Philippine Foreign Policy Research Articles

The Philippines Confronts a Post‐American World: Geopolitical‐Domestic‐Institutional Intersections

In ASEAN, no state's development has been as deeply affected by the United States and its policies as the Philippines, where colonial legacies have left lasting marks on its political institutions and security orientation. Today, uncertainties about the future role of the United States underscore questions about adopting any strategy that overly or exclusively relies on the United States. Moreover, new President Rodrigo Duterte has created uncertainties of his own by reversing the very U.S.‐oriented strategy pursued by his predecessor, Aquino. This confluence suggests impending shifts in the national security orientation of each country and a potential turning point in U.S.‐Philippine relations. As this Special Issue of APP makes clear, however, for a variety of material, geopolitical, institutional, and domestic reasons, the U.S. alliance is likely to remain an important Philippine foreign policy priority, but changing strategic trends also compel ongoing recalibrations.

The Duterte Administration’s appeasement policy on China and the crisis in the Philippine–US alliance

This article examines the shifts in Philippine foreign policy under the Duterte Administration, and how these changes impact 21st century Philippine–US alliance. Unlike the Aquino Administration that challenged China’s expansionism in the South China Sea, the Duterte Administration keeps silent on this maritime dispute in exchange for Chinese trade concessions, aid, and investments. President Duterte fosters closer economic and diplomatic relations with China and distances the Philippines from the US Specifically, he seeks China’s assistance for the building of drug-rehabilitation centers for Filipino drug dependents, soft loans for the construction of railways in Mindanao, and even the acquisition of Chinese-made weapons for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). In consideration of this largess, President Duterte has degraded the country’s strategic security ties with the US by terminating the joint Philippine–US naval patrols in the South China Sea, and limiting the scope and number of US military interactions with the AFP. These moves, which are a dramatic departure from the Philippines’ long-standing policy of maintaining close security ties with the US, have strained the Philippine–US alliance. This article addresses this central question: How do the foreign policy changes under the Duterte Administration adversely impact the Philippine–US alliance? It also raises the following questions: (1) What are the foreign policy goals of the Duterte Administration? (2) How does the Duterte Administration pursue these goals? (3) In what ways does the pursuit of these goals affect Philippine–US alliance? (4) What is the future of Philippine–US alliance in the light of the Duterte Administration’s shifting foreign policy goals?

Tragedy of Small Power Politics: Duterte and the Shifting Sands of Philippine Foreign Policy

ABSTRACTDomestic politics has played an important role in in the dramatic shifts in Philippine policy toward the United States and China, particularly as the South China Sea disputes have intensified. The Arroyo administration attempted to reduce dependency on the United States by engaging China and adopting an equibalancing policy while the subsequent Aquino administration abandoned equibalancing in favor of aligning with the United States against an increasingly assertive China. Today, President Duterte has expressed an intent to separate from the United States and move closer to China in pursuit of a more “independent” foreign policy. Duterte’s rapid consolidation of political power has strengthened his ability to chart the course of Philippine foreign policy, but domestic opposition and potential threats from China could undermine or reverse his course.

KEMPEN DAN PROPAGANDA AKHBAR TEMPATAN FILIPINA TERHADAP ISU TUNTUTAN KE ATAS BORNEO UTARA, 1961-1963

On 30 December 1961, the governments of Britain, North Borneo and the Federation of Malaya were shocked by the provocative article published by the Philippine Free Press. The article entitled "North Borneo is Ours" written by Napoleon G. Rama, a prominent journalist in the Philippines, created tension and dissatisfaction among the leaders of Malaya, North Borneo and the British Government. Leaders and media practitioners in Malaya condemned the Philippine media as not being professional and believed such actions was a ploy to delay the creation of Malaysia which was announced by Tunku Abdul Rahman on 27 May 1961. Other Philippine’s newspapers such as Manila Times, Philippine Herald, Manila Chronicle, Daily Mirror, The Evening News and the Manila Daily Bulletin also published provocative articles on the North Borneo claim. The propaganda by the Philippine’s newspapers pertaining to the North Borneo issue succeeded in influencing the decision of Republic of the Philippines to take an effective step by sending an aide-memoire to the British in order to challenge British sovereignty over North Borneo. This article examines selected Philippine newspapers to show how their rigorous campaign and propaganda on the North Borneo issue shaped Philippine foreign policy on the dispute.

Bilateral cultural diplomacy: 50 years of Philippine experience (1959-2009)

This article focuses its inquiry on bilateral cultural diplomacy by examining the bilateral cultural agreements of the Philippines. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, the examination reveals how culture became a domestic consideration in the formulation of Philippine foreign policy as well as a resource for achieving foreign policy objectives. Additionally, this article underscores the need for developing an assessment mechanism to measure the impact of bilateral cultural diplomacy.

