Contemporary American foreign policy is primarily aimed at countering Islamic terrorism and checking the power of China and Russia. Historically, it had been aimed at checking the influence of the Soviet Union. In order for the United States to be successful both then and now, it is essential to foster alliances with peripheral nations throughout the world such as the Philippines, whose proximity to China and the former Soviet Union made it an attractive American ally. Yet, this long-standing alliance has recently been called into question by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has told President Barack Obama to “go to hell” and has seemingly undermined various aspects of Filipino democracy. It might be easy for Washington to shrug off such rhetoric, yet it would not be surprising for other U.S. allies to act similarly in the coming future.
Clearly, Duterte’s conventional anti-American rhetoric has resonated with his many of his citizens as he enjoys a historic 91 percent approval rating. Time Magazine notes that both fans and foes alike perceive Duterte as a “decisive and effective” leader. While such characteristics are certainly desirable for any head of state, they might be particularly desirable for a country such as the Philippines. The Philippines, like other peripheral U.S. allies, has been the recipient of enormous military and economic aid. While this strategy has helped advance American foreign policy interests, it has also understandably made some Filipinos feel as though their government has sold itself out to the U.S.; this is exemplified by Filipino protests aimed at removing American military bases from the country. Thus, a “decisive and effective” leader such as Duterte might appear to be the man who can restore Filipino sovereignty.
Although Duterte’s rhetoric is alarming and a clear break from tradition, perhaps he is merely the first leader to vocalize sentiments Filipinos have long felt. For instance, Filipinos protested an American base at Subic Bay in the 1990s, and two American servicemen were actually killed on the street with the intention of intimidating the U.S. His personal distrust also stems from events that transpired during his reign as the Mayor of Davao as well as his own personal attachment to the Muslim community of the Philippines, who American soldiers allegedly massacred in the early 20th century. Thus, Filipino anti-Americanism is not something Duterte has simply fabricated, but rather something that he has taken the chance to illuminate to the world.
With more than 800 American military bases in 70 countries around the world, it is not surprising that other key U.S. allies, such as Egypt and Pakistan, hold similar sentiments as Duterte. In fact, he might be setting a precedent for the leaders of other American allies, encouraging them to speak out against what they might see as U.S. overextension. While the U.S. benefits greatly from alliances with peripheral countries, it also sees itself as a protector that can ensure the security of their allies if their sovereignty is jeopardized. This logic explains why the U.S. has extended its alliance with Vietnam to protect it from an increasingly aggressive China.
Yet, what if this underlying logic is flawed? While the United States might earnestly believe that its alliance with the Philippines is of mutual benefit, Filipinos might perceive the alliance as merely benefitting American global imperialism. After all, the Philippines was an American colony at the beginning of the 20th century. Given this national consciousness, it is understandable that Filipinos might perceive American foreign policy with a degree of suspicion that U.S. foreign policymakers do not account for. Likewise, since the United States has at times had unstable relationships with many of its “allies”around the world, perhaps most notably Saudi Arabia, Duterte might be commencing a trend that should startle the American foreign policy community.
Although the White House spokesman Josh Earnest has characterized the Filipino-American alliance as “robust” and “benefitting both countries,” Duterte’s charged rhetoric calls that claim into question. The Filipino president’s willingness to defy diplomatic tradition has allowed him to vocalize his country's antipathy toward the United States in a way his predecessors had not. It might be easy for American policymakers to shrug off his rhetoric as a publicity stunt. Yet, they should understand why Duterte is acting the way he is, and they should be concerned other historical U.S. allies might act in a similar manner.
Jesse Berman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.berman@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
