Talk:Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement

Flagged this article as Disputed

On 30 August, 2006 I stumbled across this page on the VFA between the US and RP govts and noticed how heavily POV it was (and, largely, still is). In my 14:56, 30 August 2006 revision, I rewrote the opening paragraph to correct a number of factual misstatements, to correct the glaring omission to mention the second VFA agreement (it is my guess that the original contributer was unaware that there are two companion VFA agreements), and to point up the fact that the remaindier of the article referred to only the first VFA agreement. Between 30 August and 13 September I edited the article several times, correcting various niggling problems and one serious mis-quote. I inserted inline comments into the text at a few points where I had left what I feel is questionable content in place in the article. See the History and Edit pages of the Article for details.

The initial contribution of the article came with the comment, "VFA, this may be POV, I'm filipino". IMHO, though I have toned it down quite a bit the article is still heavily POV - but I am not Filipino. I may take a shot at a total rewrite, or I may not. Comments? -- Boracay Bill 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

references

Hi! I came across a small section on the VFA under U.S.-Philippines relations in Background Note:Philippines in the U.S. Department of State website. It is another source of information, to balance the POV, so to speak. Please check it. --Pinay06 09:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More references/additional reading:

• http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/rp1/wwwhr006.html
• http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/rp1/wwwhr004.html
• http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/b/eap/61900.htm
• http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/b/eap/61803.htm
• http://usembassy.state.gov/manila/wwwhr711.html
• Action Alert - Petition against US militarization in the Philippines
• Note: Good article by SWS Dr.Mahar Mangahas on VFA in Manila Standard Social Climate

Disputed flag has been removed; article has been edited to tone down POV

The section heading says it all -- Boracay Bill 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a separate article and disambiguation

"Visiting Forces Act" directs to this article; however, the Visiting Forces Act was the UK statute that permitted American forces to try and convict their own servicemen on British soil during World War II. It's a wholly separate topic and should have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.73.102 (talk • contribs)

I changed that article from a hard redirect to this article to a stub on its title subject with a soft redirect here. -- Boracay Bill 00:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename this page RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement

The general subject of Visiting Forces Agreement involves more than this one particular VFA. I have just placed a wikilink to this page on the Visiting Forces Act page, but the context of that wikilink has nothing at all to do with the VFA described on this page -- it concerns VFAs which the Republic of Vantua has made with Papua New Gunea and with the United Kingdom. Barring objection, I plan to move this page as proposed here and replace it with a new page on the subject of VFAs in general. That new page would contain a reference to

Main article: RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement

or

See also: RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement

.

I will then go through the 15 or so pages which link to this page and replace some of those links with links to the moved page. -- Boracay Bill 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Renamed the article. For now, the old Visiting Forces Agreement article redirects to this renamed page. -- Boracay Bill 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Vfalogo.jpg

File:Vfalogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph moved from article

I've moved a recently-inserted paragraph here from the article, citing WP:POV and WP:UNDUE as reasons and saying that I would explain further here.

The paragraph was inserted by Susanbryce. Prior to the insertion of this paragraph, the article text read:

... The Agreement is seen by some Filipinos as granting immunity from prosecution to U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against Filipinos,

and is seen by some as treating Filipinos as second class citizens in their own country.

As a result of these issues, the Philippine government has considered terminating the VFA.

... with that last-quoted sentence citing a supporting source (Philip C. Tubeza (2006-01-19). "Angry lawmakers in Senate, House move to terminate VFA". Philippine Daily inquirer. Retrieved 2006-12-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) which is a currently-dead link but which presumably did support the assertion regarding the issues motivating the RP legislature to consider terminating the VFA.

The text which I've moved was inserted in between these two paragraphs, modifying the logis of the article at this point so that to assert that the issues presented in the added paragraph were the motivation for the RP legislature considering termination of the VFA.

