“Our foreign policy operates amid ongoing great power rivalry in the region, territorial and maritime disputes with neighboring countries, especially China, and our Mutual Defense Treaty with the US signed back in the 1950s”
We’ve tackled in this space some of the recommendations on various aspects of governance made by a Task Force on a Blueprint for Building the Nation organized by the University of the Philippines Diliman last year.
Now that the Marcos Jr. administration has declared it will pursue an independent foreign policy as provided by the 1987 Constitution and adopt a “friends to all, enemy to none” approach in dealing with the international community, how does the academic community see our current foreign relations?
Right off the bat, the Task Force asserts “the Philippines has failed to establish stable and consistent foreign relations with long-term national goals.”
That observation is based on its belief the country’s foreign relations are “mainly reactive to developments influenced by its strategic environment” particularly its ties with the big powers in the region —US and China—as well as with the multilateral and regional arrangements of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Our foreign policy operates amid ongoing great power rivalry in the region, territorial and maritime disputes with neighboring countries, especially China, and our Mutual Defense Treaty with the US signed back in the 1950s.
“More than at any other time, the Philippines needs to clearly define its strategic interests” so it can “navigate this period of shifting power balance.”
The academics believe China remains the country’s “greatest foreign policy challenge since it presents major opportunities for economic development, but at the same time remains a potential threat to national and territorial integrity.”
Another basic flaw of our existing relations with the rest of the world is the absence of continuity as it is largely influenced by the Chief Executive’s role as the main architect of foreign policy.
Leaving foreign policy purely in the hands of the President, the Task Force is saying, has “led to contradicting narratives and different construction of identities resulting in fragmentation and self-contradiction in the pursuit of national interests.”
This, it said, is “further exacerbated by the absence of a clear, consistent, pro-active, non-partisan geopolitical strategy.
If “foreign policy is shaped only by the leader’s own perceptions, core values, state-society relations, domestic institutions and resources, culture, and political climate”, then the “public is relegated to the backseat” and unable to take an active part in discourse on foreign affairs.
The UP Task Force also sees the government’s “over-reliance” on remittances from overseas Filipinos workers to ensure economic stability as a “key vulnerability due to its perceived influence on domestic political stability.”
With COVID-19 restrictions in place since March 2020 that disrupted OFW deployment, having an economy that relies in large measure on OFW remittances to keep the domestic economy on even keel cannot be sustained.
Instead, the study suggests, the country must “strengthen agriculture and build its domestic industries in order to ensure economic resilience in the face of disruptions caused by regional and global crises.”
So what is to be done?
One, the Task Force suggests the Philippines must come up with “a concrete plan of action guided by its strategic interests of safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
To better navigate the changing regional and global power structure, the Philippines must have a clear vision of its role and place in the global community.”
Two, Philippine foreign policymakers and influencers need to be guided by clear principles and long-range vision that go beyond the terms of administrations, or of appointed leaders in the Executive branch.
The Task Force suggests a review of the functions and mandates of the National Security Council as the lead agency in national security governance.
The Council could provide long-term direction, cohesion, and institutionalization of national security policies and ensure a more objective approach to national security over the long-term.
Three, Philippine foreign policy should sustain strong and secure regional alliances to manage the new realities in the West Philippine Sea by using diplomacy to shape the environment to the country’s best advantage.
The WPS is an arena of serious geostrategic competition between regional and external powers, and the Philippines must take an active role in influencing and shaping the outcome of that competition.
Four, the government must shift its perspective on the WPS.
It is more than an arena for confrontation between major powers.
The WPS is a wellspring of natural resources and nexus of ecological services that is key to the development of the country’s largely untapped Blue Economy.
Research on the WPS should be funded, and exploration, exploitation, and management activities should be promoted and maintained, the Task Force said.
And, finally, the government should strive to increase the public’s understanding of and participation in international issues.
The establishment of multiple platforms where the public can engage in foreign policy discussions that highlight the nation’s interests, articulate national policies and strategies, organize constituencies for the pursuit of these interests, policies and strategies, will lay the ground for stable and long-lasting principles for the country’s independent foreign policy.
(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)