Russia's Pivot to New Asia

Ambassador Jaime S. Bautista, Doctor of laws

Jaime@jaimesbautista.com

“Russia’s Pivot to New Asia’

With its own so-called “pivot from the West to the New Asia”, Russia is both an economic power, with its huge energy and mineral resources, and a military power second only to the United States, which can serve as a counterweight to China and the United States.  Over the long term, the Philippines can establish interlocking economic interests with Russia and other countries as additional/alternative  security guarantees.

During the Cold War, President Ferdinand Marcos made a strategic decision to open diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union to resist pressure from the United States.  The opening to socialist countries took place in stages.  The first step was to open an embassy in Bucharest as Romania was a communist country seeking an independent path in its foreign policy.  The second was to recognize Chairman Mao Tze-tung’s government as the de jure government of China before establishing diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union a year later.  This opening to the Soviet Union paid a small dividend for President Marcos.  After the result of the 1985 presidential election was proclaimed, the Soviet Ambassador called on President Marcos while the Ambassadors of the European Union member countries called on President Corazon Aquino.  The Philippines’ people power, the mother of peaceful revolutions, intervened and was decisive in pulling down President Marcos from his seat of power.

Russia’s shift of interest from the West to the East has taken time.    After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia needed support from the United States and Europe because of its decision to replace its communist structure with a capitalist system.  However, the response from the United States was disappointing.  The European Union signed a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia to regulate their political and economic relations.

NATO likewise developed cooperative relations with Russia.  In 1993, Russia proclaimed a new military doctrine, implicitly acknowledging it was not a superpower.  With its status as a regional power, Russia signed the Partnership for Peace Program with NATO in 1994, and the agreement creating the Russia-NATO Council in 2002.  This Council handles security issues and joint projects in several sectors: fighting terrorism, military cooperation, cooperation on Afghanistan, industrial cooperation, and non-proliferation.

A development further linking Russia with the West was the informal arrangement   referred to as the Political 8 or G7+1 when the Group of 7, a forum of the wealthiest industrialized democracies, invited Russia in 1994 to hold separate meetings with their leaders, after the Group’s Summit Meetings.  Russia formally joined the Group in 1997, upon the invitation of the USA and the UK, resulting in the formation of the G 8.   

Russia’s concern during this earlier period was NATO.  Russia’s energy was spent in preventing the former satellite states in Eastern Europe from joining NATO and the EU.  Russia was also busy keeping intact the Commonwealth of Independent States, the loose federation of states which replaced the Soviet Union. 

The shift to the East has taken place in view of Russia’s need to develop the economy of its Asian regions and stop the diminution of its population in this region due to emigration for lack of employment opportunities and the falling birth rate. 

While being primarily focused in Europe, Russia had also taken steps to protect its territory east of the Urals and secure its interests in Central Asia.  This region is strategically important for Russia because it borders China, Iran, Afghanistan, and is close to Pakistan.  Towards this objective, the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) were established.  The EAEC seeks to build a single economic space among its members.   Its original members were the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan plus Kyrgystan and Tajikistan.  Uzbekistan joined later.

The CSTO was created in 2002 to deepen military-political cooperation among its members and provide national security on a collective basis.  It was formed by Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.  Uzbekistan joined later but suspended its membership in 2012.  The CSTO serves to keep the United States and other military Powers out of the CSTO region. Under Article 7 of the CSTO Charter, member states shall consult each other and adopt a decision on the stationing of groupings of forces in their territories and of military facilities of States which are not members of the Organization.  

Russia and the other CSTO’s members with borders with China (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan) signed the “Treaty On Deepening Military Trust In The Border Areas”, forming the Shanghai Five.  Russia’s Far Eastern region is thinly populated and has borders 4,300 kilometers long with China. The Group was renamed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) after Uzbekistan was admitted in 2001.  The SCO Charter, signed in 2002, sought to build on the “Shanghai Spirit” of mutual trust, equality, consultation, respect for different civilizations, and common prosperity.  The SCO seeks to combat the three evils of Terrorism, Extremism and Separatism, fight illegal narcotics, arms trafficking and other criminal activities of a transnational character, and contend with illegal migration. 

