Download pdf
Cautious or Fearless: A Comparative Analysis of the Policies of the Nixon and Trump Administrations Regarding the Inclusion of the South China Sea Region in the Scope of the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America
- 1 Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Since the Philippines began to have disputes regarding the South China Sea’s territorial sovereignty with China in the end of 1960s, it has engaged in a long-term game with its greater ally of whether the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America applies to the region. The Nixon administration was regarded as the basic positioning period of the US policy on the US-Philippines alliance during the Cold War, holding a vague attitude. However, during the Trump era, Washington clearly offered the Philippines security guarantees for this region, indicating a significant policy-making shift. This article selects the Nixon and Trump administrations as cases, utilizing the theoretical framework of the “entrapment” dilemma in alliance management theory which aims to investigate into the reasons why the two administrations held extremely different attitudes towards whether to include the South China Sea region in the scope of the MDT and analyze the cost-benefit considerations of Washington in managing the Asia-Pacific military alliance. The conclusion is that in the Nixon era, the US tended to avoid being “entrapped” because it was not worth the deterioration in relations with China and other informal allied countries only to maintain its alliance with the Philippines. However, during the Trump administration, to enhance its military presence in this region, maintain and strengthen a series of Asia-pacific military alliances, the US is willing to bear the risk of “entrapment”.
Keywords
United States’ foreign policy, South China Sea disputes, US-Philippines military alliance
[1]. Romulo, C. P. (1951). Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America. Official Gazette, 30.
[2]. Zhang, L. (2012). The Possibility Of the United States to Intervene by Military Means in the Island Disputes Between China and Japan and Between China and the Philippines: A Comparison From the Perspective Of the Military Alliance Treaties. Fudan American Review, (01), 47-68,184,189.
[3]. Guo, Y. (2013). Historical Investigation on the U.S. Policy to Sino-Philippine Nansha Islands Disputes——Interpretation based on the U.S. Recent Declassified Diplomatic Files. Contemporary China History Studies, (02), 104-111,128.
[4]. Ju, H. (2013). The U.S. Factor in Philippine South China Sea Policy. International Studies, (03), 58-69.
[5]. He, W. (2013). Reanalysis of the Scope of Application of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Philippines and the United States of America. The Chinese Journal of American Studies, (03), 6-7, 70-90.
[6]. Kim, T. (2016). US Alliance Obligations in the Disputes in the East and South China Seas. US Alliance Obligations in the Disputes in the East and South China Seas: Issues of Applicability and Interpretations.
[7]. De Castro, R. C. (2022). Exploring the factors behind the persistence of the Philippine-US alliance: a focus on the changing gist of the 1951 Philippine-US Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT). Australian Journal of International Affairs, 76(6), 694-711.
[8]. Winger, G. H. (2022). Reassurance and Rival: the I.S.-Philippine Alliance in the Wake of the Vietnam War. The International History Review, 44, No.2, 393-417.
[9]. Hoffmann, S. (1981). The Western Alliance: Drift or Harmony?. International Security, 6(2), 105-125.
[10]. Su, R. and Tang, S. (2012) Mutual Binding: Central Mechanism of Alliance Management. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, 3, 6-12.
[11]. Palmer, G. (1990). Corralling the free rider: deterrence and the western alliance. International studies quarterly, 34(2), 147-164.
[12]. Papayoanou, P. A. (1997). Intra-alliance bargaining and US Bosnia policy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 91-116.
[13]. Wang, F. (2006). Perplexity of Alliance Management and Coordination. Chinese Journal of European Studies, (04), 111-125, 159-160.
[14]. Snyder, G. H. (1984). The security dilemma in alliance politics. World politics, 36(4), 461-495.
[15]. Mandelbaum, M. (1981). The nuclear revolution: international politics before and after Hiroshima. Cambridge University Press.
[16]. Snyder, G. H. (2007). Alliance politics. Cornell University Press.
[17]. Lawler, D. J. (2006). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976, Volume XX, Southeast Asia, 1969-1972. Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v20.
[18]. Mattis, J. (2018). Summary of the 2018 national defense strategy of the United States of America. Department of Defense Washington United States.
[19]. Office of the Secretary of Defense. (2018). Nuclear posture review. RefID: 2001872886.
[20]. Department of Defense Washington United States. (2019). The Department of Defense Indo-Pacific Strategy Report: Preparedness, Partnerships, and Promoting a Networked Region (p. 0064).
[21]. Treaty of Peace with Japan (with two declarations). (1952). the United States of America, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20136/volume-136-I-1832-English.pdf.
[22]. Nevitt, M. (2019). The US-Philippines Defense Treaty and the Pompeo Doctrine on South China Sea. Just Security, 11.
[23]. Pompeo, M. R. (2020). US position on maritime claims in the South China Sea. US Department of State, 13, 2017-2021.
Cite this article
Chen,S. (2023). Cautious or Fearless: A Comparative Analysis of the Policies of the Nixon and Trump Administrations Regarding the Inclusion of the South China Sea Region in the Scope of the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,23,47-55.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Politics and Socio-Humanities
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).