Marcos Jr.’s foreign policy: A new era?
Just like outgoing Vice-President Leni Robredo, the Ilokanong-Iranian is the analyst that keeps on giving. Politics, foreign policy, the economy, Heydarian is all over the place but unfortunately, his mindset is not that of an analyst but of an apologist.
What can we expect from one who is kept on a tight leash by his patron, the Stratbase-ADR Institute of former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario? Not much. So far, Heydarian’s analyses have alwasy been off the mark. It is not that he lacks the knowledge. It is more that he does not use the same objectively. His following consists mostly of Yellow/Pink fanatics who are unabashedly pro-US. In this day and age, one must be more pragmatic, in both politics and the economy.
Our basic flaw is as Filipinos, we think of ourselves as more Western than Asian. This is primarily due to our Spanish and American colonial masters. But in truth and in fact, we are Asians. There is no denying that.
Marcos’ foreign policy will definitely not resemble his father’s in any way. That was a different time. It was with the Cold War as the backdrop, with American influence weighing heavily on the country because of their bases. A lot has changed thirty-six years hence.
We must remember that Marcos was the only Philippine President who laid claim to islands and reefs closest to the country in the South China Sea. Tomas Cloma did not actually “discover” Kalayaan Island. It was there but there was not much interest in it at that time because ocean oil exploration technology was in its infancy. Historically, the islands were under Japanese mandate after World War I. Taiwan, as a Japanese colony, was in possession of Itu Aba. It was only later on when the Chinese were becoming more of an economic powerhouse that they began asserting their claims over their “territory.”
Yet, his brazenly pro-Beijing predilections, combined with personal resentments toward the West, ended up weakening our traditional alliances without necessarily strengthening our position in the West Philippine Sea. A geopolitical novice, Mr. Duterte easily fell for China’s “pledge trap,” namely all those unfulfilled pledges of big ticket infrastructure investments. For some, the populist president was simply changing one strategic patron for the other.
Duterte’s foreign policy was not a failure either. He signified his break from the US in a dramatic fashion because he knew he needed to get their attention. That he did in an undiplomatic fashion. The opposition and their US allies valued human rights over peace and order. Duterte made sure it was clear to both that he would not toe their line.
His policy of rapprochement towards China was necessary because they are our top trade partner. We certainly did not need them as an enemy. For the first time in history, the Philippines was not seen as the American lackey in the region.
Benigno Aquino Jr. another fiery senator of his era, was equally distraught. In a heartfelt essay for the Foreign Affairs magazine, he lamented how “Filipinos are bewildered about their identity.” Aquino fretted at how Filipinos ended up as “Asian people not Asian in the eyes of their fellow Asians and not Western in the eyes of the West.”
Heydarian must be speaking for himself with the above. He wants to be an American in Asia even if his ethnicity is technically Ilokano and Iranian. The opposition would like to be all Americans, except for the leftist-militant groups who are even more confused not only about their identity but also their ideology. It does not matter as Uncle Sam has been giving them grants from the National Endowment for Democracy also.
Just weeks following his election victory, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. is signaling that his foreign policy will be neither one of strategic subservience to the West nor driven by fruitless flirtation with China. If anything, he seems to be taking a page from his father’s strategic playbook by, inter alia, simultaneously pursuing warm ties with all major regional powers, including the US, India, China, South Korea, and Japan.
Heydarian conveniently forgets that while it was convenient for Apo Lakay to maintain close ties to the Americans because of their influence over the country, he was also the first President to put his foot down with the non-extension of the Bell Trade Act granting the Americans parity rights and the shortening of the military bases agreement from 99 years to 25 years.
Bongbong is following in Duterte’s footsteps. A friend to all, an enemy to none. The difference between Marcos and Duterte is the former is a keen participant in such events as the UN General Assembly in October while the latter is more focused on pressing problems at home and would rather have his Foreign Affairs Secretary stand in for him. In this respect, Marcos is more diplomatic while Duterte is more pragmatic. He prefers to visit a country where he is welcome than one where he is unwelcome.
Heydarian would like the Philippine government to come to Ukraine’s side based on the simplistic notion that it is a good versus evil battle. This is impractical for the Philippines based on what Duterte has stated and truly independent analysts have confirmed about why Russia decided to invade Ukraine. The Russian Ambassador to the Philippines has no qualms about the official policy of the incumbent or the President-elect’s.
The analyst should learn to give credit where it is due if he wants to have credibility with Filipinos instead of being a puppet with a hand up his ass, controlling what he verbalizes. He should also learn the meaning of a principled stand. Duterte kept the promise he made not to visit the US for the duration of his term. This is because he understood how the Americans could make him look like a fool when he is on their turf.
But it is also common sensical that the Philippines develops closer ties with China not only because of geography but also for practicality’s sake given they are our largest trade partner.
You do not need a college and post-graduate degree to come to that conclusion.
Comments