南海研究论坛

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

查看: 1728|回复: 3

[USA] China Can Have the Philippines

[复制链接]
发表于 2016-11-16 08:23 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
http://nationalinterest.org/blog ... e-philippines-18386
( Y+ h/ ~9 }+ u7 M( a; E. T4 L' h& W- y  z: _) l
Charles V. Peña
4 m( j9 C  U. H4 wNovember 11, 2016
+ ^9 ]( X3 ^6 N- B7 @, T  w) f$ Z! X* G/ B% G2 h! ~
Ever since Douglas MacArthur returned to the island of Leyte on October 20, 1944, the Philippines has been considered a loyal U.S. ally. In 1947, both countries signed an agreement that granted the United States the right to use military bases in the Philippines. Even after rising anti-American sentiment in the 1980s led to the U.S. military withdrawing from Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay naval base in 1992, both countries remained close. And in 2014, the United States and the Philippines negotiated an Enhance Defense Cooperation Agreement that gives U.S. forces access to certain military facilities.
; b* A' u$ ]3 p" ^' `: B  l6 ?# ~: L9 j0 ]
Indeed, the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty is still in effect today. But in October, Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, announced his “separation” from the United States in favor of closer ties to China.
  N0 M  N  l8 V+ G/ a% q- n
0 M$ U8 l: t/ P) N. @, H. y; L
; W. L* _% b3 N; G# s8 T9 @2 r+ PSo what’s a superpower to do?
* i* A, U' p. u) D* J, O( S; g+ Q% u
In his farewell address, George Washington warned us to “steer clear of permanent alliance.” Similarly, in his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson pledged “entangling alliances with none.” So rather than insist that the U.S. alliance with the Philippines is “ironclad” or “indelible,” as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Secretary of State John Kerry respectively put it, this is a perfect opportunity for Washington to disentangle itself.
3 z, d4 y9 X* `/ ]% j5 H1 @) w2 P/ N& V( _
To begin, the Mutual Defense Treaty really isn’t mutual. It’s more like a one-way treaty because the United States doesn’t need the Philippines to be able to defend America. The U.S. military is the most powerful and technologically advanced in the world—not to mention a highly capable strategic nuclear deterrent. Moreover, the United States sits in a relatively secure geostrategic position with friendly neighbors to its north and south and two vast oceans to its east and west.
% ?  g- E8 ]) z7 h3 L& k9 l/ L* K, }) ^
On the other hand, Manila is highly dependent on the U.S. military since the Philippine military is largely focused on internal security.
/ I4 h) }; j+ M. U- }% F: `9 j; {0 E; G% d" p2 |) q
Philippine defense spending is only about 1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). But the Philippines has a large enough economy to be able to spend more on its own defense if it feels threatened by external actors. And if Vietnam—a country with a smaller economy—can spend more on defense than the Philippines in actual expenditures and percent of GDP, the Philippines can and should spend more to protect itself. It’s not the responsibility of the American taxpayer.
# B9 F$ ^! f  m
- ]1 `; X5 D% {8 R: i* F! v/ p8 wMoreover, what the Philippines really wants the United States to do is confront China over territorial claims over Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea.$ y7 x& @3 u% V! I" u! ~, d+ O1 \8 q
: F# U# W0 z! n& ?8 Y% d  f
From a national-security standpoint, control of Scarborough Shoal does not pose a direct military threat to the U.S. homeland, which is some six thousand miles away. So there is no reason for the United States to risk war with China over it on behalf of the Philippines in a dispute over fishing rights.
' `; m' x7 A6 f8 Y3 ]
9 E  H: D  v! z/ TThe primary U.S. interest is that the sea-lanes remain open and unimpeded for the $5 trillion in commerce that flows through the South China Sea. While there is reason for some concern, Beijing has—so far—not demonstrated that it intends to close the South China Sea to free trade. And it’s important to remember that America is China’s second largest trading partner (after the European Union), so it would be economically risky for the Chinese to imperil those trading relationships.
2 |5 U* A) C2 P7 U8 B: v4 B2 g. K/ j# v+ C% C: F3 b% x
The Philippines knows it’s no match for the Chinese military. So, instead of continued dispute over fishing rights in Scarborough Shoal, it makes sense for Duterte to find some sort of resolution with China. But that doesn’t exclude the Philippines from having relationships with the United States (or any other country) that are also considered mutually beneficial.- P4 i2 Q" i- o5 _* M- M1 o+ b: r

