The Philippines cannot just lease to Taiwan, Japan or South Korea any of those bases designated under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
The request made by the US for the Philippines to accept Afghan refugees constitutes a violation of the country’s sovereignty.
The Philippines, as a sovereign and independent state, has the exclusive right whom to accept its would-be citizens.
No state has the right to tell us whom we are going to accept as our citizens whether as refugees or asylum seekers.
What happened to these people is not of our own making.
If some turned out to become terrorists or religious bigots, it was the US that waged a cruel and nasty war against them only to mold bitterness against countries that unknowingly adopted them.
The acceptance of people classified as refugees is solely for the state to determine.
It is equivalent to self-determination and independence.
To pass on to other states the responsibility of who should be its citizens is to escape the duty of sustaining its own people their basic necessities of life.
In which case, the primary responsibility of the US is to accept those Afghan refugees irrespective of the circumstances why they were stranded or politically disenfranchised in their own county.
The country that sponsored their terroristic ideology in exchange for the alleged promise of liberation and freedom should stand responsible for the consequences for its action.
The US alone should take the responsibility in absorbing those displaced people now seeking employment and better opportunities abroad.
For the US to arbitrarily allocate 50,000 Afghan refugees for each of its allies that supported the war of aggression as its quota to accepting these asylum seekers, many of whom are of dubious background, is constitutionally untenable.
Principally, the Philippines never supported that US imperialist war in Central Asia.
Logically, the US cannot now collect from us as payment for our support more that it resulted in a shameful debacle.
The President and his favorite lapdog should bear in mind that the country never voted to support American intervention in Afghanistan like voting for the approval of a UN resolution to intervene.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo even sought the immediate pullout of our military contingent then headed by General Palparan with most US embassy personnel seeing the decision distasteful.
As said, the acceptance of people classified as refugees is solely for the state to determine.
To pass on to other states that responsibility is to avoid the requirement that goes with the duty of sustaining the life of its own people.
To demand from a country to impose a quota of 50,000 Afghan refugees is to preempt on our right to choose the number Afghans we are obligated to accept with us wondering whether the US is willing to match the number it imposed on us as a lackey.
The whole of Latin America from Mexico to Argentina are watching just how the US have been stringent in holding and detaining questionable immigrants along its border.
Many of them have been languishing for years without the possibility of being allowed entry into the US.
If the US cannot de-clog its swelling number of immigrant applicants, it is with more reason why we should not comply with their dictate of accepting questionable immigrants.
They do not owe an iota of service and gratitude to this country.
Maybe they served as interpreters and/or spies for the US forces during the occupation, but not for the Philippines.
Examining the records just how we messed ourselves into this interventionist policy of the US, it would seem the country rather promised to accept the 50,000 Afghan as refugees.
Such act is unconstitutional, not to say illegal.
The allocation given to countries constitute a gross interference in our internal affairs by a permanent member of the UN security council.
Right now, there are millions of Mexican immigrants awaiting to have their immigration papers processed.
In their desire to pass this stringent sanitation, many cannot hope to pass through this US policy.
Professor Clarita Carlos, the former national security adviser of the President, is also opposed to the idea of accommodating Afghan refugees.
She said that giving entry to the to the Taliban is risky and an added cost to our security problem.
She added it was the US that provoked the war in the name of democracy and recruited many traitors to defend their cause not knowing they will end up losing the war characterized by their abrupt pullout of its troops like what they did in Vietnam in 1973.
Americans knew that many of these Afghans enlisted themselves as interpreters and have little knowledge about freedom and democracy but are mainly seeking employment hoping they will be absorbed as immigrants after the fall out.
This recommendation by Ambassador Romualdez to allocate potential terrorists is similar to his suggestion of lending some areas we allocated to the US as military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.
The fellow does not seem to understand the concept of sovereignty of the State, that foreign military bases, even if they are on lease or for rent, cannot be the subject of further sublease by the state.
Such must comply with the Constitutional requirement.
In which case, the Philippines cannot just lease to Taiwan, Japan or South Korea any of those bases designated under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.