The Shanghai Spirit facilitated the signing of the treaty settling the demarcation of Russia’s long borders with China, paving the way for close relations between Russia and China.  This was manifested with the creation of BRIC composed of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, later renamed BRICS with the addition of South Africa. Significantly, President Xi Jinping’s first foreign trip after assuming his post was to Moscow.  He said that the close relations were based firstly, in a common belief in a multipolar world and secondly, in sharing a common interpretation of international law.  The first basis can be read as sharing the objective of reducing the influence of the superpower.  The second emphasizes the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference.

President Vladimir Putin said that Russia’s new relations with China, (and its shift to the New Asia) is based on three factors:  there is no longer any territorial issues with China; Russia is not threatened by China’s economic success, and on the contrary, Russia’s economic sail would benefit from the wind of China’s economy; and lastly, China has not given any signs of wishing to dominate.

Indeed, Russia sees itself as a Great Power with a proud history.   Although lagging behind in economic development, Russia is a greater military power than China and is a center of influence, with veto power in the UN Security Council.  It has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, the second largest fleet of ballistic missile weapons and the only country, apart from the USA, with modern strategic bomber force. Its surface navy and air force are among the largest in the world.  Russia’s   official military spending was reported as the third largest in the world.

An important element in strengthening Russia’s international position, according to Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov, is to increase Russia’s presence in the Asia Pacific region.  He said that Russia has “strategic relations” with China, India and Vietnam, and “multidimensional ties with Japan, South Korea, the ASEAN countries, and other countries in the Asia Pacific region.  Russia is a Dialogue Partner of ASEAN and a member of the East Asia Summit (ASEAN plus 8).

Given that Russia has strategic relations with both China and Vietnam, it is interesting that Russia has not recognized China’s exaggerated claim over the South China Sea represented by the nine-dash line.  Vietnam has conflicting claim to the Paracel and the Spratly Islands.  On the other hand, it is noteworthy that China has not recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which seceded from Georgia after the recent Russia- Georgia conflict.

 Russia’s presence in Asia and the Pacific is likewise manifested by its membership in ASEM and APEC.   ASEM is an informal process of dialogue and cooperation between the two regions of Asia and Europe, addressing political, economic and cultural issues.  It now brings together 51 partners: 10 ASEAN member states, ten Asian countries and the ASEAN Secretariat, on the one hand, and 27 European Union member states, 2 European countries, and the European Commission, on the other.  As a uniquely Eurasian country, Russia had the option to join ASEM either as a European or an Asian country.  Russia joined ASEM in 2010 as an Asian country, symbolic of a shift to the New Asia.

 

It is through APEC that Russia recently projected its presence in Asia Pacific, playing host at last year’s APEC Summit at Vladivostok.  The topics that the Summit focused on were: (1) Trade and Investment Liberalization; (2) Regional Economic Integration; (3) Strengthening Food Security; and (4) Intensive Cooperation to Foster Innovative Growth. 

In his address to the Federal Duma last December, President Putin spoke of food security, noting that Russia has 55 percent of the world’s arable land.  He said that Russia should strive to be self sufficient in all major types of food production and that Russia should become the world’s largest food producer.  In the same address, he also stressed that a priority for Russia would be improving the nation’s healthcare.

The areas of cooperation between the Philippines and Russia have been in tourism, gas and oil, shipping, aviation, agricultural products, cultural and sports cooperation, among others.  The Philippines has entered into a labor agreement with Russia which needs more health-workers. There are now more chartered flights arriving in the Philippines from Russia.  Gazprom, the Russian oil and gas giant, has expressed interest in exploiting gas reserves in the Philippines to manufacture liquefied natural gas.  There is interest on the part of Russia to buy coffee.  Over the long term, although the volume of trade with Russia is low at a little over US$1 billion, the prospects for increasing and multiplying the volume of trade and the areas for bilateral cooperation are promising, given that there are cordial relations between the Philippines and Russia without any friction.     

Reviewing the Visiting Forces Agreement

Ambassador Jaime S. Bautista, Doctor of laws, and

Secretary General of the Philippine Ambassadors Foundation

Jaime@jaimesbautista.com

Reviewing the Visiting Forces Agreement

The Philippines should conduct the negotiations with respect to the revision of the Visiting Forces Agreement, mindful of the shifts in the global balance of power, the full range of threats to our security, and all the options to extend our security, including our economic interests.

Since the signing of the VFA in 1999, there have been strategic developments both in Asia and elsewhere, and shifts in the axis of power.  The so-called “US pivot to Asia” is a reaction to these changes taking place.  

