Unceasing Subservience: A commentary on the professorial lecture of DFA Secretary Albert

del Rosario entitled “An Independent and Principled Philippine Foreign Policy”

The Philippines is not yet freed from the shackles of a long-standing submission with its colonial
and imperialist oppressor.

Such is the lesson that could be gleaned from the professorial lecture given by Department of
Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario on December 3, which is entitled “An Independent and
Principled Philippine Foreign Policy”. Yet, what could be seen as the core of del Rosario’s speech is
the determination of the three pillars of Philippine foreign policy which are promoting national
security, promoting economic diplomacy, and protecting Filipino nationals overseas. This
commentary will specifically delve into deconstructing the primary principle of Philippine foreign
policy which is to ensure national security and will utilize the case of US-PH relations in an attempt
to provide a counter-argument to debunk the said pillar.

In his lecture, Secretary del Rosario stated that the realization of the first pillar of Philippine foreign
policy, which is promoting national security, is through helping “create and sustain a strong and safe
regional neighborhood under the rule of law.” Concretizing this directive is by establishing bilateral
and multilateral security agreements with various countries. Secretary del Rosario enumerated that
South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Spain, and France have allied with the Philippines to
ensure and safeguard the security in the country and in the region.

The first pillar of Philippine foreign policy, which concerns ensuring national security, could be
linked to the strategy of the Philippine government to foster development, as stipulated in its
primary development plan of action called Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016. The said
blueprint for development is derived on Aquino’s 16 point “Social Contract with the Filipino
People” and is seeks “inclusive growth for the country” (gov.ph, 2011). The PDP was formulated
with the National Economic Development Authority. Independent think tank IBON Foundations
slammed the PDP as a furtherance of implementing globalization policies, stating that it will
“deepen and broaden privatization through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), and selectively
implement social protection programs especially conditional cash transfers (CCTs)” (IBON
Foundation, 2011).

The specific chapter in the PDP which pertains to the first Philippine foreign policy pillar could be
found on Chapter 9 of the PDP, which lays the nitty-gritty of its Peace and Security agenda.
According to the PDP, peace and security is linked to the achievement of national development and
as such, the state is said to remedy internal and external exigencies which might impede the
actualization of national development. Specifically, the PDP determined that the peace and security
situation in Southern Philippines and transnational crimes are the main points of concern for
internal and external security, respectively (PDP, 2011). Moreover, it has determined that its primary
strategy to address the various peace and security issues that hound the country is “to improve
relations and forge cooperation with other nations to preserve and protect national security and
interest, including the welfare of Filipinos living and working abroad” (PDP, 2011).
Yet, it could be seen from the PDP that the state’s primary concern on foreign policy is for
economic gain, and not on advancing the interests and welfare of the Filipino people. It loosely links
sound economic policy, complemented with relations to other states, to national development where
in fact, development as an issue is multi-layered. A simple causation such as the aforementioned
reasoning of the state would not suffice.

The peace and security situation in the Philippines is in a constant flux as new threats to national
sovereignty surface. And such is the justification of the state to establish security relations with other
countries. Yet, in establishing these agreements with these countries, it has engendered a situation
where these countries could freely trample on and meddle with the sovereignty of the Philippines.
To illustrate, one should dwell into the relationship of the Philippines and United States, which is an
alliance reeking of unceasing inequality and unabated oppression. This assertion could be fully seen
on the recent negotiations between the Philippine government and the United States government
with regard to granting greater military access to the latter. (Quismondo, 2013). According to
Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Cuisia Jr., granting greater access to the US military is said to
“pave way for more joint military training and greater American military assistance to the
Philippines” But the US does not need further access to military bases because in essence, the whole
Philippines is a military base for the world power. The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) of 1999
enabled the US military to annually step on Philippine shores and conduct various military exercises.
According to Thayer (2013), under the VFA, the US military currently deploys 500 and 600 troops
in the southern Philippines, and participates on three annual joint military exercises:
the Balikatan series, Cooperation Afloat and Readiness and Training (CARAT), and the Amphibious
Landing Exercise (Phiblex). This fact by Thayer only highlights the continued subjugation and
desecration of the sovereignty of the country by the United States and by granting them greater
access to our military bases aggravates the existing unequal power relations between the two parties.
Moreover, the blurring of state lines by this agreement is a blatant violation of the 1987 constitution
which bars the existence of foreign military bases in the country.

In summary, there is no independent and principled foreign policy that exists in the country. To add
insult to injury, the Philippines remains to be a slave to its colonial master, abiding to its every whim.
We are an independent state in paper but a neo-colony in principle. The US, through the VFA and
the impending greater military access agreement, continues to trample on the sovereignty of the
country and what is injurious to the people is that the government, which should have countered the
implementation of these agreements, has abided willingly. With this realization, it should be
imperative for the people to demand for a foreign policy agenda that sides with the interests of the
majority and reflects the protection of the country’s national sovereignty.
Bibliography

IBON Foundation. (2011). Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016: A Social Contract With Whom?.
Retrieved from: http://www.ibon.org/ibon_articles.php?id=153.

NEDA Releases Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. (2011). Official Gazette of the Republic of the
Philippines. Retrieved from: http://www.gov.ph/2011/05/30/neda-releases-philippine-
development-plan-2011-2016/.

Peace and Security. (2011). Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.neda.gov.ph/PDP/2011-2016/CHAPTER%209.pdf.

Quismondo, T. (2013). PH to get more training, aid from US with ‘greater access’ plan—envoy. Philippine
Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/80015/ph-to-get-more-
training-aid-from-us-with-greater-access-plan-envoy.

Thayer, C. (2013). US-Philippines Struggle to Reach Troop Basing Deal. The Diplomat. Retrieved from:
http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/us-philippines-struggle-to-reach-troop-basing-deal/.