The 2002 Balikatan Terms of Reference may have given rise to the initial combat involvement of US forces in Mindanao, according to the umbrella group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.

Various news sources have pointed out that reports of US involvement in actual combat in Mindanao existed as early as 2002, with the reported shooting of Buyong-buyong Isnijal in Basilan by a certain Sgt. Reggie Lane. Lane was reportedly part of a patrol that entered the house of Isnijal, according to reports of the International Solidarity Mission which was then headed by Bayan Muna representative Satur Ocampo and accompanied by human rights group Karapatan. According to the ISM, Isnijal and his family distinctly heard the US soldiers to tell them, in English, to “stay down” as the US soldiers entered their house.

Bayan secretary general Renato M. Reyes, Jr. said that the Balikatan 02-1 gave too much leeway for the American forces to be in actual combat situations. He cited the provision on POLICY LEVEL, Section 7 which states: “Only 160 US troops organized in 12-man Special Forces Teams shall be deployed with AFP field commanders. The US Teams shall remain at the Battalion Headquarters and, when approved, Company Tactical Headquarters where they can observe and assess the performance of the AFP forces.”

He also said that the so-called exercises had a definite military objective, an actual hostile entity known as the Abu Sayyaf. Section 6 of the TOR states: “The Exercise is a mutual counter-terrorism advising, assisting and training Exercise relative to Philippine efforts against the ASG (Abu Sayyaf Group), and will be conducted in the island of Basilan.”

Section 8 of the TOR also states that “US Exercise participants shall not engage in combat operations, without prejudice to their right of self-defense.”

“These three provisions make it inevitable for US forces to be engaged in actual combat. First they are embedded or deployed up to the Company level of AFP troops in Basilan. And since they are in a combat zone, they are allowed to use their weapons for so-called self-defense. The provision that prohibits US troops from engaging in combat except in self-defense is a sneaky way of actually allowing them to participate in combat” Reyes said.

“The term self-defense is very broad. When you are in a combat zone, what constitutes self-defense? Will US forces wait to be fired upon before returning fire? Or are they allowed to fire first so long as they do it in ‘self-defense’? So long as US troops are embedded in AFP units that are in actual combat situations, the line between offense and defense are easily blurred,” he added.

Bayan said that what Senator Rodolfo Biazon may be referring to as controversial “rules of engagement” may actually be the Balikatan 02-1 Terms of Reference. “Through crafty language, the TOR laid the basis for the combat involvement of US troops as early as 2002,” Reyes said.

Stop blaming Gadian

Bayan also scored Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro for continuously maligning Gadian. “What is lost on Sec. Teodoro is the fact that Gadian has done this country a great service by exposing the ills in the Balikatan. She should not be condemned. She should be protected and allowed to air her views. Teodoro should stop acting like a spoiled bully and instead answer the issues of the permanent presence and combat involvement of the US troops,” Reyes said.

“Sec. Teodoro is more concerned about what the world will say rather than the violations of our sovereignty and constitution. How can this person be the next commander –in-chief and chief architect of our foreign policy. He seems to give little value to sovereignty,” he added.
Teodoro was quoted earlier as saying the abrogating the VFA would “send a bad signal to the world” because it would appear the Philippines “does not stand by its agreements.” He also said that in terms of legality, “there is nothing to talk about.”

“Sec. Teodoro seems unaware that the VFA includes a provision for termination and it is well within the rights of the Philippine government to terminate this agreement. That in itself is part of the agreement,” Reyes said.

“It is also not true that there are no legal issues regarding the VFA. There are in fact many, and these are all pending before the Supreme Court. There are issues on the permanent and continuing presence of the US troops and their facilities. There is still the unresolved issue of who gets custody of convicted US personnel,” he added.