Historically, the US pivot to Asia may be said to have begun in the nineteenth century when the United States invaded the Philippine Islands during the Spanish American War of 1898.  This conflict recorded the first misunderstanding between the Americans and Filipinos, which led to the Philippine American War.  Commodore George Dewey denied that he had struck a deal with President Emilio Aguinaldo for Philippine support for the American invasion of the Walled City of Manila.  At that time, international law was defined as the body of rules binding upon “civilized states” in their relations with one another.  The Philippines did not qualify as a subject of international law, with rights and duties under this law.  This is the background for the famous anecdote of President William McKinley praying to God, and deciding thereafter to annex the Philippines.

Clearly, the renegotiation of the VFA provides the occasion to establish a clear understanding of the scope and conditions for the visits of US naval vessels, planes   and troops to the Philippines on a proposed “rotational basis.”   

This occasion also provides the opportunity for the Philippines to re-visit the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) with the United States, on which the VFA is based, and to address the issues on which there has been dissatisfaction on the part of critics of this treaty.  These include the issue that the MDT does not provide for automatic operation of the treaty in case of an attack on the Philippines as in the case of the NATO treaty, that the defense treaty is not clear on whether it provides protection for the islands and rocks outside the Philippines’ archipelagic baselines but within its Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), and that the said treaty has not been of sufficient help with respect to the modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

At the outset, it should be pointed out that the VFA signed in 1999 covered only visits approved by the Philippine Government.  Nevertheless, as the USA is the world’s superpower, the Philippines should be mindful of a number of scenarios that could take place, given the tensions in areas near the Philippines.   What will happen, for example, should the United States launch a military strike against Iran in the Gulf or against North Korea in the Korean peninsula and the Philippines should opt to stay out of the conflict?  Under international law, the Philippines would have obligations as a neutral state not to allow its territory to be used as a staging point.

The Philippines has a special concern with what happens in the Middle East, the Gulf, and the Korean peninsula.  It has a big diaspora in countries in all of these potential conflict areas, and this gives the Philippines a global reach.

A scenario closer to home is conflict taking place in the Taiwan Straights although this scenario is not likely, given the improved relations between China and Taiwan.   In the past, the presence of the US Seventh Fleet impeded the invasion of Taiwan from the Chinese mainland.  If war should break out in the Taiwan Straits, and the United States intervenes, US armed forces present in the Philippines would be exposed to attack.

Critics of the VFA point to this scenario and argue that the Philippines should revoke the VFA because they think of the Philippines as a small country, which will be crushed in a fight between two elephants.  Moreover, it is also argued that the USA is a declining power and that in time, China will become the dominant superpower.

This rising economic superpower is the immediate threat to the Philippines’ security with it’s armed occupation of Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) and Mischief Reef and its continuing threat to seize other submerged features and protruding rocks within the Philippines’ Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone.  It is through this prism that Filipinos today view the Philippines’ strategic relations with China.

Some political analysts argue that the crisis over Masinloc has come about as a result of China’s apprehension to the so-called US pivot to the Asia Pacific region and its reaction to the increased military presence of the United States in the Philippines under the Visiting Forces Agreement.  It is China engaging in shadow boxing with the United States. The Philippines evidently is no match militarily and has the weakest armed forces in the region, although they have experience in combat and as peacekeeping forces.  

However, the Philippines cannot be thought of as a small island in the Pacific.  The Philippines is one of the three great archipelagoes located close to the Asian Continent.  At the northern end is Japan, at the southern end Indonesia and strategically located at the center is the Philippines.  Like Indonesia and Japan, the Philippines is a large maritime country with the twelfth largest population in the world.  It is the second largest in ASEAN in terms of human resources and its economy is one of the few bright spots in the world today.

Not only is the Philippines strategically important because of its geographical location at the center of the maritime region where half of the world’s cargo passes but the Philippines plays a strategic role in international commerce.  It is the backbone of the shipping industry, being the biggest seafaring country in the world.

These are the strengths that the Philippines brings to the negotiating table.   The main concern of the Philippines is the protection of its sovereign rights over its continental shelf and exclusive economic zone.  The Philippines has adopted a three-pronged strategy to achieve this end by bringing a case before the Arbitral Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, a dialogue with China bilaterally and in the ASEAN forums, and  

inviting the attention of the United States to the tensions in the West Philippine Sea under its defense arrangements.

