EXCHANGE OF LETTERS
BETWEEN FORMER SENATE PRESIDENT
JOVITO SALONGA AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY BLAS
OPLE ON THE ISSUE OF MLSA
(As the United States stands ready to wage war
against Iraq, Filipino leaders can no longer ignore the need to define
and clarify the role that the Philippines ought to play in that event.
Last Dec. 2002, former Senate President Jovito Salonga, who in 1991
led the Senate in rejecting the continued stay of the US military
bases in the country, wrote Foreign Affairs Secretary Blas Ople .
Salonga proposed that US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone put down in
writing, through a formal exchange of notes, his statement that the US
does not want or need to have bases in the Philippines. What follows
is the exchange of communication between Salonga and Ople.)
Dec. 23, 2002
Secretary Blas P. Ople
Department of Foreign Affairs
Manila
Dear Secretary Ople:
Allow me to wish you and your family all the best in this season
of love and grace.
As an ordinary citizen and a former public official, I am deeply
concerted about the seemingly endless squabbling among our high
officials, rendering it difficult for the outside world to take our
Government seriously, especially in the field of foreign affairs. I
just wrote an essay, entitled, "Understanding Some Aspects of RP-US
Relations in this Season of Peace and Goodwill,"and I have taken the
liberty of sending a copy to you, along with this letter. I addressed
a similar letter to Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, who received it
last Saturday, Dec. 21, through his Assistant Secretary for Legal
Affairs.
I pray and hope you will have the time, despite your hectic
schedule, to read it carefully. There is a reference to you and an
analysis of the MLSA Agreement on pp. 8 and 9, with which you may or
may not agree. On p. 9, I made a specific proposal which should
interest you and Secretary Reyes-- for the sake of (1) protecting our
own national interest; and (2) advancing the cause of national unity,
based on principle, instead of expediency. The proposal is to request
the U.S. government, through Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, to reduce
to writing, by means of an EXCHANGE OF NOTES, the verbal disclaimers
of the latter who reportedly told the media on or around Nov. 24,
2002--" We don't want the bases, we don't need them, and the MLSA has
nothing to do with them." These disclaimers are important to the
nation, but under international law, these verbal disclaimers are not
binding on the United States Government, especially and doubly so if
they are merely reported by the media. I have indicated by footnote
on p. 9 of the article, the meaning of "exchange of notes" in
internaitonal law.
Instead of challenging Vice President Guingona to go to the
Supreme Court, which does not help anyone, including Supreme Court, I
hope you will favor my proposal due to (1) the mounting criticisms
here and aboroad of our dependency, neocolonialist status; and (2) the
looming probability of a US-led preemptive war against Iraq in the New
Year(2003), which could be in January, February, or a little later.
Given the interpretation of the MLSA by the Executive Department,
particularly the DFA and the DND, the bombing and/or invasion of Iraq,
will involve the Philippines and probably kill and cripple thousands
of Filipino OFWs and their children in Iraq, Kuwait and other places
in the Middle East. When you were abroad last Dec. 5, I took up by
phone this simple, common-sense proposal with Undersecretary Lauro
Baja of the DFA. If I understood him correctly, he was apparently
agreeable to the proposal and promised he would take it up with you
upon your scheduled arrival that same evening. I was made to
understand that he did so, as promised. But since I haven't heard
directly from you, I thought of writing this urgent letter. Whatever
your reaction may be, whether positive or negative, kindly let me know
in writing as early as possible, so there can be no possibility of
miscommunication or erroneous interpretation.
Merry Christmas again, and may the New Year be a time of peace
and goodwill not only for our family and loved ones but also for our
people.
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Foreign Affairs
14 January 2003
2754
Hon. Jovito R. Salonga
Former Senate President of the Philippines
Kilosbayan House No. 7 First st., Acacia Lane,
Mandaluyong City.
Dear Senator Salonga ,
I deeply appreciate your thoughtful letter of 23 December 2002,
in which you shared with me a copy of your essay on aspects of our
country's relations with the United States. I respect your position
on certain provisions of the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement(MLSA)
which in your judgement run counter to some provisions of the
Constitution.
Certainly, we both share the same objective in upholding our
national interest when it comes to international agreements and this
was the very guideline when the MLSA was drafted. In all aspects, the
Technical Working Group took extra care in crafting the MLSA to be in
form and in substance, an executive agreement.
With regard to your proposal for an exchange of notes between the
Philippines and the United States on the MLSA which will contain
verbal disclaimers of U.S. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone before the
media, it is my view that this may not be necessary. It has been
mutually agreed upon by both parties in the Agreement and this is laid
down clearly in the provisions that MLSA prohibits the construction
and establishment of any United States military base or facility.
Cognizant of the provisions of Article XVIII, Section 25 of the
Constitution, the MLSA categorically states in its Part IV, paragraph
(1)(a):
"No United States military base, facility,
or permanent structure shall be construc-
ted, established, or allowed under this
Agreement."