Migration Revolution: Philippine Nationhood and Class Relations in a Globalized Age

Since the 1960s, overseas migration has become a major factor in the economy of the Philippines. It has also profoundly influenced the sense of nationhood of both migrants and nonmigrants. Migrant workers learned to view their home country as part of a plural world of nations, and they shaped a new sort of Filipino identity while appropriating the modernity of the outside world, where at least for a while they operated as insiders. The global nomadism of Filipino workers brought about some fundamental reorientations. It revolutionized Philippine society, reignited a sense of nationhood, imposed new demands on the state, reconfigured the class structure, and transnationalized class and other social relations, even as it deterritorialized the state and impacted the destinations of migrant workers. Philippine foreign policy now takes surprising turns in consideration of migrant workers and Filipinos living abroad. Many tertiary education institutions aim deliberately at the overseas employability of local graduates. And the Fil-foreign offspring of unions with partners from other nationalities add a new inflection to Filipino Identity.

The challenges facing the global south: perspectives from the Philippines

International Relations scholarship highlights the differences of the countries in the global south. The postcolonial histories of countries herein give rise to unique experiences that push them to consolidate their states at the soonest time possible even as they are inextricably integrated in an international system that is biased towards the great powers. This double pressure either makes or break a state, and it is this tension that is the focus of the special issue. This concluding article offers a bird’s-eye view of the nuances of the differences of the global south and the problems associated with it. I argue that while the differences may indeed be unique, not seeing beyond those is problematic. In line with this, I first acknowledge the differences the global south represents. I look at how the International Relations concepts of state, rational choice, and the international system are seen as inapplicable to the workings of the global south, and how this “misfit” is detected not only in the dynamics of Philippine foreign policy, but also in its relationships with various regional powers like the United States and China. I then turn to the problems associated with seeingonlythe differences of the global south. I highlight the concepts of mimicry and hybridity before examining the cases of the Philippines’ labor conditions, human security for migrant workers, and disability-related issues. In all these, caution, mindfulness, and the need for dialogue are therefore called for.

The Malaysian Plot: Marcos, Sabah, and the Origins of Moro Secessionism

The Lahad Datu incident makes a re-examination of Philippine claim to Sabah compelling. During the twenty-year Marcosian rule, the Sabah claim somewhat defined Philippine foreign policy in its relation to Malaysia and to ASEAN. It was made complicated by the formation of a Moro rebellion. What is the role of Malaysia in the secessionist movement in the south? This article examines this in light of “old” and “new” sources, as it tries to explore a possible conspiracy between Malaysian leaders, the Liberal Party, and some Moro leaders behind the rebellion in Mindanao and Sulu, and its connection to Sabah.

The security predicament of a new state: Philippine policy toward Japan, 1946–1956

The article examines postwar Philippine-Japan relations by using Mohammed Ayoob's theory of subaltern realism. Subaltern realism posits that Third World state behavior is largely influenced in its security predicament by the twin pressures of late state-making and late entry into the system of states. Applying this paradigm to the postwar Philippine situation explains why the Philippines behaved as it did in the postwar international system. This article offers a new approach to the study of postwar Philippine-Japan relations by focusing on security and state-building factors, systemic as well as unit variables, as the primary determinants of Philippine foreign and domestic policy.

Balancing Gambits in 21st Century Philippine Foreign Policy: Gains and Possible Demise?

Balancing Gambits in 21st Century Philippine Foreign Policy: Gains and Possible Demise?

Weakness and Gambits in Philippine Foreign Policy in the Twenty-first Century

In November 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo made an ambitious foreign policy pronouncement entitled Eight Realities of Philippine Foreign Policy.1 The policy statement highlights the government's objectives to contain domestic and international terrorism and address the country's underdevelopment by enhancing its economic competitiveness in the global market. It also contains bold diplomatic gambits such as balancing the major powers (United States, Japan and China) in East Asia against each other to ensure national security. Specifically, it intends to strengthen the US-Philippine alliance, and to enlist Washington's support for the country's internal security agenda. It also expresses reliance on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other multilateral organizations to advance the Philippines' security and economic goals. Significantly, it conveys the need to protect the interests and well being of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), and actively utilize the Philippine foreign affairs department and diplomatic corps to explore new export markets abroad and to attract foreign tourists and investments to the country. These diplomatic gambits required material resources and military capabilities, and also entailed the cooperation of the Philippines with other states at the bilateral, regional and global levels. However, the Philippine state's internal weakness has thwarted the country's pursuit of its strategic objectives. The policy goals have unleashed latent tensions and conflicts in the conduct of Philippine foreign relations. These include the government's reinvigorated military/security ties with the US, amidst the vocal and chronic anti-American sentiments in Philippine society; the country's desire to play an active role in regional and global security versus the political exigency to resolve its internal conflicts; and finally, the regime's need to project the state's politico-diplomatic clout in global forums and regional developments vis-a-vis its limited economic and military capabilities.