8 t' t8 u! x3 I4 K8 n9 D7 nJust because Duterte wants to move closer to China over Scarborough Shoal doesn’t mean reducing or cutting off the nearly $20 billion in trade between Washington and Manila. Nor is it a reason to reduce or cut off more than $5 billion in foreign direct investment by the United States and other countries. Indeed, Duterte has since said, “It's not a severance of ties. What I mean was a separation of foreign policy.”7 V, K* S! d* H$ u8 ]$ Z3 _2 D
& d0 [& F+ {* y8 E2 p3 q( E, N3 M
So if President Duterte wants to take matters into his own hands to ease tensions with China, Washington should let him. After all, it’s in Manila’s self-interest for him to do so and it does not represent a direct threat to America. It’s a false dichotomy to assert that the Philippines must be tied only to either the United States or China. And Washington shouldn’t insist that its relationship with the Philippines exclude Manila from having any relationship with Beijing. The United States itself has relationships with both.8 v' q* `. H; e3 T2 [; d+ T8 H
  t; \) B5 ]6 x4 u( `* @) K
A more normal and rational relationship is one that understands and recognizes overlapping shared interests, but also respects separate self-interests—as long as those divergent interests do not represent a direct threat to U.S. national security., \- M. ^; N: p
- T2 M; I- }- W) Z
The United States might have to give up on having permanent bases in the Philippines, but previously losing Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay naval base for two decades did not make it any less of a superpower. Washington has an opportunity to distance itself from an obsolete security alliance that does not make America any more secure—all the while, letting the Philippines take responsibility for its own future.
: B" F, R' d4 f# f& {0 h
. g- _; [. O- E5 V' U8 A$ R5 W9 _3 q% ?
Charles V. Peña is a Filipino American and a senior fellow with Defense Priorities. He has more than twenty-five years of experience as a policy and program analyst and senior manager, supporting both the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Peña is the former director of defense-policy studies at the Cato Institute.
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2016-11-16 08:24 | 显示全部楼层
自从1944十月20日年麦克阿瑟回到菲律宾莱特岛,菲律宾就被视为美国忠诚的盟友.在1947年,两国签署了协议授予美国使用菲律宾军事基地的权利.即使在1980年代后高涨的反美情绪导致美国1992年撤出克拉克空军基地和苏比克湾海军基地,但两个国家仍旧保持亲密.而在2014年,美国和菲律宾协商加强防卫关系的协议,并给予美国军事力量可以使用军事设施的权利.
/ J; ?3 b- F( Y0 v# ~7 v
" r( \0 l, o; }+ Z* M( J1 \9 H事实上,1951年的共同防御条约在今天仍旧有影响力.但是在十月菲律宾总统杜特尔特为了利于加强与中国关系,宣布了与美国的分离.* |5 n+ f, v4 E* `( v

+ @! [4 B2 f% H0 F9 ?所以一个超级大国应该怎么做呢?
+ `( o* @2 _. q' N
+ B1 f* |1 t$ I9 A1 p% |- M华盛顿在其告别演说中警告我们”避免永久性同盟”.相似的,(译者v信hooerls)在其就职演说中,托马斯,杰斐逊保证”避免与任何人混乱的同盟关系.”.所以以其坚持美国与菲律宾盟友关系的坚不可破,就如国防部长卡特与国务卿克里所说的,这对华盛顿来说是一个完美的机会来撇清自己.
9 S9 M, p6 O# }( V
' k: i* f; f6 _+ k/ Q从一开始,共同防御条约就不是相互的.它更像一个单方面的条约,因为美国不需要菲律宾来捍卫美国.美国军事力量是世界上最强大最先进的力量,更不要说美国极强的战略和威慑力量.更多的,美国处于一个相对安全的位置,在南方和北方有友好的邻居,在东西两方有着广阔的大洋." i+ G% V! Q/ L5 g; P
4 ^8 w/ q) L. w2 q$ N
另一方面,菲律宾军事力量精力极大地集中国内安全上,马尼拉极大地依赖于美国军事力量.菲律宾防御费用只是国民生产总值的1%.但是如果菲律宾防御感受到了外部的威胁,菲律宾有足够大的经济力量使其能够花费更多在自身防卫上.而且如果越南(一个拥有的经济规模相对小的国家)能够比菲律宾在实际开支和GDP比例上花费更多在防卫上,菲律宾能够也应该花费更多来保卫其自己.而这不是美国纳税人的责任./ h& h) h8 x3 _9 Z& V) G0 g  t

