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
Alexander Vindman's new book is a folly: of history, and the truth
Top photo credit: Alexander Vindman (Philip Yabut/Shutterstock) and the cover of his new book (publisher, PublicAffairs)

Alexander Vindman's new book is a folly: of history, and the truth

Europe

Alexander Vindman’s recent book, “The Folly of Realism,”throws down the gauntlet, as the name suggests, at the “realists” he thinks were responsible for failing to deter Russia and seize opportunities for defense cooperation with Ukraine.

According to Vindman, the former National Security Council official who testified against President Trump during his impeachment trial in 2019, this “realist” behavior incentivized Moscow’s continued imperialist predations, culminating in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

keep readingShow less
Trump should take the victory in Canada and move on
Top photo credit: Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney (Yan Parisien; bella1105 via shutterstock)

Trump should take the victory in Canada and move on

North America

Just days after replacing Justin Trudeau and becoming Canada’s 24th prime minister, Mark Carney has advised Governor General Mary Simon to dissolve Parliament. Canadians will now head to the polls on April 28 for a long awaited and highly anticipated federal election.

Trudeau had announced his intention to resign as prime minister and Liberal Party leader on January 6, having served more than nine years as Canada’s head of government. Opinion polling had shown an increasingly sizable lead for the rival Conservative Party over the preceding 18 months, with about 25 percentage points separating the two parties by the time Trudeau announced he was stepping down.

keep readingShow less
arrest free speech
Top photo credit: Spaxiax/Shutterstock

Does Vance’s free speech defense in Munich not apply here?

Global Crises

At the Munich Security Conference in mid-February, U.S. Vice President JD Vance warned Europe not to back away from one of the West’s most basic democratic values: free speech.

“In Washington there is a new sheriff in town," he said, "and under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree.”

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.