Elected on the back of popular discontent against elitist politics, the President imaged himself as a harbinger of change. His foreign policy appeared to be boldly different and unconventional. He cursed US President Barack Obama. The President initially gave the impression that he didn’t have any qualms about destroying existing ways, and building new ones as he embarked on his policy which can be best summarized as one of creative destruction. Recently, he even threatened to wage war against Canada over the garbage issue.
But at the same time, his confrontational stance towards China dissolved into one of appeasement when he unilaterally set aside our hard-earned victory at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, and embarked on securing a friendlier relationships with the Asian giant. Thus, from what appeared as creative destruction, the President turned into pragmatic appeasement.
President Duterte made no qualms about impressing on the global community that he was pivoting towards China as a pragmatic move to secure a new pathway to seek financial assistance for his ambitious infrastructure programs under China’s Belt and Road Initiative. This, even as the Philippines was still tied down to its security arrangements with the United States under the Mutual Defense Treaty binding the two countries. Repeatedly, however, the President, either directly or through his alter egos, has expressed reservations about the sincerity of the US in coming to the defense of the Philippines should a shooting war erupt with China. This was also one of the reasons for the President’s China pivot, considering that appeasement in the context of economic partnerships and assistance would be a more pragmatic approach in dealing with China in the face of inadequate military firepower, an arbitral ruling that was largely unenforceable due to its rejection and nonrecognition by China, and a vague commitment from the United States.
Contributing to the rationalization of the President’s pragmatic stance towards China is the inability of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to come up with a stronger regional position on the issue of the contested waters of the West Philippine Sea. While Vietnam and Indonesia appear to approach the issue in more confrontational terms, these are emanating mainly from the fact that the military firepower of these countries are more capable compared to the Philippines. There is no argument that the capacity of the Philippines to defend its marine waters and secure its territorial claims in the contested area, is woefully inadequate. The humiliating spectacle of unchallenged Chinese boats swarming around Pag-asa Island that is part of sovereign Philippine territory, which tacitly could be seen as acts of aggression, while Indonesia and Vietnam are able to ward off Chinese incursions using firepower from their Navy and Coast Guard, is a painful reminder of that reality.
Without the military capability, and seemingly orphaned, or at least having the perception of being so, by the US and the Asean, President Duterte’s policy of pragmatic appeasement appears to be not only wise, but is the only choice. The President himself has repeatedly pointed out that he wants to avoid a war with China that the Philippines will almost certainly lose. Engaging China in a bilateral and friendly manner will not only stabilize the region, but also bring in billions of loans that are badly needed for the President’s ambitious infrastructure program.
Unfortunately, this policy of appeasement appears not to be popular with Filipinos. A survey on the issue taken in September 2018 yielded that 84 percent of Filipinos thought that it was not right for the President to leave China alone in its aggressive activities in the West Philippine Sea. 86 percent felt that the Philippines should strengthen its military capability, while 71 percent urged the government to bring the issue to international organizations for resolution.
It is not clear if China and the West Philippine Sea are crucial issues for the upcoming midterm elections on May 13, but it seems that the President has taken notice of public opinion. This adverse view of China is further fueled by the increasing number of Chinese workers, some of whom are unregistered illegals. Also widely publicized are the onerous provisions that were embedded in the loan agreements signed with China, which include a waiver of immunity over the patrimonial resources of the country.
The President has since ordered a reexamination of these alleged onerous terms. Recently, he was also quoted as telling China to leave Pag-asa lest he sends our military for suicide missions there. Secretary of Foreign Affairs Teddy Boy Locsin has also been issuing a barrage of critical statements regarding China. Coincidentally, the US, through its Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has recently assured the Philippines that the US will come to its defense in the event of a war with China.
If there is one thing that can be said about the current state of policy discourse about China by the Duterte government, it could be one of confusion, if not uncertainty. In his recent visit to China, the President secured 19 agreements with Chinese companies worth P634 trillion expected to generate employment for 21,000 Filipinos. It is, however, uncertain if this can influence the popular view about China among people who, while supportive of the President, remain suspicious towards China, particularly now that the political opposition appears to have seized the opportunity to use the issue against Duterte. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana has reiterated the country’s position that the 275 Chinese vessels swarming around Pag-asa must leave.
https://www.manilatimes.net/from-creative-destruction-to-pragmatism-to-confusion-to-uncertainty/549316/
https://www.manilatimes.net/from-creative-destruction-to-pragmatism-to-confusion-to-uncertainty/549316/
No comments:
Post a Comment