Part II
Marcos refused to send combat troops to join the US war of aggression in Vietnam in 1967, did not renew the “parity rights” agreement beyond 1974,opened diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and China in 1975, and sought membership with the Group of 77. In retaliation, the US did not only renege on its commitment to supply the Armed Forces with weapons and ammunitions under the Mutual Defense Agreement. It also sowed intrigues to create disenchantment in their ranks by encouraging the soldiers to organize the so-called Reform the Armed Forces Movement.
After ousting Marcos by coup d’ etat, the oligarchs and the ultra conservative clerics promptly projected their unconstitutional action as “People Power” to give it a semblance of popular support.
One must note that the opening of diplomatic ties with China was most historic and stunning. Former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos succeeded in securing the assurance of China that it will no longer support the local insurgency movement. That instantly decapitated the local Communist Party of its principal broker.
The Noynoy administration sought to revive the wedge to separate us from China by drumming our claim in the South China Sea and seeking the return of the US bases as its misplaced leverage.
President Duterte now suffers the same rough sailing in navigating our new foreign policy direction. Up to now the US could not dissect the fine difference between the pursuit of national interest from that of securing them through an alliance which tend subsume our interest to that of the US. In the end, our national interest becomes secondary to that of the US but cloaked as imperative to our security.
The end of the Cold War contributed much to diminish the value of military alliances. It was not only a battle for military superiority but also a battle for ideological supremacy. The raising of the infamous “Iron Curtain” and “Bamboo Curtain” are historical landmarks that bear the ugly scar of the bloody proxy war. The old militaristic umbrella of hegemony upon which allies blindly accept the US ideological doctrine as equivalent to their national interest has long been replaced.
Admittedly, China is geographically proximate to us, and the Philippine archipelago is very much a part of the South China Sea. The end of the Cold War was substituted by closer economic interaction. China has shown more eagerness to help us extricate our people from poverty. We can no longer revive the old line of defining our national interest based on the old precept, but must adjust to the changing realities of peaceful cooperation and economic development.
The fundamental question is: why has the term independent foreign policy become synonymous with anti-Americanism? Is it rooted in the propensity of the US to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries? Interference is a weak point in diplomacy for it betrays the lack of agreement to a given objective; that if others see it as contrary to their interest, interference or resort to the hard power approach becomes its last recourse.
US interference in our domestic affairs has somewhat become instinctive because it treats us as a vassal state. While the Philippines purports to be an independent state, its policy is always subject to the approval of the US, acting as a suzerain state. Washington policy makers are not only presumptuous, but insist that US interest for the Philippines is not only synonymous to our interest, but is for the good of our people. Many of officials subscribe to this colonial postulate.
The anti-US sentiment expressed by President Duterte is not a condition to improving our relations with China and with Russia nor is demanded by the two countries. Rather, our attitude has been moulded by the past conduct of the US. This explains why every time we make an attempt to analyze our relations with the US, automatically there is that lingering suspicion that one is pro-China.
The US and its local accomplices, the oligarchs and the Church, wants to erase Marcos from the pages of our history because he represents that fleeting moment in the reawakening of our political consciousness as it was compelled to intervene just to put back on track our interest. It was forced to install their puppet Cory Aquino and projected her as our icon of democracy and freedom.
This is what US political scientist Paul Kennedy explained as the hard power approach in his book, “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers.” The US refuses to concede that marshalling allies to fight on its side is more costly. It requires a degree of oppression and subjugation.
The hard approach caused its economy to be depleted, wiped out to near extinction its middle class, allowed the decay of its vital infrastructures, had to relocate factories to other countries at the expense of the employment of its people, and penalized them with high taxes, pursued the monetarist policy in favor of production just to keep intact the seeming invincibility of the US dollar, and maintained its military presence anywhere in the globe to keep its enemies at bay. As one commented, while nobody could chink the armor of the US, it failed to see that internal rust was corroding fast the foundation upon which its stands.
The reverse theory was advanced by Joseph Nye. In his book, “The Future of Power,” Nye came out with the “soft power” approach. He observes that, “if China increases its soft power to a point where it feels secure in not having to resort to military power to achieve its aims, then everybody win.” He believes that in the course of time the soft approach will naturally evolve and coagulate as common interest.
Soft power is not meant to isolate the US and place it on the defensive to make war unavoidable. It is a win-win formula for eventually countries will gravitate towards the one willing to share his prosperity to others. Such philosophy is not borne out of profundity, but from an ancient Chinese philosophy that allowed human civilization to thrive for thousands of years. This is amplified today by the “One Road One Belt” policy of China. It is totally different from the traditional Western approach of building an alliance through a system of intricate quid pro quo.