The inserted paragraph changed the article text quoted above to read as follows:

... The Agreement is seen by some Filipinos as granting immunity from prosecution to U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against Filipinos,

and is seen by some as treating Filipinos as second class citizens in their own country.

Legal documents show that from 1981 to 1988, 2,005 cases were filed against U.S. servicemen in Subic and 1,269 cases were filed against the U.S. servicemen in Clark. All were dismissed. Records of the Olongapo City prosecutors office reveal that during the same period, fifteen cases of sexual abuse of children between ages 11 and 16 were filed in their office against US servicemen. All were dismissed. At least another 82 cases of sexual abuse of young women 16 years old and older were also dismissed.

As a result of these issues, the Philippine government has considered terminating the VFA.

The URL http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&c=Conference%20on%20US%20Militarism%20and%20War%20on%20Terror%20in%20the%20Asia-Pacific&t=conferences&i=93]is cited in support of the inserted paragraph.

The inserted paragraph was quoted verbatim from the cited supporting source {Emmi A. de Jesus (December 9, 2006), The Social Cost of US Military Presence, Asia Pacific Research Network (APRN) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

To reword the snippet a bit, it says essentially that over a seven year period several thousand cases were filed against U.S. servicemen and all of those cases were dismissed. The suggestion that the dismissal of at least some of these cases was improper is unstated, but the inference is there to be drawn. The suggestion that the dismissal of at least some of these cases was in some way related to the VFA is unstated, but the inference is there to be drawn. The suggestion that accusations made against some members of a group (US servicemen serving in the RP) taints all members of that group is unstated, but the inference is there to be drawn.

Two paragraph prior to the one inserted is another snipped:

“This is my rifle, this is my gun; one is for killing, one is for fun” so goes the lyrics of one of the U.S. army’s training song and this is even accompanied by lewd gestures. This song is reflective of the values that the U.S. Military is teaching its soldiers regarding women. And respect of women is not among these values.

That quote, memorable though it is from a scene in the movie Full Metal Jacket, is not actually a U.S. army training song, and it is not reflective of of the values that the U.S. Military is teaching its soldiers regarding women — those assertions are figments of the imagination of Emmi A. de Jesus, the author of the cited article.

Elsewhere in that cited article, there is this snippet:

Wherever there are U.S. Military troops, prostitution has grown and taken root. This is true even in countries where prostitution is illegal, like in the Philippines. Often, this is not a mere case of demand (the presence of U.S. servicemen) creating supply; in many cases, this was the result of joint planning and action by the U.S. government and the government of the host country. No matter how much their high command denies it, there is enough evidence in history proving that the U.S. Military sanctions and even encourages prostitution. The rationale for this blatant mistreatment of women is that it “creates a necessary sense of brotherhood and camaraderie among the soldiers”.

"... the result of joint planning and action by the U.S. government and the government of the host country"?? Wow!!!! If true, that is blockbuster investigative journalism! One wonders where that quoted snippet which is presented as "rationale" was published — a cite would be nice, but of course that outside source isn't subject to WP's verifiability policy. I think that this source deserves at least a {{verify credibility}} tag wherever it is cited.

Elsewhere, that cited article says:

The Mutual Defense Treaty between the governments of Korea and the United States which formally granted the stationing of U.S. troops in Korea also stipulated that R&R (rest and recreation) sites be provided the “American GIs. This led to the establishment of “camptowns” or “American towns”, R&R sites under the auspices of the Korean Metropolitan Police Board. The owners of the establishments in these camptowns were enlisted by the board and were financial compensated by the Korean government.

The US-Korea MDT says nothing of the sort. Read it here. Methinks the quality of the information in that just-quoted snippet is likely to be reflective of the quality of the information present in the snippet from the article which I moved here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved page from RP-US to Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement

I moved the page from RP-US ... to Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement because "RP" is not an acronym that is used outside the Philippines and it is better I think to have an article title that is more understandable, less jargon. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)