President Rodrigo Duterte, in several occasions recently, announced that he would adopt an independent foreign policy. In light of his pronouncements against the United States and his move to improve relations with China, some people have expressed concern that Philippine foreign policy is shifting away from the US and leaning toward China.
In a statement before he left for Brunei and China last week, the President vowed to adhere to his constitutional mandate to pursue an independent foreign policy for the Philippines.
That does not mean that the Philippines is veering away from the United States. Rather, the country, which was subjected to American rule after the Spanish regime, is veering away from a colonial foreign policy and asserting itself as a sovereign nation with a foreign policy that promotes its own interest when it establishes relations with other countries.
Thus, the President said he would pursue relations with other countries on the “basis of sovereign equality, noninterference and mutual respect.”
Some businessmen, including foreign investors, have cautioned that the President’s statements against Western countries, like the United States and the European Union, which have criticized the administration’s campaign against illegal drugs, would deter investors from coming to the Philippines.
Again, I disagree, and I cite Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew, who led two of the most prominent leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), as proof.
Both Lee and Mahathir adopted very independent foreign policies for their governments, and have hit the US and other Western countries many times during their terms in office. Today, Singapore and Malaysia serve as models for developing countries.
Mahathir, who was Malaysia’s prime minister from 1981 to 2003, criticized Western economic policies toward developing countries and supported the imposition of the death penalty on drug traffickers, which resulted in the execution of some convicts from Western countries.
He adopted the “Look-East” policy, which replaced the western model of development with the eastern model. In line with this model, Malaysia established closer diplomatic and economic relations with other Asian countries, like Japan and Korea.
During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, when Asian countries readily obtained loans from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Mahathir refused to seek relief from the two US-led institutions and preferred domestic measures to survive the crisis.
Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of the city-state of Singapore, was a prime target of criticisms from Western countries because of his policies, which were viewed by the West as repressive. Under his leadership, which spanned three decades, Singapore jumped from being a Third World country to a First World nation.
The Global Competitiveness Report 2016 of the World Economic Forum ranks Singapore as the world’s second most competitive country, behind Switzerland and ahead of the US, Germany and Sweden in the top 5 slots.
The success of Malaysia and Singapore, which continues to this day, shows that investments kept flowing into the two countries despite their adoption of independent foreign policies.
An independent foreign policy does not mean making enemies of some countries and friends of others. Each country’s foreign policy promotes, first and foremost, its own interest. Thus, both the US and China have friendly relations, despite differences in many areas, because such relations serve both countries’ respective interests.
What we need, and what I believe the President wants to establish, is not a pro-US foreign policy or a pro-China foreign policy, but a pro-Filipino foreign policy. We can be friends with all countries because it serves our interest to do so.
For comments, e-mail mbv.secretariat@gmail.com or visit www.mannyvillar.com.ph.
1 comment
This what people do not realize. Thank you for pointing this out.