The on-going talks on a new Access Agreement on a “rotational basis” is recognition by the United States of having neglected its interests in the Asia Pacific and leaving the countries in Southeast Asia exposed to the growing economic and military power of China.  The Philippines was constrained to have its own pivot to China under President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The so-called pivot of the United States to   Asia Pacific is to prevent the region from falling within China’s sphere of influence. 

The Philippines has shifted its emphasis on relations with China and the United States from economic to security interests because of China’s aggression.  As long as China is engaged along this road, the Philippines will want to have strengthened defense arrangements with the United States.

The Philippines has benefited from the VFA.  It has received assistance in setting up its Coast Watch System (basically a national radar system for its maritime domain awareness) related to protecting its marine resources.  It has also received assistance in disaster management as the Philippines is prone to typhoons and other calamities, and beefing up its national security and counter-terrorism capabilities, important for Mindanao.    

However, the Philippines has received only equivocal commitments from the United States with respect to the defense of the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its continental shelf and exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Seas unlike the commitment given to Japan over Japan’s administration of the disputed Senkaku/Diayao Island.  Secretary of State Hilary Clinton explicitly guaranteed US support for all Japanese territory, including the Senkaku/Diayao Islands, under its Mutual Defense Treaty with Japan.

It should be noted that the Philippines’ mainland is not perceived to be under threat of external attack.  Only its maritime territory is subject to Chinese aggression.  Unless the Philippines receives a firm commitment like that provided to Japan, the Philippines should assess the value that the VFA has for the Philippines vis a vis the dangers arising and the economic losses to be sustained.

In any event, the Philippines should look down the road in the next years for a cost-benefit analysis of whether security guarantees/ support will continue to be more important than sustained Chinese investment over the next 20-30 years.  As an alternative to security guarantees, the Philippines should develop a strategy of building a web of interlocking economic interests as a shield against external attack. Supporting this strategy would be greater reliance on international law, which should be a guiding principle of Philippine foreign policy.

Any Foreign Intervention in Syria’s Civil War Must Accord with International Law

Ambassador Jaime S. Bautista, Doctor of Laws, and

Secretary General of the Philippine Ambassadors Foundation

jaime@jaimesbautista.com

Any Foreign Intervention in Syria’s Civil War Must Accord with International Law

The question of whether to support the United States’ threat to launch a limited military strike against Syria dominated the recent meeting of the Group of Twenty at St. Petersburg.  This raises vital issues, such as whether the United States can ignore the UN Security Council and take this course of action without violating the United Nations Charter, what would be the effect if the United States fails to obtain the approval of the UN Security Council because of the use of the veto power, and what changes in the balance of power have taken place to affect decisions taken by the UN Security Council.

Under international law, the use of force is allowed only in case of self-defense or when the United Nations Security Council has approved the use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.   As the United States is not under attack by Syria and cannot claim self-defense, the United States is required to obtain the approval of the UN Security Council before it may launch a military strike against Syria. 

The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect also provides for collective action by the international community through the UN Security Council and in accordance with the UN Charter, if military intervention is required to protect a population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,

The United States has sought to obtain the high moral ground by arguing that it has evidence Syria has used chemical weapons against its own people and that this should not be allowed to go unpunished because it would be a signal that other rogue states could do the same with impunity.  The United States argues that the issue cannot be brought before the UN Security Council because Russia (and China) will use the veto.  If so, this would show that it is timely to amend the UN Charter and abolish the veto power.  President Putin pointed out that it was upon the insistence of the United States that the veto power was given to the five Permanent Members.  

The NATO bombing campaign in the conflict regarding Kosovo was made without the sanction of the UN Security Council but the United Kingdom justified it on the basis of humanitarian necessity.

UN Secretary General Ban Kim-moon, however, has pleaded that the United States must wait for the report of the UN Chemical Inspection Team before acting on its threat and that any decision to attack should be taken within the framework of the UN Charter, as a matter of principle.

The G 20 failed to reach agreement on whether to support the United States on military action against Syria, with Russia standing firm on its opposition.  The media reports are that the United States received support for a military strike in Syria without UN Security Council approval from only four countries:  France, Canada, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  France, however, stated that this action must await the UN chemical report.  Earlier, the United Kingdom Parliament opposed military action. 

