Where’s the country’s foreign policy headed after President Duterte’s widely reported diatribes against United States President Barack Obama, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the European Union?
We’re told by Mr. Duterte that he’s going to pursue an independent foreign policy.
That, of course, is not a radical departure from what’s already contained in the 1987 Constitution. In the section on “State Policies”, we have this: “The Philippines shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.”
In the “Declaration of Principles”, the country “renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.”
President Duterte’s latest pronouncements indicate that our foreign policy would be less dependent on so-called special relations with the US and more open to expanded relations with two other powerful states, China and Russia.
Of late, Mr. Duterte had threatened to downgrade ties with the US. He said he would ask the small US Special Forces contingent giving advice and technical assistance to government soldiers to leave Mindanao. Later, he said he would also put a stop to joint military exercises with American troops under the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.
Does this mean that Mr. Duterte could, in a moment of extreme pique, even completely cut ties with the US?
That’s appears unlikely at this point, if we’re to believe Finance Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez III, one of President Duterte’s trusted advisers.
The Duterte administration is simply “recalibrating” the country’s foreign policy, Dominguez said.
“I would not say the foreign policy is changing, I think it’s just being recalibrated so that we are more open to other markets,” that is, to take advantage of opportunities in countries other than our traditional trading partners.
Implicit in Mr. Duterte’s recent statement that he would strengthen ties with China and Russia is that he would consider buying weapons from the two powers to modernize the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and shore up the country’s external defense capabilities.
This, of course, would send alarm bells ringing in Washington, which has extended military, economic and humanitarian assistance to the country, especially since the end of the World War II. Can we really afford to cut our longstanding ties with the US?
Terror threat to get worse
HE isn’t telling us what his security advisers have already told him, but President Duterte, in one of his planned visits to various military camps and police offices, warned against a possible escalation of terrorist activities in the country, and asked the troops to monitor the situation and prepare to defend the country. We’re guessing that Mr. Duterte meant that the Abu Sayyaf and other smaller groups could have already established an alliance with the barbaric Islamic State (IS) as part of a grand design to establish a caliphate in this part of Asia.
President Duterte’s warning comes at basically the same time as Singapore Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen raised the dire prospect of increased terrorist activity in the region.
Following a recent meeting of Southeast Asia defense ministers with US Defense Secretary Ash Carter in Hawaii, Ng said over 1,000 Southeast Asians have flocked to join IS’s self-declared “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria.
“Every year we meet, the situation and threat from extremist terrorism rises,” Ng said. “Compared to, say, a year or even two years ago, they’re more organized…they’re more networked, they’re more clear in their articulation of what they want to achieve.”
In June security officials said Southeast Asian militants claiming to be fighting for the IS said they had chosen one of the most wanted men in the Philippines to head a regional faction of the group. Authorities in the region have been on heightened alert since the IS admitted responsibility for an attack in Jakarta in January where eight people were killed, including four of the attackers.
A recent plot involved an Indonesian cell coordinated by an IS member in Syria that had planned to carry out an attack on hotels in Singapore’s Marina Bay area. The plot was foiled by Indonesian law enforcers. The terror threat in the country comes mainly from the Abu Sayyaf, which has been conducting kidnap-for-ransom activities and attacks on government troops mainly in Sulu and Basilan in Muslim Mindanao and several bombings in Metro Manila since the mid-1990s.
A few other smaller groups, such as the Maute Group and the Rajah Sulaiman Movement, are believed to be ideologically affiliated with the Abu Sayyaf. They could link up with the IS—if they haven’t done so yet—and launch more terrorist activities in the years ahead.
If it’s true that a Filipino is now the leader of the Southeast Asian wing of the IS, the AFP and the police will certainly have to be on their toes as they could find themselves fighting another formidable enemy after the drug traffickers.
E-mail: ernhil@yahoo.com.
1 comment
The Philippines should assert and enforce its maritime rights in the South China Sea. The UNCLOS arbitral tribunal’s award in favor of the territorial and maritime rights of the Philippines in the South China Sea is a historic legal victory. However, the Hague-based tribunal lacks enforcement powers to implement its decision.
The Philippines should seek the support of the international community to uphold a rules-based international order and exert diplomatic leverage to compel China to respect the international tribunal’s ruling. The strategic ambiguity of U.S. to take the side of the Philippines in defending the West Philippine Sea and uphold the international tribunal’s ruling has only rewarded and emboldened China.
The U.S. has failed the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea. The U.S. policy of accommodation towards China that allowed China to rapidly expand its economy and increase its sea control and sea denial in the South China Sea is a betrayal of its two major allies in the Asia Pacific – the Philippines, whose maritime resources could provide a significant economic advantage, and Japan, which greatly relies on sea trade and commerce that pass through the South China Sea. The U.S. has enabled China to gain sea control of the South China Sea, which China could use as a choke-point against Japan. American oil and energy companies that were seeking oil and gas drilling contracts with China in the South China Sea may have instigated China to be more assertive in seizing maritime features in the South China Sea. Before the so-called U.S. “pivot” or “rebalance” to the Asia Pacific region, the U.S. pursued a policy to “cork in the bottle” Japan, which almost surpassed the U.S. as the leading economic power in the 1980s and continues to be one of the top three economic powers. It is possible that Washington instigated China to be more assertive in the South China Sea as part of a U.S. grand strategy to contain Japan as a great power competitor in the Asia Pacific and to keep the Philippines dependent and subservient on the U.S. as a strategic asset. The U.S. benefits from stoking tensions between China and Japan.
EDCA is not a credible defense agreement. It is necessary for the Philippines to strengthen its independent defense posture to enhance its diplomatic leverage and strategic advantage, which would provide the Philippines with a more calibrated response in dealing with rival claimants in the South China Sea. The Philippines should take the necessary steps to demonstrate and establish possession and control of the West Philippine Sea in accordance with international law. The Philippines, China, and neighboring countries would mutually benefit from a peaceful enforcement and implementation of the tribunal’s ruling.
President Duterte should sail (or jet ski as he promised) to Scarborough Shoal to show support for Filipino fishermen and visit Pag-asa Island to boost the morale of the Filipino community there and the Filipino troops stationed at various outposts in the West Philippine Sea. A monument should be built at Pag-asa Island to enshrine a copy (engraved in metal or stone and recorded in multimedia) of the arbitral tribunal’s ruling and commemorate the historic legal victory of the Philippines. The tribunal’s ruling invalidated China’s “nine-dash line” and claims of historic rights in the South China Sea, as well as the territorial and maritime rights claims of Vietnam, Taiwan, and Malaysia.
The Philippines should negotiate with Taiwan for the peaceful transfer of Itu Aba Island (Taiping), the largest maritime feature in the Spratly Islands, to the Philippines. The UNCLOS arbitral tribunal has ruled that Itu Aba does not meet the definition of an “island” but just a “rock” under international maritime law. Vietnam, which has occupied more maritime features and established more outposts in the Spratly Islands, should respect the tribunal’s ruling and withdraw its forces from the West Philippine Sea. The Philippines should send the Marines if necessary to recover Itu Aba from Taiwan and the maritime features occupied by Vietnam in West Philippine Sea
The Philippines should start renaming the maritime features in the West Philippine Sea in conformity with the tribunal’s ruling. The Spratly Islands should be called Spratly Rocks and Reefs. A multimedia presentation, in Tagalog, English, Chinese, and other languages should be produced to educate Filipinos and neighboring countries about the maritime rights and sovereignty of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea, as well as the maritime tradition and history of the seafaring Malay ancestors of Filipinos.