Furher, I have clarified before Congressional leaders and the
public that the MLSA does not contain any substantive obligations that
would qualify it as a treaty -- precisely because it simply is an
administrative agreement to facilitate logistics support between the
Defense Departments of the two countries. More importantly, there is
no legal obligation in the Agreement to grant the logistics support.
Merely a "best efforts" obligation to do so.
I would like to allay your fears that the MLSA compromises
Philippine security interests. The Department of Foreign Affairs and
our colleagues in the Defense Department have studied the matter
thoroughly and it meets constitutional standards.
Please accept my warmest personal regards.
Blas F. Ople
Secretary of Foreign Affairs
(signed)
Secretary Blas F. Ople
Department of Foreign Affairs
Fax: 832-1597; and personal delivery
Dear Secretary Ople:
I have your long-awaited answer dated January 14, 2003 to my
letter of Dec. 23, 2002-- a tardy answer which, by the way, was
actually delivered to my Office by your DFA messenger only last Jan.
30, 2003, that is, 38 days since the delivery to you of my letter of
Dec. 23, 2002. As you will kindly recall, the simple proposal
contained in my letter, was for you to serve the national interest by
requesting the US Government, through Ambassador Ricciardone, to
reduce in writing by means of an exchange of notes, his verbal
disclaimers published in the media on or around November 24, 2002,
where he was quoted as having said -- " We don't want the bases, we
don't need them, and the MLSA has nothing to do with them." In
international law as well as in domestic law, these verbal disclaimers
aired in the media, are not binding on the U.S. Government. In my
letter to you, I said that whatever your reaction may be, whether
positive or negative, let me know in writing as early as possible.
Because of its importance to our people, I wrote Senate President
Franklin Drilon about the same proposal on Dec. 29, 2002, which was
delivered to him on the same date. In addition to enclosing a copy of
my Dec. 23, 2002 letter to you, I reminded him of the Ramos-Rusk
Exchange of Notes of Sept. 16, 1966, which reduced the duration of the
RP-US Military Bases Agreement from 50 to 25 years. This Exchange of
Notes enabled the Philippine Senate 25 years later (Sept. 16, 1991) to
say NO to the further stay of US bases in the Philippines, ending in
the meantime more than 400 years of foreign military presence in the
Philippines. On January 7, 2003, Senate President Drilon wrote you
his letter -- received and stamped in your DFA Office on January 9,
2003 -- stating that "I(Drilon) find merit in the Salonga proposal for
an exchange of notes" as this "may well put to rest the apprehension
that the RP-US Mutual Logistics Support Agreement(MLSA) would lead to
the return of the US Bases in the country."
Forgive me for saying that for one who has been in the business
of writing on various subjects under the sun, whether in or out of
Government, your long silence without any answer in writing, as I
humbly requested, was not only incredible but out of character.
I do not presume to know whether you finally caused the delivery
of your answer to me last Jan. 30, 2003 only after you listened to the
Jan. 23, 2003 State of the Union address of President George W. Bush
whom you promptly extolled in your Manila Bulletin column of Feb. 2,
2003 as the "defender of civilization". You also paid homage to the
U.S. as not just "the remaining superpower, but the preeminent moral
power" in the world -- an extravagant tribute which, in my view,
borders on idolatry. In contrast, Nelson Mandela, the towering
statesman of Africa who fought and was imprisoned for his convictions
for more than 27 years, described President Bush as a "man with no
foresight and can't think properly," one who wants " to plunge the
whole world into a holocaust," all because of the desire of the
United States "to gain control of the oil resources of Iraq, "which as
you know, has the second biggest oil reserves in the world.
Your belated answer, to put it bluntly, either missed or ignore
the first point I stressed in my letter -- namely, that the
squabblings among our high officials render it quite difficult for the
outside world to take our Government seriously, especially in the
field of foreign affairs. For example, when Vice President Guingona,
who can more than speak for himself, differed with your view that the
MLSA is "nothing but a set of accounting and administrative procedures
to facilitate reciprocal exchanges of supplies " -- which is a
half-truth -- you publicly challenged him(Vice President Guingona) to
go to the Supreme Court(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nov. 24, 2002).
Unfortunately, you even claimed that the Supreme Court would dismiss
his petition outright because "there is no justifiable(sic)
controversy", as if you also had the authority to speak for all the
Supreme Court justices.
I can understand why you said in your answer to me that "an
exchange of notes with U.S. Ambassador Ricciardone" -- whose view of
the MLSA you have echoed -- "may not be necessary." Pardon me, but
what may not be necessary to you may be necessary and essential to
the rest of the nation, particularly the more than 1.4 million
Filipinos in the Middle EAst, in such places as Kuwait, Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt and
other places. Which is why President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo felt she
had to go to Kuwait and give Filipino OFWs there the assurance that no
one among them " will get hurt or dislocated from employment" due to
the looming war in nearby Iraq -- a promise which our cash-starved,
deficit-burdened Government may not be able to fulfill. Likewise,
what may not be necessary to you may be necessary to the many
law-abiding, moderate Muslims and their non-Muslim sympathizers not
only in Mindanao but also in various parts of the Philippines who are
shocked and enraged by the US-led war of aggression on Iraq, whose
oppressed people are not enemies of our own exploited people.