The refusal of the British Parliament to support military action against Syria is a severe blow to the prestige of the United States and British governments.  This confirms that they suffer from a credibility problem, arising from the time it was confirmed that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.  As in the present case, the UN Secretary General had pleaded that the UN inspection team be given time to complete its work in searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  The United Security Council voted against the draft Resolution to grant authority for military action against Saddam Hussein but the United States with its Coalition of the Willing proceeded to invade Iraq on a controversial interpretation of a previous UN Resolution.

The world has changed since the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia.  This took place at a time when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had disappeared, leaving the USA as the sole superpower.  Since then, the United States has become a weakened power, due partly to the cost of the Iraq war.  While the United States will remain unchallenged for quite some time in terms of military power, China has risen as the second economic power in the world, surpassing Japan.  India and Russia have also emerged as stronger economies.  India is ranked as the world’s third leading economy in terms of GDP PPP (purchasing power parity) and Russia, which has profited from its wealth of oil and gas, as the sixth.  Economic power translates into political power.

The G 20 has replaced the Group of 7/Group of 8 as the main economic Council of the world’s wealthiest countries.  This was announced at the G20’s Pittsburg Summit in 2009.   The BRICS are all members of the G 20 and are now challenging the West’s stranglehold over the International Monetary Fund and will put up a development bank to rival the IMF.   China plans the Yuan to be used as an alternative currency to the dollar.  Nevertheless, though the BRICS are beginning to flex their economic muscle, they still lag far behind the developed economies in terms of per capita income.   They also depend on investments from the United States and other Western countries to finance their economies for faster economic growth.  Nevertheless, the United States no longer has the economic power it wielded in the 20^th century.

Russia has been unwilling to support any Resolution granting authority for military action, arguing that Russia went along with the UNSC Resolution for a no-fly zone in Libya to protect the civilian population but this was used to take sides and effect a regime change.  The US explanation that regime change is not one of the objectives of the limited military action does not appear to convince.  

None of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) at the G 20 Meeting supported military action in Syria.  President Putin quoted remarks of South African President Jacob Zuma to explain the sentiment opposing military action without UN approval:  “Small countries in today’s world in general are feeling increasingly vulnerable and unprotected.  There is the impression that any superpower at any moment at its discretion may use force.”

The opposition to military action includes the Vatican State.  Pope Francis has urged the abandonment of this “futile pursuit” of a military solution, with the Vatican laying out the case for a negotiated settlement that guarantees the rights to all Syrians, including minority Christians.  The Vatican has lamented that one-sided interests had prevailed in Syria, preventing a diplomatic end to the conflict and allowing the continued “senseless massacre” of innocents, according to a report of the Christian Science Monitor. 

The Christian Science Monitor had reported that Arab Christians have come out strongly against US military action in Syria.  Ignatius Joseph III Younan, Patriarch of Antioch for the Syrian Catholic Church, issued a statement at a conference of more than 50 Christian regional leaders sponsored by Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad in Jordan: “We stress that we reject foreign intervention in Syria.”  The Arab Christians fear that an attack would create a backlash against their communities, pointing to the devastation of Iraq’s Christian community following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.  Pope Anba Tawadros II, the head of the Coptic Church in Egypt with a congregation of 9 million, likewise issued a statement that  “We don’t accept any foreign intervention to protect minorities… It is basically a pretext to advance their countries’ interests in the Middle East.”       

The Pope’s call and the plight of the Christian minorities in Syria and other parts of the Middle East will find empathy in the Philippines, if we recall that the NATO bombing of Libya resulted in a high number of collateral damage, which included the death of Filipino nurses.  Our conscience calls for measures to stop the bloodshed and ease the suffering of the Syrian people.  Filipinos also cannot ignore that we have a big Filipino diaspora in the Middle East.  Their safety and interests are foremost in our minds. We are also aware that an unstable Middle East increases the price of oil, which increases the cost of living.

The Philippines as an ally of the United States is sensitive to the views of the United States.  At the same time, our foreign policy should be guided by the rule of law.  Like many other countries, we rely on the rule of law to protect our security and territorial integrity. 

A military strike against Syria must pass through the UN Security Council.  Certainly, no nation should use force unilaterally and assume that it is morally superior to other nations.  Neither can it be assumed that any member of the UN Security Council can defy the collective conscience of the Council and world opinion if there is overwhelming evidence.  The UN Charter was agreed upon by the Great Powers and accepted by the world community.  All countries must respect the UN Charter based on the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda. This is the fundamental basis of international law.