First of two parts
EDCA is not friendship.
The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was presented as a symbol of friendship and mutual defense. In truth, however, it serves as an extension of American military power in Asia. Its purpose is not to protect the Philippines, but to contain China. The United States uses our archipelago as a chain of forward outposts, giving its forces proximity to troubled areas in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. In exchange for allowing this, the Philippines becomes a military target in any armed encounter that may arise between China and the US.
EDCA was signed between the Philippines and the US during the administration of the late president Benigno Aquino III in 2014. It was framed as an implementation of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). In reality, it restored what the Philippine Senate rejected in 1991, which is the presence of foreign troops and facilities on Philippine soil. The American withdrawal from Clark and Subic was supposed to mark the end of foreign military bases in the country. EDCA silently reversed that decision through the legal fiction of “agreed locations,” which are Philippine-owned in name but American-controlled in fact.
Control without ownership
Article III of the agreement grants the US operational control and unimpeded access to these “agreed locations.” Filipino officers, however, cannot enter certain areas without American permission. These off-limits areas, built within Philippine military reservations, are under the exclusive use of the US. This arrangement allows the US to construct, store and preposition weapons and equipment without the Philippine government’s oversight. While on paper, ownership remains with the Philippines, control rests with America, which decides who enters and what is stored inside. This is not cooperation, but surrender of sovereignty.
The hidden costs of hosting
EDCA’s terms show an unequal partnership. The US enjoys rent-free use of Philippine land and tax exemptions for its activities. Under Article VII, the Philippine government shoulders the cost of utilities, such as water and electricity, and other local services, unless otherwise agreed. The public was told that American funds would be used to modernize Philippine bases, but it is the Filipino taxpayer who subsidizes these facilities. The host country pays the bills while its own soldiers just stand guard outside the areas they cannot enter.
The global network of ‘lily pads’
The Philippines is only one link in America’s global chain of “lily pad” bases. These small, flexible military facilities are scattered all over the world, and are designed to support rapid deployment without the political burden of permanent bases. This pattern is consistent. The host nation provides the land and political cover, while America retains control and operations. In reality, the risk of retaliation is transferred to the ally that hosts the facility. This supposed partnership hides an imbalance. One side commands, while the other accommodates and absorbs the peril.
The fiction of humanitarian purpose
The defenders of EDCA invoke that the facilities can also serve as centers for disaster response. This narrative was intended to convert opposition by appealing to compassion. Nevertheless, the country has suffered a series of earthquakes and typhoons since the agreement took effect, but not one EDCA site has been mobilized for relief operations. The humanitarian claim is a convenient cover to conceal the military nature of the agreement. These are not secondary aid platforms, but staging grounds for combat operations.
America’s record of abandonment
The US has a long history of abandoning allies once they outlive their usefulness. South Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan each learned this painful lesson after costly dependence on American promises. Even the Philippines experienced this in World War II, when Washington ordered then-general Douglas MacArthur to head for Australia and leave the Filipino and American forces to face the Japanese. The US likewise stood aside during the Scarborough Shoal standoff in 2012. In Ukraine today, America has shown weariness for the war and is already sending signals that it wants to hand over the conflict to the Europeans. This pattern is unmistakable. Alliances last only as long as they serve Uncle Sam’s interest. When the balance shifts, partners are left to face consequences alone.
To be concluded on March 15, 2026
Rafael P. Tuvera is a lawyer who taught law and political science. He analyzes geopolitics, diplomatic strategy with emphasis on productive approaches with legal and historical context. He is also a contributor to IDSI and other publications.
