By Priscilla A. Tacujan
U.S.S. John S. McCain moored in Subic Bay, Philippines during CARAT 2014. Source: U.S. Pacific Fleet’s flickr photostream, U.S. Government Work.
Philippine prosecutors charged Marine Pfc. Joseph Scott Pemberton on December 15 with murder in the killing of a Filipino transgender, Jennifer Laude. Pemberton was stationed in the Philippines for a joint Philippine-U.S. military exercise when this incident occurred, and he is currently detained in a military camp in Manila. A crime has allegedly been committed, and the cry for justice demands swift and decisive action. And, indeed, the quick and vigorous prosecution of this case suggests that the wheel of justice is turning.
The Philippine left has been too quick to exploit this issue as another oppressive act committed by “former colonizer and imperialist United States.” Left-wing Filipino academics and militant organizations are calling for the scrapping of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which are intended to improve and strengthen U.S.-Philippine military relations, as a protest against the killing. Nikole Cababa, regional coordinator of a leftist organization, Bayan USA, contends that the U.S. military presence in the Philippines “only increases the violence we see amongst women, children, and families across the Philippines,” even as “it opens the door to more militarization.”
Likewise, left-wing lawmakers argue that the killing of Laude puts into question the issue of trust between the Philippines and the United States As former senator Joker Arroyo puts it, “Since the United States does not have faith in the Philippines’ justice system, how can Filipinos be expected to have faith in America’s security commitments?”
This thinking errs in two ways: First, it assumes that the United States coddles and protects criminals and provides special treatment to armed services members. Second, it pits ideological posturing against national security interests, equates individual justice with collective justice, and judges individual human rights violations against the common good.
The first assumption is wrong because the United States has a robust justice system that is firmly grounded in the rule of law. Under this system, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He or she has the right to defend oneself in a court of law, and if proven guilty, is subject to a punishment commensurate with his or her crime. Since service members work for an organization that is entrusted with defending U.S. national security interests here and abroad, their right to due process is subject to even stricter standards because they have to defend themselves against the legal scrutiny of both military and civilian courts.
The Philippine left’s second line of reasoning is erroneous because it elevates individual acts of human rights violation to the level of presumed collective sins of a nation, a tactic Filipino ideologues and leftist activists often employ against the United States. President Benigno Aquino, when expressing his opposition to calls for the abrogation of the military agreements, asked, “Why should the VFA be abrogated? I mean, name me any place that doesn’t have crime. And the sin of one person should be reflective of the entire country? I don’t think so.” He adds, “What’s important here is that a crime was perpetrated (so) gather all the evidence to prove that the suspect is indeed guilty and obtain justice.”
Filipino leftists view social justice as a nationalist issue, framing human rights violations committed by a foreigner within a Filipino context. They argue that their cry for justice cannot be wrong because they are aimed at promoting the welfare of the Filipinos. But, as in any justice system, criminal cases are judged individually, based on evidence and merit.
As the Philippine left’s anti-U.S. sentiment fuels its campaign against U.S.-Philippine security partnerships, its call for the scrapping of security agreements is imprudent and dangerous, to the detriment of Philippine national security interests. Steeped in their deep-seated prejudices against Americans, they have shut the door to any reasonable discourse about the purpose of this military partnership.
In the face of security challenges the Philippines is confronting, which includes China’s territorial encroachments and military assertiveness in the South China Sea, a strong U.S. military presence represents a deterrent force in the region. As China flexes its military muscle, the Philippines cannot defend itself against a neighbor as powerful as China, particularly at a time when its growing ambitions and increasing need for energy resources have emboldened the country to engage in increased military activities in the South China Sea.
And with the recent natural calamities devastating the central region of the Philippines, the U.S. government’s efforts to extend assistance have been facilitated through its VFA and EDCA security arrangements with the Philippines. These are compelling reasons why the Philippines should maintain its security agreements with the United States.
In the case of the murder of a Filipino entertainer allegedly at the hands of a U.S. soldier, the wheel of justice churns, but not according to the Philippine left’s definition of social justice. For all of their posturing, Filipino leftist groups undermine rather than promote their country’s national security interests.
Dr. Priscilla Tacujan is an independent consultant and holds a PhD in Political Science from Claremont Graduate University. She spent almost a year in Afghanistan working as a social scientist.
