Follow us on social

2022-05-10t181556z_1335347142_rc20rt90g0z3_rtrmadp_3_philippines-election-marcos-diplomacy-scaled

Will US continue the weapons gravy train with Marcos legacy in Philippines ?

Washington thinks it gains a partner against China, but the new president has pledged to carry on the cruel rule of Duterte. Is it worth it?

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

In a landmark election on Monday, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., known by his boyhood nickname of “Bongbong,” was elected to a six-year term as president of the Philippines. 

No doubt the  retirement of current President Rodrigo Duterte, who has often caused a headache for the White House, will be met with some relief in Washington. However, there is little reason to believe that Duterte’s successor will be the democratic bulwark President Biden wants in the Philippines. Washington's policy towards the Philippines was counterproductive under Duterte and will likely remain counterproductive under Bongbong Marcos unless Biden shifts gears.

Marcos’s surname may be a familiar one; his father, Ferdinand Marcos, was the notorious former dictator of the Philippines best known for his brutal regime that tortured at least 34,000 people and committed at least 3,200 extrajudicial killings, all the while earning a Guinness World Record for “greatest robbery of a government” for embezzling up to $10 billion from the Philippines. When he was eventually overthrown in a popular uprising, he was given refuge in Hawaii. 

When Duterte was elected in 2016, many drew comparisons between him and Marcos Sr. Duterte’s signature policy, the war on drugs, bears some resemblance to martial law under Marcos Sr., killing up to 30,000, with the government’s own data estimating over 6,190 people killed in police operations between 2016 and 2021. Duterte's scorched-earth counter-insurgency campaign on the island of Mindanao has also resulted in the internal displacement of nearly half a million people.

Even though Duterte did not formally endorse any candidate, he helped pave the path for Bongbong Marcos’ rise. Marcos was endorsed by Duterte’s PDP-Laban party and even sought Duterte as his running mate before naming his daughter, Sarah Duterte Carpio, instead. Bongbong Marcos has vowed to continue Duterte’s war on drugs — albeit with a greater focus on prevention — and to shield Duterte from potential prosecution by the International Criminal Court. 

Marcos’ support for continuity is particularly relevant because even as the United States has criticized the violence in the Philippines, Uncle Sam has bankrolled it. Often in the name of counterterrorism, Washington has awarded the Philippine government with $440 million in security aid, which merely serves to fuel the instability. Security aid for the Philippines has become so normalized that in 2018, the State Department admitted it had lost track of transactions for 76 of 77 arms arms sales made under bilateral agreements with Manilla. 

This is on top of major arms sales; shipments to the Philippines have increased every year since 2018, and the United States is the only country to have exported arms to the Philippines every year since Duterte entered office. The crème de la crème came in June of 2021, when the State Department approved three major arms sales of fighter jets, anti-ship missiles, and tactical missiles for contracts worth around $2.5 billion in total, over half of the Philippine military budget for 2022. 

The reason for showering the Philippine government with shiny new guns and fighter jets is clear: China. The prevailing view in Washington is that the Philippines is key to countering China in the Indo-Pacific. In dealing with Duterte, the Biden administration adopted a policy of strategic patience, approving arms sales to the Philippine government  hoping that it will adopt a more aggressive posture towards China.

Rather than attempting to sweeten the pot for the new Philippine government to adopt an anti-China stance with shiny new toys, Biden should use the election of Marcos as an opportunity to revisit this misguided military-first policy towards Manila. This approach risks escalating confrontation with China, and merely emboldens would-be autocrats. Or, in this case, the son of an autocrat. 

By implicitly supporting the Philippine war on drugs, Washington is telling dictators around the world that as long as you buy American — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman — we will look the other way. Doing so also hinders other foreign policy initiatives like Biden’s Summit for Democracy by opening the door to charges of hypocrisy when eyebrows are raised at the Philippines’ inclusion

Bongbong Marcos is not a change candidate; he is molded by the experiences of Duterte and his father. Though we won’t get a glimpse of a Marcos presidency until he takes office on June 30, President Biden shouldn’t hold his breath too long in expecting sweeping changes. Instead, the administration should rethink its arms sales to the Philippines. A misguided China policy isn’t worth supporting a brutal government that acts contrary to U.S. interests by fueling internal instability. 

But if Biden doesn’t act, Congress can still assert its role. One existing statute that could be invoked is the Leahy Law — named after Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — which stipulates that the United States cannot send aid dollars to police or military units suspected of “gross violations of human rights.” Another proposal, the Philippine Human Rights Act, would suspend security assistance to the Philippine military and police.

In a country where the United States already has a deplorable 20th-century legacy, Washington should look to fix its 21st century policy. Marcos Sr. received a hefty amount of U.S. military support; Marcos Jr. should not.


FILE PHOTO: Philippine presidential candidate Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., son of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, delivers a speech during a campaign rally in Lipa, Batangas province, Philippines, April 20, 2022/.Eloisa Lopez//File Photo
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Nato Summit Trump
Top photo credit: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Donald Trump, at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague (NATO/Flickr)

Did Trump just dump the Ukraine War into the Europeans' lap?

Europe

The aerial war between Israel and Iran over the past two weeks sucked most of the world’s attention away from the war in Ukraine.

The Hague NATO Summit confirms that President Donald Trump now sees paying for the war as Europe’s problem. It’s less clear that he will have the patience to keep pushing for peace.

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.