5 S, H4 C/ Y9 S! ~5 Z此外,菲律宾真正想要的是让美国在南中国海上的关于黄岩岛的主权声明上直接面对中国.
' k3 T( {  ]: |- T; k: c3 r6 W' Y: d' Q- b& `/ Q
从国家安全立场出发,控制了黄岩岛也不会对美国本土造成直接的军事威胁,他与美国距离大概6000英里.所以这没有任何理由使美国冒着战争的风险为了菲律宾渔权进行争论.
  N  o+ u/ M" e! C. U" |/ S1 ?
3 f5 L- ~; y# }美国最基本的利益在于南中国海上,涉及到5万亿的商业贸易规模的海路畅通无阻.然而这有一个需要关注的原因,迄今为止北京并没有表现出关闭南海自由贸易的意图.而且务必切记美国是中国第二大贸易伙伴(在欧盟之后),所以他可能有贸易风险,中国可能会危害这些贸易关系.
, s9 N+ w  C6 Y/ P: ]  ?, F4 W( @) \7 L; h# }, r/ r0 T, A3 z# t# F
菲律宾知道其无法与中国军事力量相抗衡.所以与其与中国在黄岩岛渔权上进一步争论,找到一个方法与中国解决对杜特尔特来说更有意义.但并不排斥菲律宾与美国(或其他国家)保持关系的同时与中国想要共赢.0 z8 M2 A6 }- a; r. x

" ?, E' J6 M3 L( [- P2 _杜特尔特想要在黄岩岛上靠近中国,并不意味着要减少或切断华盛顿与马尼拉之间近200亿美元的经济贸易.这也不是美国或其他国家减少或切断50亿美元外部直接投资的理由.事实上,杜特尔特后来说过”他并不是切断联系,我的意思是与美国外交政策的分离.”- v' D$ ~. n  H
' C2 m0 h) j9 R
所以如果杜特尔特想要在他手上与中国缓和紧张,华盛顿应该放手让他去做.毕竟他这么做是马尼拉自己的利益,并且并不代表着对美国的直接威胁.菲律宾只能与美国或中国绑在一起是一个虚假的二分式论断.而华盛顿不应该坚持与菲律宾的关系,排斥菲律宾与中国的关系.美国自己就同时与两者同时保持着关系.
9 n4 }* v' O4 G. f0 G1 B  k  ]( \1 w
一个更合理的关系是须理解承认相互重叠的共同利益,并且也尊重相互分离的各国利益,只要这些相互分离的利益不意味着对美国安全的直接威胁.
& m% _' \: i$ V7 {- U/ {' J* E6 j& X% a1 v7 X8 `7 T4 H1 U
美国或许也应该放弃在菲律宾拥有永久性基地,然而过去二十年来失去克拉克空军基地与苏比克湾海军基地美国并没有任何损失.华盛顿有一个机会来疏远这个落后的安全盟友,来使美国不再受到束缚,同时让菲律宾为其自己的未来负责.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2016-11-16 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
这才是看到了本质,美国不需要菲律宾的防护,而是消费。
* ]% i) b" I, x5 f8 _8 R8 G# ^3 b美国处于一个相对安全的位置,在南方和北方有友好的邻居,在东西两方有着广阔的大洋.. ——上帝青睐酒鬼和美国啊。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2016-11-16 10:15 | 显示全部楼层
有一定的道理,但不绝对,因为关注南海需要一个支点
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

小黑屋|手机版|南海研究论坛 ( 辽ICP备12011429号|辽公安备21091102000117 )

GMT+8, 2019-10-16 08:31 , Processed in 0.157514 second(s), 18 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表