11,303 total reads
Why has Iran been attacking its neighbors in the Gulf?
One explanation is that several Gulf states host American military installations, some of which have been used in operations against Iran. From Iran’s perspective, these installations are not merely defensive facilities. They can also serve as launching pads for attacks against it.
Does that justify Iran’s attacks on neighboring countries? Certainly not. But it helps us understand the strategic logic behind them. In a war between powerful nations, countries that host foreign military forces can themselves become targets.
That is what I mean when I say: CONTEXT MATTERS.
According to a 2024 report of the US Congressional Research Service, the United States maintains or uses at least 128 overseas military bases in 51 countries. They are distributed across Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. Their stated purposes include deterrence, rapid military response, and the defense of allies. But they also serve America’s wider strategic, political, and economic interests.
There is nothing surprising about a superpower protecting its interests. What concerns me is what happens when smaller countries become caught in the rivalry of superpowers.
Consider our own history.
We Filipinos fought a revolution against Spain, only to discover that our hard-won freedom would be taken away by another colonial power—the United States. We paid dearly for our resistance during the Philippine-American War.
Even after independence in 1946, American influence remained deeply embedded in our economy, politics, and national defense. Clark and Subic became two of the most important American military installations outside the United States.
In 1991, the Philippine Senate made a historic assertion of national sovereignty by rejecting a new agreement that would have extended the American military presence. President Cory Aquino had actually favored retaining the bases. Ironically, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo that same year hastened the American withdrawal from Clark.
The former military reservations were eventually converted for civilian development under the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, or BCDA.
And now, more than three decades later, we are being invited to host a major US-led strategic technology initiative called PAX SILICA, precisely in New Clark City, within the former Clark military reservation.
Isn’t that worth reflecting on?
Pax Silica is being presented as an economic opportunity involving artificial intelligence, semiconductors, critical minerals, and advanced manufacturing. It promises investments, jobs, and technological development.
These are legitimate aspirations. We certainly need economic development.
But technology is no longer merely about business. Semiconductors, critical minerals, advanced computing, and AI have become strategic assets in the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China.
This is why we cannot evaluate Pax Silica simply by counting the billions of dollars in promised investments or the thousands of jobs it might create.
We must also ask: What geopolitical commitments are we entering into? Whose strategic interests will this project serve? And what risks might it bring to our national security?
The question becomes even more urgent in the context of the escalating tensions in the West Philippine Sea.
Let me be clear. China’s maritime claims and coercive actions against Filipino fishermen and vessels are unacceptable. We have every right to defend our territorial integrity, our sovereign rights, and our national dignity under international law.
But we must also recognize that China’s strategic calculations are directed not only toward the Philippines but also toward the growing American military presence in the region.
The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, or EDCA, has allowed renewed American access to selected Philippine military facilities. Although upheld as constitutional by our Supreme Court, it still raises legitimate questions about the extent of foreign military involvement in our national defense.
We should remember the lesson of the Gulf states: in a conflict between major powers, the territory of a smaller allied country can become a battlefield.
This does not mean we should abandon our alliances or refuse cooperation with the United States. Neither does it mean accommodating China’s expansionist ambitions.
It means that our alliances must serve our sovereignty, rather than our sovereignty becoming subordinate to our alliances.
We have seen something similar in Europe. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be justified. But neither can we ignore the larger security context, including NATO’s expansion after the Cold War and the mutual distrust that has developed between Russia and the West.
Understanding context is not the same as taking sides. It is an essential part of responsible political judgment.
And so, before we rush into Pax Silica, I believe we Filipinos deserve a serious public discussion—not only about investments and employment, but also about land, water, energy, environmental sustainability, national security, and geopolitical consequences.
The people of Capas, Bamban, Mabalacat, Angeles, and the surrounding communities deserve to know what is being planned in their midst. So do the indigenous communities whose ancestral lands and livelihoods may be affected.
Above all, we deserve to know whether this project will truly strengthen Philippine sovereignty or gradually entangle us more deeply in a rivalry between superpowers.
We do not have to be anti-American to be pro-Filipino. Neither do we have to be pro-China to question American strategic interests. We can be friends with other nations without becoming instruments of their rivalries.
We are not merely a strategic location on somebody else’s geopolitical map. We are a sovereign people, with our own history, our own interests, and our own responsibility for the future of our children.
Let us not forget how dearly our ancestors paid for our freedom. Development must not come at the expense of sovereignty. And national security must not be reduced to choosing which superpower we would rather depend on.
DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU WHY I SAY CONTEXT MATTERS?
