It opens the path to the slaughter of the defenseless”.

6. Extra-judicial killings, torture and forced disappearances

An impressive amount of cases of extra-judicial killings, disappearances and torture, often in combination with each other, have been documented before the tribunal by oral testimonies by survivors, witnesses and experts who provided also the opportunity of more in depth questioning by the jury. Further for each of the cases a very detailed account, including copies of original documents and certificates has been available for the jury. The synoptic presentation of the 839 cases of extra-judicial killings in a table, allows on one side the detailed view of the increasing number of cases from the 98 in 2001 to the 213 in 2006, on the other side makes visible the composition of this ‘population’ which is truly and fully representative of the targeted killing strategy: persons associated with ‘left’ organisations, church people, community leaders, peasants, journalists, lawyers, people of the so-called party list organisations (parliamentary opposition), human rights activists or simply witnesses of extra-judicial killings.

　