In many host countries, the VFA can become an important political issue as a result of crimes allegedly committed by members of the visitation service. This is especially true when it comes to serious crimes such as theft, murder, manslaughter or sexual crime, especially when the charge is defined differently between the two nations. For example, in 2005, four U.S. Marines were charged in the Philippines with raping a native woman they had been drinking with. As the incident had nothing to do with the military duties of the accused, they were charged under Philippine law before a Philippine court that convicted one of the accused and acquitted the others. It is considered an agreement that complements the Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT), another agreement between the Philippines and the United States, which ensures that both countries provide military assistance if their metropolitan areas or Pacific territories are attacked by a foreign force. My research explains how the VFA itself is the product of past alliance conflicts. In 1991, a more nationalist Philippine Senate voted not to renew a reciprocal basing agreement. Their decision led to the closure of the Subic naval base and effectively forced the withdrawal of all American troops from the Philippines. However, in the mid-1990s, increased security problems in the South China Sea and the slow pace of modernization of Philippine forces led Manila to revive defence relations with Washington with the signing of the VFA in 1998.
Second, the VFA expects the U.S. military to help defend our territories against China. However, over the years, China has slowly etched the sandbanks and waters of the Philippines since the United States left the Philippines in the 1980s. The United States has nothing to do with this case yet. In addition, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in 2013 that the United States would remain neutral in the conflict. This is due to the fact that China has about $17.6 trillion in U.S. bonds. A threat to U.S.-China relations would then threaten the U.S. economy, which is currently the U.S.
priority, not the security of Philippine countries and waters. establishes rules for travel privileges granted to U.S. personnel; importing and exporting U.S. equipment, equipment and supplies, as well as transporting U.S. aircraft, ships and vehicles within the country. The agreement also defines the rights of both governments to the jurisdiction of U.S. forces that commit crimes while arresting in the Philippines. Is Duterte really going to finish the VFA? According to most reports, he remains seriously in his desire to eliminate the agreement. But here`s why the VFA and the AMéricano-Philippine alliance could survive the Duterte firestorm. One possible way to understand the VFA is to compare it to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO members exercise the right to seek protection from other members during international conflicts.
The protection and defence we expect from the U.S. government and belligerents in international disputes is more in line with NATO`s objectives. We are waiting for that protection from the United States, but they cannot guarantee it. The VFA provides security to the Filipino people, although it is defective. For many American observers, the fact that most of the criminals charged are ultimately charged in a local court and convicted that the system works; for some observers in the host country, it reinforces the perception that the VFA protects the culprits and makes the exceptions more egregious.