2月12日，菲律宾政府向美国驻菲律宾大使馆发出照会，正式决定终止美菲《访问部队协议》。按照协议规定，两国可在180天内就相关问题进行磋商。由于该协议对美菲军事同盟的重要性十分突出，这一事件走向已引发各方高度关注。

美菲军事同盟主要依赖三个重要法律文件，即1951年《共同防御条约》（MDT）、1998年《访问部队协议》（VFA）和2014年《加强防务合作协议》（EDCA）。《访问部队协议》在其中发挥了基础性和承接性的关键作用，终止该协议将直接冲击美国在菲律宾军事存在的合法性，必然会对美菲军事同盟关系造成重大现实影响。

一方面，《访问部队协议》是明确美军在菲律宾地位的基础性条约，规定了美军人员和装备进入菲律宾的条件、范围和便利。实质上它是一种美国在菲律宾驻军地位协定，只不过不是常驻而是“暂驻”。该协议中最重要的一点就是“拐弯抹角”地规定美国政府可享有对其军事人员在菲境内犯罪行为的司法管辖权，也即通常所讲的“治外法权”。这是对美国在菲律宾军事存在权益的一种基础性法律保障。

另一方面，《访问部队协议》也是明确美军在菲律宾存在方式的承接性条约。由于菲律宾宪法禁止外国军队在菲领土设立军事基地，所以《访问部队协议》实际上是为美军以《共同防御条约》为依据，借年度数百场军事演习之名，以轮换方式派驻菲律宾大开方便之门。而《加强防务合作协议》则在此基础上提升轮换规模，并准许美军在菲使用和新建相关军事设施等。所以，菲政府终止协议实为釜底抽薪，将导致《共同防御条约》有名无实和《加强防务合作协议》名存实亡。

从目前情况来看，此事仍处于持续发酵的阶段，其未来走向既有定数，也存在较大变数：

一是菲律宾政府并非心血来潮，而是经过深思熟虑。2016年杜特尔特就任菲律宾总统后，有意调整阿基诺三世政府时期对美国一边倒的外交政策，将政策重心放回菲律宾国内经济发展和社会稳定，不再充当美国在印太地区对华遏制战略的“炮灰”。不选边站队，平衡与各方关系已成杜特尔特政府当前外交政策的鲜明特点。在此背景下，美菲外交关系热络、军事演习频密的势头不再。特别是在菲南部地区禁毒问题上，杜特尔特与美国龃龉不断。本次事件的导火索也正是美方取消菲律宾前国家警察总监罗纳德·德拉罗萨的赴美签证，指责其在禁毒行动中侵犯人权。杜特尔特遂再次祭出终止《访问部队协议》一招，反制美方干涉菲内政的蛮横行径。虽然目前菲议会对总统废约决定存在一定反对声，但从菲媒报道情况来看，菲政府内部意见已较为统一。

二是美方恐难善罢甘休，仍将攀辕扣马。美国防长埃斯珀表示，菲方决定是“不幸”且“方向错误”，美方将对此仔细研判，在未来180天内设法解决问题。这表明，一方面美国政府此前并未认真对待菲方终止协议的威胁，对菲方决定颇感意外和失措；另一方面，此举已超出两国军事关系降温的范畴，而是实质性倒退。鉴于菲律宾在美国印太战略和中美战略博弈中的重要地位，美方将在剩余期限内了解菲方意图，采取应对措施，说服或迫使菲方保留协议。

三是废约之后何去何从，悬念犹存。耐人寻味的是，目前美菲两国领导人仍在就此事隔空较劲，展现强硬立场，试探彼此底线。一边是特朗普放言，“真的不在意他们（菲）那样做，这会（让美国）省一大笔钱”；另一边是杜特尔特回呛，表示终止协议“方向正确且早该如此”，“必须坚持独立自主，不会再为维护本国利益而充当别国附庸”。应当看到，菲律宾国防实力较弱，对美国经费和训练等军事援助依赖较深，若协议最终废止，如何填补防务需求缺口将是摆在杜特尔特政府面前的一大现实问题。从菲官员表态来看，目前选项有两个。一个是与他国缔结类似的军事条约，降低对美依赖。菲军方也承认正就此与多国进行接触。另一个是与美方重新谈判并达成更符合菲本国利益，体现菲对美战略价值的新协议。这一点目前得到菲官员和学者较多支持。

但无论是180天内磋商还是嗣后重新谈判，美菲博弈焦点将主要有三。

一是限制或取消有损菲律宾主权和利益的美军“治外法权”，这是菲律宾民意较为集中的问题。

二是美军事人员入境菲律宾无需办理护照或签证，菲方希望对等免除菲军人员访美签证。

三是为菲安全提供实质性支持。菲国内有声音认为，美方在南海争端关键时刻从未真正派兵为菲方“撑场”。菲律宾想要的不是“肩并肩”的演习，而是实打实的应援。

On Feb. 12, the government of the Philippines issued a notice to the United States embassy to terminate the Visiting Forces Agreement, or VFA. Under the agreement, the two countries can negotiate issues within 180 days. The agreement is important to the U.S.-Philippine military alliance, so the development has attracted great attention around the world.

