The cost of an independent foreign policy
As a neutral country, we are prepared to shoot down any NATO or Warsaw Pact war plane that intrudes into our air space.” These were the words a ranking official of the Finnish foreign ministry said at the height of the Cold War.
Neutrality imposes obligations on a country; it must have adequate weapons to carry out such tasks. This is the key issue to be drawn out from the termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Modern wars involve the use of high-tech remote-controlled weapons. Joint training exercises are imperative to ensure teamwork among the partners to minimize “friendly fire” casualties. Thus, terminating the VFA makes the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement and Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) useless.
Our officials are saying it is time we have an independent foreign policy. The cost of such policy is prohibitive. The armaments of three neutral countries, and the estimated costs, are indicated below:
Air Force (All fourth-generation jets): Sweden, 72 Gripen Jets; Switzerland, 30 F-18s and 25 Gripens; Finland, 64 F-18s. Unit cost: Gripen $60 million each, F-18s $50 million each.
Military (All Leopard II tanks): Sweden, 160; Switzerland, 380; Finland, 124. Unit cost each MBT $5.7 million.
(Jane’s Defense publications list the armaments of each country).
It is expensive operating such hardware. The pilots of these jets must engage in mock combats at an estimated cost of $25,000 per hour. The crews of the MBTs must engage in regular target practice to hone their skills with the 120 mm gun, each round costing $10,000. In five years’ time, the fourth-generation jets will become obsolete. They will be replaced by fifth-generation stealth planes with a price tag of $220 million for the F-22 and $135 million for the F-35. The Leopard II MBT will be replaced by the Leopard III MBT. Thus, while it will be expensive to join the ranks of neutral countries, staying in that club will require mega expenses. We would not have been in this predicament if we had observed the traditional balance of power doctrine by allying with other powers to protect our country from aggression.
“Might makes right“ is the norm of international relations. An analogy is, if you live in a tough neighborhood with many bullies, you ally yourself with a bigger bully to protect yourself. If you go it alone, you can still survive by buying an AK-47. In 1992, we junked our alliance with a bully by expelling the US bases. However, we did not acquire the equivalent of an AK-47 to protect ourselves. The result is we lost control over the areas in the West Philippine Sea that belongs to us under Unclos. We should not replicate the mistake of 1992.
Based on the foregoing, our officials advocating an independent foreign policy should indicate how we will acquire armaments comparable to those possessed by the three neutral countries indicated above. Do we reduce the budget for infrastructure and social services, or just print money to buy arms?
When India started building nuclear weapons, the Pakistani leaders responded that they would also acquire such weapons, “ x x x even if our people have to eat grass.” Pakistan has statesmen; all we have are politicians. This explains why we have not heard similar pronouncements from our leaders. As happened in 1992, our leaders will junk our defense agreements with the US, but unlike the Pakistanis, we will not acquire the needed weapons to protect our country. We can easily become the 23rd province of China.Or we could become a terrorist-dominated state like Somalia or Lebanon. The war against terrorism requires intelligence. By junking the MDT, we will be cut off from access to the CIA. We will have to organize our own intelligence service with worldwide operations. Otherwise, we will undergo a lot of Marawi-style debacles. Thus, an independent foreign policy is a risky goal for us, and emphasizes the danger of a “Single-issue presidency” (Opinion, 7/31/17) obsessed with a war we cannot win—the war on drugs.
* * *
Hermenegildo C. Cruz is a retired career ambassador who, while serving in the Soviet Union, was concurrently accredited to neutral Finland.
