On the shoulders of giants

In the past week, international media attention was fixed on President Duterte for reasons we already know. Despite reassurances that Philippine-US ties remain strong, the incident calls into question what kind of relationship the Duterte administration will have with Washington.

Plus, its choice not to raise July’s arbitration ruling in the ASEAN Summit and acquiescing to China’s terms of bilateral negotiations have observers talking about a rapprochement with Beijing. However, placing the Philippines in a spectrum with the Americans on one end and the Chinese on the other is not an appropriate way of analyzing the foreign policy options of our country. We are not playing a zero-sum game where warmer relations with one side must come at the expense of our relationship with the other.

Dividing the region into pro-China and pro-US sides is a superficial practice lingering from the Cold War. Doing so denies the agency of countries caught in the middle and grafts Western security agendas on Southeast Asia. Instead, these smaller states seek autonomy and flexibility in their foreign policies to pursue their national interests. Yet how is this done despite the overwhelming mismatch in material capabilities Southeast Asian states face compared to China and the US?

Prof. Brantly Womack of the University of Virginia talks of a “mature asymmetry” to describe a negotiated and stable relationship between two countries of unequal size and power. Many of our neighbours are already in such a situation.

Myanmar, Indonesia examples

Take a look at Myanmar which throughout the 1990s and 2000s has been labelled as a client state of China. Its fraternal relationship with Beijing was due to its need for diplomatic protection from international interference and pressure as a result of the military junta’s authoritarian and draconian domestic policies.

Dr. Jurgen Haacke of the London School of Economics and Political Science points out that Myanmar’s relationship with China was at most a “limited alignment,” ensuring that it did not get too dependent on the Chinese. In recent years, Naypyidaw has re-leveraged its relationship with China by seeking closer ties with the West but still able to keep huge Chinese investments like the Kyaukpyu-Kunming pipeline.

Vietnam went to war with both the US and China but today enjoys a relatively good relationship with both countries. Despite the friction over the South China Sea dispute, Vietnam is able to maintain close economic and a level of strategic ties with China.

Prof. Carlyle Thayer of the University of New South Wales explains that Hanoi disaggregates the actions of external states into “points of cooperation” [doi tac] and “points of struggle” [doi tuong]. By doing so, the Vietnamese are able to compartmentalize and respond to different aspects of Chinese influence preventing friction in one category from causing sparks in another.  Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh in June was able to meet with his Chinese counterpart and talk about further enhancing ‘mutual cooperation’. Put that in context with a visit by President Obama to Vietnam in May and we see how flexible Hanoi’s foreign policy actually is.

Meanwhile, Indonesia has practiced the policy of bebas aktif [independent and active] over the past 60 years.

This principle has been broad enough to allow the anti-Western stance of Suharto as well as Yudhoyono’s internationalism. Indonesia’s diplomatic handbook advises its readers to ‘paddle between two corals’ [mendayung antara dua karang] in order to pro-actively avoid conflict. Today, Jakarta enjoys a strategic partnership with Washington and participates in the American’s Cobra Gold exercises while President Widodo also vocally supports the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which he sees as an important source of development funds.  The Indonesian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Dr. Rizal Sukma, stated that his country does not intend to perpetuate ‘Pax Americana’ but nor is it keen on contributing to ‘Pax Sinica’.

Similar to her neighbors, the Philippines cannot afford to antagonize anyone especially China as it does not have the luxury of distance. As Fareed Zakaria points out, containment is inappropriate because China is not the Soviet Union – it is an important trading partner of the US and ASEAN countries. Likewise, it would be against our interest to see a retreat of the US from the region as it acts as an important security guarantor and counter-weight to Chinese influence.

Thus, the choice of the Philippines is not between China and the US but between engagement and isolation. 

No to demagoguery

At the closing ceremony of the ASEAN Summit in Vientiane, President Duterte accepted the chairmanship of the organization and promised that next year’s meetings in the Philippines will “set the tone” for decades to come. His administration must make full use of this unique opportunity to enmesh regional powers and other ASEAN states into a web of stable and cooperative relationships by working on common interests. It is also a chance to strengthen the regional bloc institutionally – something supported by the late Domingo Siazon Jr. in the 1990s. 

Our foreign policy must not be politicized or tampered with by demagoguery. It is not the place for emotions and prejudices. Prudence, not populism, ought to navigate the country. The continued professionalization of the foreign service ensures that best practices will be adopted, but the public must hold our head-of-state accountable for the impact he has on our bearings abroad. There is a glaring difference between pursuing an independent yet cooperative foreign policy and a belligerent nationalistic one akin to North Korea’s juche.

Filipinos are known for their friendliness and their hospitality towards people from all over the world; it makes sense that the Philippines should set an example for the peaceful resolution of disputes and earn a regional role as a responsible and respectable player on the global stage.

We must actively create the conditions for our nation and economy to thrive. Picking fights with giants like a self-styled David would be foolish. Treading carefully on tiptoe would not be the best option either. Befriending the giants in order to stand on their shoulders would allow us to achieve new heights. – Rappler.com

Carlo Fong Luy is pursuing a master’s degree in International Relations at the London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE). He recently wrote a dissertation on the foreign policy of Southeast Asian states and works as an intern at the Philippine Trade & Investment Centre in London.