The military alliance was founded mainly on three legal documents: the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, the 1998 VFA and the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. The VFA is a key foundation for maintaining the U.S. military presence in the Philippines. Terminating the agreement will directly impact the legitimacy of the that presence and will inevitably have a significant practical impact on the alliance.

The VFA is a basic treaty that clarifies the status of the U.S. military in the Philippines. It lays out the conditions, scope and convenience for the temporary entry of U.S. military personnel and equipment into the country. The most important aspect of the agreement is that it explicitly provides that the U.S. government has extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases of crimes committed in the Philippines by American military personnel. It is a basic legal guarantee designed to protect the rights and interests of the United States military.

In addition, the VFA clarifies the way the U.S. handles its military presence. The Constitution of the Philippines prohibits foreign troops from establishing military bases in Philippine territory, so the VFA actually makes it possible for the U.S. military to establish a presence in rotation based on the Mutual Defense Treaty and the pretext of hundreds of military exercises each year. The EDCA increases the scale of the military presence in rotation and allows the U.S. military to use and build related military facilities.The termination of the agreement by the Philippine government will actually render the MDT and the EDCA useless.

As it stands now, the matter is escalating and will face both certainties and uncertainties in the future:

First, the Philippine government is acting not on impulse but thoughtfully. After Rodrigo Duterte assumed the presidency in 2016, he adjusted the foreign policy that leaned toward the United States and had been in place since of the administration of Benigno S. Aquino III. Duterte refocused the policy on domestic economic development and social stability to keep his country from serving as cannon fodder for the United States' strategy of containing China in the Indo-Pacific region.Balancing the relationship with all parties without siding with any particular one of them has become a distinctive feature of the current foreign policy of the Duterte government. In this context, the Philippine government is no longer as enthusiastic about U.S.-Philippine diplomatic relations and frequent military exercises as it was before.It is of particular note that on the issue of drug control in the southern Philippines, Duterte and the United States have continued to confront one another. What triggered the dispute was the U.S. revocation of former national police chief Ronald de la Rosa's visa on the grounds of his alleged violations of human rights in anti-drug operations.Duterte then retaliated with the termination of the VFA to counter the outrageous interference by the U.S. in the internal affairs of the Philippines. The Philippine parliament currently has some objections to the president's decision to scrap the treaty, but as reported in the Philippine media the official opinion of government aligns with Duterte.

Second, the United States may not let it go. U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper called the move by the Philippines “unfortunate” and “in the wrong direction” and that the United States would carefully study and judge this and try to solve the problem in the next 180 days. This shows that the U.S. government had not taken the threat of the Philippines scrapping the agreement seriously and was surprised and frustrated by the decision.In addition, it demonstrates that Duterte's move represented more than a cool-down in the military relations between the two countries. Rather, it was a substantial retrogression. In view of the important role of the Philippines in the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, as well as the Sino-U.S. strategic rivalry, the United States will strive to understand Philippine intentions during the negotiating period and take countermeasures to persuade or force it to keep the agreement going.

Third, uncertainties remain on what effects abolition of the agreement will have. It is intriguing that the leaders of the United States and the Philippines are still struggling over this issue, remaining tough and trying to test each other's bottom lines.When U.S. President Donald Trump said dismissively, “If they would like to do that, that's fine. We'll save a lot of money,” Duterte shot back with rhetoric of his own. Terminating the VFA “is a move in the right direction that should have been done a long time ago,” he said. “We must stand on our own and put a stop to being a parasite on another country in protecting our independence and sovereignty.”It should be noted that the Philippines' defense strength is weak, and the country relies heavily on U.S. military aid, including funding and training. If the agreement is ultimately abolished, how to fill the gap in the defense needs of the Philippinwes will be a major practical issue facing the Duterte government.The statements of Philippine officials suggest there are currently two options. One is to enter similar military treaties with other countries to reduce dependence on the United States. (The Philippine military has acknowledged that it is engaging with many countries in this regard.) The other is to renegotiate the deal with the United States and reach a new agreement that is more in the interest of the Philippines and reflects the strategic value of the country to the United States. This point has received more support from officials and scholars.

Whether it will be consultations within 180 days or renegotiation afterward, the focus of the U.S.-Philippine rivalry will be in three main areas:

1. Restrict or cancel the extraterritoriality of the U.S. military, which harms the sovereignty and interests of the Philippines. This is what most Filipinos think.

2. While U.S. military personnel do not need to apply for a passport or visa to enter the Philippines, the Philippine side hopes that visas for Philippine military personnel to visit the United States will be exempted.

3. Ensure that substantive support for Philippine security is provided by the United States. There is a voice in the Philippines that the United States has never sent troops in a meaningful way to support the Philippines at a critical time in the South China Sea. What the Philippines wants is not a side-by-side exercise but a practical response.