The Philippine foreign policy of the Ramos administration: The quest for security of a weak state

(1999). The Philippine foreign policy of the Ramos administration: The quest for security of a weak state. Asian Journal of Political Science: Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 108-134.

Philippine Foreign Policy Toward the U.S., 1972–1980: Reorientation? By Virginia S. Capulong-Hallenberg. Stockholm Studies in Politics 33. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, Department of Political Science, 1987. xii, 291 pp. $20.00 (paper).

Philippine Foreign Policy Toward the U.S., 1972–1980: Reorientation? By Virginia S. Capulong-Hallenberg. Stockholm Studies in Politics 33. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, Department of Political Science, 1987. xii, 291 pp. $20.00 (paper). - Volume 49 Issue 1

Philippine Perceptions of Crucial Issues Affecting Southeast Asia

Research Article| June 01 1982 Philippine Perceptions of Crucial Issues Affecting Southeast Asia Estrella D. Solidum Estrella D. Solidum Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Asian Survey (1982) 22 (6): 536–547. https://doi.org/10.2307/2643685 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Estrella D. Solidum; Philippine Perceptions of Crucial Issues Affecting Southeast Asia. Asian Survey 1 June 1982; 22 (6): 536–547. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2643685 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAsian Survey Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1982 The Regents of the University of California Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Regional Autonomous Government and the Philippine Foreign Policy

Regional Autonomous Government and the Philippine Foreign Policy

Panel on Philippine Foreign Policy

Panel on Philippine Foreign Policy

Philippine Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect

Philippine Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect

Moscow and Peking in Post-Indochina Southeast Asia

T HE FINAL failure of United States policy in Indochina, and the 1975 Communist victories in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, have altered the configuration of international politics in Southeast Asia. America's role and credibility in the area are greatly diminished, and Washington is once again faced with the need to reformulate its goals for the region. Meanwhile, the regional states are intensifying their search for a foreign policy posture that will insure their security in this transitional stage in Southeast Asian and world politics. To be sure, the situation is not wholly new. Many of these trends in US policy and in the behavior of the regional states have been clearly discernible for a number of years.' Washington's role and prestige have been declining for some time, as the war in Indochina dragged on; and the search for a post-Indochina Southeast Asian policy has been going on at least since the initial formulation of the Nixon Doctrine in 1969. The regional states have been attempting for several years to adjust to the changing environment of world politics-in particular, the changing relations among the major powers, and the resulting impact on Southeast Asia. This has been true especially since 1969 and, in the case of the Philippines, since at least January 1967, when President Marcos called for a more flexible Philippine foreign policy in the face of the inevitable reduction of the American commitment to Asia.2 An important aspect of Southeast Asian politics, which clearly

American neo-colonialism in the Philippines

This is one of those rare books that are small in size but heavy in substance and should be read and studied widely. It presents a well-documented indictment of American neocolonialist imperialism in the Philippines since its independence in 1946. Several earlier works have described in detail the classical form of American imperialism in the Philippines through military conquest and direct colonial rule and have helped suggest a close parallel between the conduct of the Philippine-American war and the American-Vietnamese war. However, America's continuing, pervasive domination of Philippine national life since 1946 has not been well appreciated except by a few perceptive and persistent observers of the Philippine scene. The neocolonial status of the Philippines in relation to the United States has generally remained concealed behind the facade of Philippine “independence” and “sovereignty.” Filipino presidents and other members of the Philippine establishment have helped hide the truth by proclaiming pro-Americanism as the cornerstone of their policy. President Manuel Roxas in 1946 not only vindicated American rule over the Philippines by expressing gratitude for Dewey's victory over the Spanish forces in 1898, but also affirmed close alignment with the United States in foreign affairs. This has meant that not only did the Philippines refuse to affirm Afro-Asian solidarity but, worse, it often took a simulated “initiative” in putting forth proposals designed to subserve American cold war interests. One example was the proposed Pacific Pact of 1950, calculated to stem Chinese communist “expansion.” Close alignment with the United States discredited the Philippines as odd-man-out in Asia. In the Philippines itself, the perpetuation of American dominance had tragic effects for the Filipino people and the Philippine nation-state. Foreign observers, especially from non-aligned countries, were puzzled and angered by the pro-Americanism of Philippine foreign policy. Filipinos themselves vented their frustration and fury in an intellectual, nationalist outburst against the lingering “colonial mentality.”

Main Patterns of Philippine Foreign Policy

Philippineforeign policy is important to the United States for several reasons. The epigram describing the Filipinos as the most occidental of the Orientals and the most oriental of the Occidentals, emphasizes the Philippines as potentially one of the world's most important cultural bridges between these two worlds. It combines some of the best features of both areas and offers the possibility of giving each world an insight into the other. From the American standpoint the Philippines is often thought of as a show window in the Orient, and this country has a stake not only in the success of Philippine democracy, but also the Philippines provides some testimony to the fairness of American colonial policy.