65 years of Philippine Amboy foreign policy

Claro Mayo Recto, the foremost nationalist senator whose birthday is on February 8, sharply noted in a speech at the University of the Philippines in 1951:

“Our foreign policy was conducted from the very beginning, and is being pursued, on the erroneous assumption of an identity of American and Filipino interests - or more correctly of the desirability, and even the necessity, of subordinating our interests to those of America.”

Coincidentally on Recto’s birthday last Thursday, Kurt Campbell, deputy state secretary for East Asia, spoke at a US House of Representatives foreign affairs subcommittee hearing on strengthening US ties with the Philippines. He gushingly described the Philippines as an ally:

“There’s no country in Asia that’s more welcoming to the United States, more supportive of a stronger relationship and more on our side, rooting for us every step of the way.”

These thematically complementary statements were made 61 years apart. Philippine foreign policy, as Recto depicted it, hasn’t changed at all - to the delight of Washington DC. 

It seems not to matter that the Philippines, compared to other US allies, has been receiving economic aid in trickles despite our government’s dogged adherence to American foreign policy and to trade and economic prescriptions that have even stunted our economic development.

It seems not to matter that the Philippines hasn’t received commensurate military aid, despite a military-assistance agreement since 1947 and its support for US interventionist wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And it has not mattered that, embodying the people’s demand, the 1987 Constitution bans “foreign military bases, troops or facilities” in the country and that in 1992 we booted out the US military bases. Today, American troops have returned “upon invitation of the Philippine government” (as US authorities claim). Over 600 of them have been permanently stationed here (“on rotation basis”) since 2002. 

Last week the P-Noy government, with alacrity, agreed to expand such US troop presence and military role, in accord with the Obama government’s plan to “rebalance” America’s forces in the Asia-Pacific region, as it withdraws from its frustrating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I cautioned in last week’s column, we should beware of US intentions. Consider these factors:

1. Since it withdrew its troops from Iraq last December, the US is having more and more difficulties maintaining its huge diplomatic and civilian presence there - 2,000 diplomats and 14,000 support staff and private security contractors.

The problem stems from the lack of clear-cut agreements with the newly-installed Iraqi government on how the US embassy would operate. Apparently, because they had held sway in Iraq as a military occupation force, the Americans thought they could continue to do as they wished.

On the other hand, the people of Iraq have resented the imperious ways of the American (civilian) occupiers. Iraqi officials invoke their sovereignty and authority to enforce their laws; for instance, they demand documents for the movements of embassy staff and supplies. The Americans deem these as obstructionism to their freedom of action and interaction with the locals.

Because of its weakened clout, the State Department is preparing to cut by half US diplomatic presence in Iraq.      

2. One source of friction in US-Iraqi relations is the use of two dozen surveillance drones to help protect the US embassy, consulates and their personnel. Iraqi officials remonstrate that the US hasn’t sought government permission for the use of the drones. Interior Minister Adnan al-Asadi fumed, “Our sky is our sky, not the USA’s sky!”

A cause for concern to us Filipinos is this: the State Department has told American contractors that it plans to field similar surveillance drones in other potentially “high-threat countries” such as Indonesia and Pakistan, and Afghanistan after the US troops leave “in the next two years.” 

Though the Philippines hasn’t been mentioned as a “high-threat” country, the probability of being classified as such gets higher as US military presence increases. Already, the use of drones has come up in their recent talks with Philippine officials in Washington DC.

Shouldn’t we similarly protest that “our sky is our sky, not the USA’s sky”?

3. Starting on April 16, joint US-Phl military exercises under the VFA are planned to be staged in Philippine territorial waters in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). 

It is highly probable that China would consider the exercises as a provocation. This is because the US has emphasized that it will boost the Philippines’ maritime security as against China’s assertive stance in disputed parts of the area.

Last May the US handed over the decommissioned 1967 Hamilton cutter, which has been turned into the Philippine Navy’s flagship, BRP Gregorio del Pilar. The ship recently completed patrolling safe areas in the Spratly islands.

Now the Philippine government is requesting if it can also have the gear that had been stripped from the Hamilton. These include sensors, communications and electronics equipment, and the close-in weapons system used to detect and destroy incoming anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft.

A second cutter, the Dallas (also from 1967), will be added soon to the Philippines’ “notoriously dilapidated navy.” Is that bad news, or good?

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]