US policy failure in the Philippines has deep roots: decades of American cultural hubris

Rodrigo Duterte’s move to distance the Philippines from its former colonial ruler was long in coming. Generations of US foreign-policymakers have advanced US interests as if they were the same as Philippine interests – which they are not

Mark J. Valencia

Published: 9:30am, 18 Feb 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

The decision by President Rodrigo Duterte to terminate the Philippines’ Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States has met with a cacophony of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the US foreign policy community. This might soon be followed by recriminations over “who lost the Philippines”.

But Duterte’s move to officially distance the Philippines from the US militarily was long in coming and should have been foreseen. Indeed, this particular US foreign policy failure is the inevitable result of blinkered diplomatic ignorance and arrogance.

The reactions of Asia policy wonks have ranged from panicky predictions of a serious blow to the US’ hub-and-spokes alliance system in Asia (as well as its “war on terror”) to variations on “don’t worry, this too shall pass” (“this” being the Duterte administration, that is).

Writing in the Japan Times, Brad Glosserman asserts that Manila’s termination of the VFA makes another pact with Washington, the Mutual Defence Treaty, “almost impossible to administer”.

However, when the possibility of a downturn in bilateral military relations arose last year, Satu Limaye, director of the East-West Centre in Washington, did not think the alliance was in danger of unravelling. He said US-Philippines relations “have weathered far worse than the current tempest”.

Nevertheless, some in the US government are worried. The US embassy in Manila called the termination “a serious step with significant implications for the US-Philippines alliance”.

US Defence Secretary Mark Esper said: “I do think it would be a move in the wrong direction as we both, bilaterally with the Philippines and collectively with a number of other partners and allies in the region, are trying to say to the Chinese: ‘You must obey the international rules of order.’”

On the other hand, US President Donald Trump has welcomed the move. “I don’t really mind if they would like to do that, it will save a lot of money,” he said nonchalantly.

What Trump praising China’s virus response says about US foreign policy

Duterte apparently made good on his standing threat to disengage militarily from the US after his former national police chief in charge of the government’s war on drugs was denied a visa to visit the US. But if the visa dispute was the reason, it was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

This foreign policy disaster was long in the making, involving generations of US foreign-policymakers and so-called experts. Not only did they not get it – that is, the underlying cause and depth of Duterte’s personal angst – but they also failed to recognise the roots of the problem – American cultural hubris and diplomatic heavy-handedness.

They blindly – and some even enthusiastically – supported and implemented the US policy of advancing US interests as if they were the same as Philippine interests. But they are not the same, and never were.

A typical response to Duterte’s early anti-US rhetoric in 2016 went something like this. Daniel Russel, then the US’ assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said that “there’s lots of noise, a lot of stray voltage coming from Manila. We’ve been through a lot worse in our 70-year history.”

He added that the benefits the Philippines gets from US assistance and protection under the 1951 mutual defence treaty and the strong public support in that country for America “make it improbable any Philippine leader would distance himself from the United States”.

However, people and cultures have long memories, especially when they have been badly treated by another nation. American colonialism in the Philippines tried to Americanise Filipino culture. To Americans, Filipinos were “little brown brothers”. The legacy of American colonialism is still very apparent in the Philippines.

China must learn from the US’ mistakes in Southeast Asia

Its constitution recognises English as an official language and its education system is modelled on and oriented towards the US. Particularly galling is the continuing condescending treatment of Filipinos and especially Filipinas by the US military, tourists and diplomats.

When Duterte was elected, the US began to reap what it had sown. Foreign Minister Perfecto Yasay Jnr explained the view of the current leadership thus: “… the United States held on to invisible chains that reined us in towards dependency and submission as little brown brothers not capable of true independence and freedom.”

As Duterte put it then: “I am a president of a sovereign state, and we have long ceased to be a colony.” The current approach of the US to the Philippines has rekindled this angst, however.

Duterte remains hugely popular with his people. Whatever happens now, he has stood up to the US and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to put the genie of nationalism back in the bottle. He believes that he is freeing his country and people from the ideological and political shackles of America’s neocolonialism.

But there are also solid contemporary reasons why Duterte is doing what he is doing. He thinks American power in the region is waning and China’s is rising. He is unsure if America will back up the Philippines in any conflict with China.

He also believes that the Philippines will have to live with and get along with China for the long term. Becoming more neutral militarily is more compatible with this stance.

What Duterte is doing is risky. He may only be swapping one hegemon for another. He might wind up losing both as friends and supporters.

Worse, there is the possibility of a US-supported military coup. Any such US involvement in regime change would only compound this foreign policy disaster, though. It would restart the cycle of resistance and rebellion against the US and its supporters, and ultimately split the country. The neutralisation of such an American asset would play to the advantage of the global jihadist movement – and China.

The political context in the region and the Philippines has changed dramatically and the US must adjust to it. The only way to rebuild the integrity and robustness of the US-Philippines alliance is for the US to shed its neocolonial approach and focus on truly common interests – as defined by, and not for, the Philippines.

Mark J. Valencia is an adjunct senior scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China

Post