In your letter to me, you cite two reasons for your stand, which
I quote and refute point by point:
(1) "The MLSA states (Part IV,par. 1a) - " No United States
military base, facility, or permanent structure shall be constructed,
established, or allowed under this Agreement."
As you know, under Par. IX, the MLSA "shall be in force for only
five(5) years and shall be subject to review at least one(1) year
before its termination." Therefore, it is perfectly understandable
that only temporary structures not going beyond the period of five(5)
years may be constructed or allowed in Clark Field or Subic. Hence, to
say that no permanent structure shall be constructed, established or
allowed under the MLSA does not really mean anything at all -- talaga
namang hindi pwede.
(2) Let me now quote your second point: " I(Ople) clarified
before Congressional leaders and the public that the MLSA does not
contain any substantive obligations that would qualify it as a treaty
-- precisely because it is an administrative agreement to facilitate
logistics support between the Defense Departments of the two
countries. More importantly, there is no legal obligation in this
Agreement to grant the logistics support. Meretly 'a best efforts
obligation to do so' "
(a) With due respect, the first part of this statement, namely that
you "clarified before the leaders of Congress that the MLSA does not
contain any substantive obligation that would qualify it as a treaty"
is a non sequitur and is a crude attempt to elevate itself. Under the
law of evidence, here and in the U.S., "when the terms of an agreement
(such as the MLSA) have been reduced to writing, there can be no
evidence of the terms of the agreement than the agreement itself", in
this case, the MLSA -- not your so-called clarification.
Nor can a former Opposition Senator validly usurp the prerogative
of the Senate, now dominated by the People Power Coalition, to
determine whether an international agreement, purporting to be an
executive agreement, is in fact a Treaty, which must, under the
Constitution, be ratified by the Senate.
(b) The second part of the statement that "there is no legal
obligation in the Agreement to grant the logistics support, merely a
'best efforts' obligation to do so " sounds convincing, except that
you did not tell us --(1) that "logistics support" under the MLSA
includes "storage units" and "port services". Oxford and Webster
dictionaries define "port " and "port of entry" as any city or town
with a harbor -- like Subic -- or an airport --like Clark Field
--"where goods pass in and out of a country or any place where
travelers may enter a country;" (2) that your superior authority,
President Arroyo, made an unsolicited offer to the U.S., on or around
September 10, 2002, to make use of Philippine air space and refueling
facilities -- which, by the way, are conveniently located in Clark
Field and Subic -- an offer which Arroyo reaffirmed after Wall Street
Journal, it its editorial a week later, castigated her for her attempt
to renege on her offer, due to the well-taken criticism that her offer
was a palpable violation of the Constitution. Section 3, Article II of
the Constitution says that the Philippines "renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally-accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and
adheres to the policy of peace...and amity with all nations." Section
23(1) of Article VI provides, " The Congress, by a vote of two thirds
of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war."
President Arroyo has no legitimate power and authority to commit us to
the side of the United States in the event of the bombing and invasion
of Iraq which appears inevitable due to the formidable presence of
around 150,000 US troops surrounding Iraq and the dilemma that now
confronts President Bush -- he can no longer back out and demobilize
what he had assemble to threaten Saddam into submission, which the
latter refuses to do; Secretary Colin Powell's Feb. 5, 2003
presentation of the incriminating evidence against Saddam before the
Security Council which has just ended, did not seem to impress the
other Council members --China, France and Russia-- who have the veto
power; and the time for the U.S. to begin and make a solo flight as
the world's No. 1 policeman cannot go beyond early March 2003 due to
the harshness of the weather in Iraq with the approach of summer;
North Korea's advancing nuclear weapons program and the urgent need
for the US to begin direct talks with its ruler before he gets more
nuclear weapons beyond the two he may already possess; and finally,
the amazing growth of the peace movement all over the world ,
particularly in the United States.
Like many Filipinos, I pray and hope that a shooting war does not
occur in Iraq in the very near future, since the consequences of
today's war to our people and to the national economy will be
devastating and disastrous, compared to the pittance in terms of
financial and military aid we are supposed to get from the United
States. I am not writing this letter simply to get you in a debate.
Or even to make you feel the heavy burden of responsibility that will
partly fall on you in the event of a real war which will surely cause
tremendous loss of life and limb and unimaginable suffering among
millions of our own people, here and abroad. Now that the President
has decided not to run in the 2004 elections, my hope is that she will
have the wisdom, the humility and the grace to retrace her steps in
time and lead our people to the path of peace. For the hour is close
to midnight.
I believe our greater responsibility, in a crucial time like
this, is to seek and know the truth, for ourselves as well as for
others, because in the language of the Gospel, only the truth will set
us free. The good thing about truth is that no superpower here on
earth can bomb the truth or shoot it down.
