The “independent foreign policy” charade

THE looming event of significance for the Philippines is the coming state visit of President Bongbong Marcos, Jr. to China on January 3, 2023. Some people believe that PBBM will clarify his heretofore vacillating position on the firmness of the “comprehensive strategic cooperation” with China already signed between the two countries.

They also want him to cease his dalliance with the U.S. “strategy of tension” in the region by allowing more U.S. bases in the country and for the termination of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and other related agreements with the Americans.

Basing on the Philippines’ stated principle enshrined in its Constitution of upholding an “independent foreign policy,” the Philippines claims that it does not take sides on the mounting pressure of US containment vs. China.

But this claim does not hold water as the Philippines harbors military forces of the U.S. on its soils.

The U.S. using its 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty as basis for a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) claims the privilege of basing “temporary” U.S. equipment and forces in the Philippines. This was expanded by another agreement called the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). Disturbingly, U.S. and Philippine defense officials were reported to have “agreed” to expand from 5 to 10 bases for U.S. troops to base in – a “done deal” even without the blessings of the Philippine Senate and our chief executive, PBBM.

The “done deal” declaration was made by security expert Dr. Rommel Banlaoi who at a Webinar stated this citing the expenditure of $70-million by the U.S. in the construction of the new bases already on-going. This raised the hackles of many Webinar participant but Banlaoi said (which I paraphrase here), “…the Armed Forces of the Philippines is an American organization… and it will do what the U.S. wants.” Suggestions to oppose this was raised, ranging from a “referendum” to a “people initiative.”

And what a statement coming from a Filipino like Banloi! This is tantamount to admitting that we are nothing but a puppet state of Uncle Sam.

The reality therefore is that our “independent foreign policy” is negated by U.S. capture of certain institutions and political entities in the Philippines allowing the country to be used as a preparatory platform for launching all sorts of lethal threats against China.

Miliary drills, including live-fire exercises are already actually being staged at points in Northern Luzon where Taiwan can be assaulted by the U.S. as well as points in the southwest island of Palawan closest to the disputed SCS features.

The Philippine government plays dumb about these realities threatening to China as it continues its charade about having an “independent foreign policy” while using the cover of our claim to the “West Philippine Sea” and the (non-existent) “threat” of China using force to take Philippine occupied islands and our EEZ claims supposedly granted by the 2016 Hague “arbitral award” to smear China. And to this day, the UN has never recognized the arbitral award’s “legal and procedural merits” at all.

The Philippines asserts that in the way that it is practicing its “independent foreign policy” it is “balancing” between the U.S. and China to serve the “national interest.”

But what is this balancing where the U.S. is allowed military forces and bases in Philippine territory and possibly, by default, allowing U.S. Intermediate Nuclear Forces (missiles) in the bases (U.S. neither confirms nor denies their presence) hence making them a retaliatory target of China. Does this situation serve our national interest?

What is the ‘National Interest’ according to PBBM? I have reviewed PBBM’s many speeches looking for a crisp, clear statement defining the Philippine national interest according to his view – I have not seen anything that is definitive and clear.

***

In July, after his inauguration, he defined it as a “safe, more prosperous” Philippines, safe from what and prosperity from where? Quite often, government and media narrow it down to the conflict over SCS claims – which is stupid and inane.

There is no doubt that the national interest of the Philippines is in building up its prosperity for the middle classes and poor increasingly marginalized by an economy where only the 1 percent, the oligarchy, continues to grow in wealth through exploitation of privatized utilities and infrastructure and financial corruption (latest is the PLDT internal plunder of P 42-billion and the alleged SSS-GSIS investment in the Villars’ AllHomes project that lost about P 750-Million into the Villars’ pockets).

***

The source of prosperity in the past five years and for the foreseeable decades ahead for ASEAN and the Philippines is China, which is now ASEAN and the Philippines top trading partner.

ASEAN trade with China hit $878.2-billion in 2021; our exports to China and Hong Kong totaled over $20-billion in the same year while imports reached more than $31-billion or total of over $ 51-billion in total trade for a single year.

Trade with U.S. totaled only over $ 21-billion in 2021 and parts of that are foreign military sales.

Peace is the prerequisite for prosperity, a stable, predictable, and harmonious environment for trade, agricultural exchange, industrial and technological development.

China advocates the “Win-Win” formula for all negotiations, including disagreements over SCS claims, while the U.S. is the greatest warmonger in the post-World War II era and to this day. Why is President BBM being “Mr. Congeniality” with the chief warmonger of the world?