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
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.