Our relations with China over the issue on Taiwan is rather speculative.
It opens our foreign policy to a fathomless possibility like asking what if China invades Taiwan?
Or what are we going to do?
A wiser speculation is asked — how will the US react to the grim prospects that could result in the possible obliteration of Taiwan?
Would the US sit idly to witness the specter of full-scale war instigated by it? Will it not invite the possibility of arms race in the South China Sea?
We should not speculate that the US alone could determine the future course of events in the region.
The arms race theory is more likely to demolish the US naval fleet that would attempt to block Chinese warships, or that geopolitical analysts believe China would be able to gather supporters in the region and are most likely to counter the arms race the US would be instigating.
The numerous conflicts with which the US has initiated and participated in Asia attest that even in war, many of its allies have doubts about the resolve of the US; whether the pending war with China is for real or an extension of propaganda blitz or to reassure its allies in this region.
Many doubt the capacity of the US to sustain another land war in Asia.
The US has left an inglorious history of retreat in many of the recent conflicts it participated.
Some of its alleged allies in the region suspect that many of the war it initiated in Asia were in fact conceived by those generals in Pentagon or protégées of America’s military-industrial complex.
They suspect the US involvement in Asia since the Korean War were all calculated to determine whether they are winnable in terms of investment; to abruptly announce a pullout will give reason not compensated for the sacrifices and damages incurred by those who fought for their make-believe war for freedom and democracy.
The first time the US did this was in the Korean War in 1953.
Instead of calling for the ending of the war, the US revised the term by calling the situation “armistice” or the temporary cessation of hostilities by the conflicting parties.
US defense strategists called their pull out to mean no surrender but simply to cease fighting.
The concept of armistice gave the WWII hero, then retired General Douglas MacArthur, a graceful exit and to erase the shameful retreat of US soldiers loaded on board the retreating 6×6 troop transport trucks without talks of compensating those who fought on their side including a number of Filipino soldiers who died fighting for their vague freedom including our own hero “Boni” Serrano.
In 1973, this infamy of defeat was again repeated when the US abruptly pulled out its troops in South Vietnam despite the more than 50,000 US troops killed in action and the more 5 million Vietnamese civilians killed defending their motherland.
President Lyndon Johnson never confessed the truth that the Vietnam war began a false flag when it claimed US destroyer USS Maddox was treacherously attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats in the Gulf of Tonkin.
The intensity of the fighting caused much to drain the US economy, thus forcing President Richard Nixon to drop the gold as a medium of currency as agreed on in the 1946 Bretton-Woods Agreement.
From then on, the US was allowed to print its currency solely on the basis of its gross domestic product which today is the basis of its current huge trade deficit.
Initially, it lightened the US trade deficit because the US dollar was overvalued against other currencies plus the US trade surplus then.
The US also made a sneak attack to rescue its held hostage in Tehran by the new regime.
Unfortunately, the rescue hit a snag after its helicopter was shot down.
Yes, the US also participated in numerous wars: in Iraq; in Afghanistan, Serbia, and Libya and made an spectacular pullout in Afghanistan, leaving behind a number of equipment including helicopters, armored vehicles and aircraft – not to mention their surreptitious involvement in Syria, Sudan and Yemen for fear it would only add to their number of infamous defeat.
US involvement was precipitated by the fall of the Soviet Union.
US policy makers began to entertain the notion to subdivide Russia by enticing the former Soviet states to join NATO. This is now the root cause of the current Russia-Ukraine War.
American strategy to hasten the increase in its land area by annexing either Russia and China is typical of the US expansion in North America.
Today, they want to extend NATO by imposing a two percent contribution of their GDP with the novel idea of extending the alliance to Asia.
That way, the US military industrial complex will have less difficulty in selling arms to its expanded allies like the sale of US-made aircraft, warships, patrol boats, submarines, sophisticated radars, communication equipment, and the added cost of constructing additional bases and the regular supply of updated arms.
The US sees many items which could help boost its economy when its military-industrial complex (MIC) allowed the manufacture under license of nuclear-powered submarines and the production of stealth F-35 stealth jet aircraft to various countries.
This system of licensing has greatly contributed to the widespread sale of arms and rejuvenated the US economy.
Admittedly US policy makers made us to believe that the US desire to secure additional arms under the expanded Enhanced Cooperative Agreement (EDCA) was meant to assure their defense in the event of an attack from China.
They do not explain that having military bases is in the Philippines is in violation of our Constitution more so if such agreement is not ratified by the Senate in a treaty and by a mere executive agreement.
The demand for additional military bases was to pressure the Marcos government to justify the demand to our security because of our dispute over some of the islands in the South China Sea without mentioning that there are other countries in the region equally eager to take slice of the area.
Our proximity to Taiwan provided added reason for the US for additional bases considering that Taiwan remains principal objective why China wants to have that island reunited with their mainland.
The US thought that having more military bases in the country would provide Taiwan the security blanket imagining that bases in the Philippines would help placate the awaited invasion.
Realistically, there is no valid and legal reason why the US should come to the defense of Taiwan.
Some even speculate the request by the US Department of Defense made through their favorite Amboy Philippine Ambassador to the US “Babes” Romualdez to increase the number of US bases in the country was more of a ploy the US will come to our security to give our policy makers the assurance, unaware that is was only intended to raise the ante in the event that day of reckoning comes.
We never learned our lesson that in politics the US has equally mastered the art of weaponizing to get what they want.
In 2016, then State Secretary Hillary Clinton was quoted saying the US will not defend the archipelago in the event China opted to invade the Philippines.
Her statement earned headline in the US weekly Time magazine.
Thus, then President Duterte threatened to declare the US ambassador persona non-grata and wanted the US to pull out their bases.
The younger Marcos has opted to gamble the destiny of the country by forsaking the country’s economy buoyed by the economic assistance from China.
The country likes to remain in the backwater economically.
Everywhere China goes, there is progress and development, and a general upliftment in the livelihood of our people thanks to the development assistance which undoubtedly runs to billions of dollars.
As one commentator would put it, if the younger Marcos wants to put at risk his family’s somewhat dynastic governance, he is not that naive how his family were once kicked out by the Americans.
The US refuses to think twice that getting rid of them happened all because of the value of the RMB that now seems to influence the word’s currency.