Duterte: Independent Foreign Policy, NOT, Interdependent Policy

[Idol ko si Abdul]

Duterte: Independent Foreign Policy, NOT, Interdependent Foreign Policy

A lot of Filipinos are confused about the pronouncement of President Duterte regarding Foreign Policy. Was it really an independent foreign policy or an interdependent foreign policy? If we are to ask the senior advisers of the President like Mr. Ramos, they will certainly say that it is all about interdependent policy. However, if you're keen enough to lend your ears to the speeches of the President, you will certainly know that he's talking about 'INDEPENDENT' Foreign Policy. This apparently does not only create chaos and misinformation, but, will ultimately lead to a more complex interpretations.


What is the basis of 'Independent Foreign Policy'?

The solid reference that we can get is found in Section 7, Article II of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines which states, "The State shall pursue an Independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination." Unfortunately, this law is generic in its sense and it's not clearly defined by virtue of a Congressional act. In short, there has been no specific law being passed yet, that clearly defines its meaning, purpose and intent, nor it delineates its scope and limitations.


'Independent' vs. 'Interdependent'

'An "independent foreign policy" means we're not subject to any outside pressure and interference. It means we strike a balance among our (foreign) relations', according to DFA Spokesperson Charles Jose (1). And from the words of our President, he said, his administration will pursue an “independent foreign policy” and will reject any attempts at meddling by foreign governments (2).

However, in the words of Maria Consuelo Ortuoste, in her blog dated March 23, 2012, she stated that the interpretation of “independent” remains contended, 'Some would say that the Philippines remains so tied to the whims of Washington that this has diminished the quality of our diplomacy and compromised our national interest and our people’s welfare. Others would argue that we do have an independent foreign policy as we, Filipinos, decide on specific policies and projects: for example we invited US forces to advise and observe counter-terrorist actions'(3). Or perhaps, the term 'independent' could also possibly mean, a total cut-off of foreign policy from the rest of the world as to be completely independent. Hence, there is a controversy behind its terminology.

Much so with the word 'interdependent', the above author asserted, 'there is no foreign policy in the world that is completely independent: whether we like it or not, the world is so interconnected in multitudes of ways that to say that we can live without the support of others is folly. We need to trade with others, need to implement international agreements in good faith, and we need to work with others to solve transnational problems such as environmental degradation and human trafficking. In short, reciprocity has always been a key factor in foreign policy: if we want to reap the benefits of an interconnected world, we need to make compromises just like any other country.' This is where interdependence or 'interdependent' comes in.

So, when we wrap-up things above, the following questions are asked, what should be the definite and proper definition of independent foreign policy? When we mean 'independent', do we really have to zero-in our relationship with our long-time allies like the US and we should no longer rely on their support? Who has the power to decide over which country do we have to be partnering with? Is it the Executive Department or is it the Congress through its Act?


The following are expected advantages when we have a rightly defined 'Independent Foreign Policy'

The following are taken from the PDF book of Wilfrido Villacorta, to wit:

1. The so-called captive mind of the Filipinos will be liberated and we shall recover our confidence in our own capabilities.
The sociological benefits of free interaction with other countries will influence all aspects of social and political life.

2. Filipino entrepreneurs and our national economic planners will rely more on our own resources, instead of continually
depending on outside assistance. The government will have to resort to creative means to generate capital and economic
opportunities.

3. The Philippine Armed Forces will be compelled to improve its facilities, training programs and its other capacities.

4. The Philippines will earn the respect and friendship of more countries and will profit from cooperative ventures with these countries.

5. The polarization of the people as a result of maneuverings from the dominant foreign power will be drastically reduced.

6. Philippine society and politics will be less vulnerable to pressures and interference from foreign powers, because the government will have more bargaining leverage.

7. The resources and capabilities of the nation will be more effectively harnessed for the common good, because they will no longer be exploited to serve the interests of foreign powers.


Footnotes:

(1) http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016...fairs-independent-foreign-policy-balance.html
(2) http://globalnation.inquirer.net/144563/duterte-govt-to-pursue-independent-foreign-policy
(3) http://philippinesintheworld.org/?q=node/837

 

[xDigoyx]

Ma independent o interdependent man yan, di na ako makikisawsaw kasi ala naman ako porsyento diyan. Yong lang naman ang mga businessman ang makikinabang na malaki diyan, pati mga pulitiko. Kaming mga mahihirap ay barya lang ang makukuha, dugo at pawis pa ang puhunan bago makakain.