An ally or a pawn?

An ally or a pawn? | Daily Tribune

Is the Philippines a mere pawn of the United States in its geopolitical maneuvering in the South China Sea? No less than the President’s sister, Senator Imee Marcos, made the assertion as she warned of the repercussions of kowtowing to the US amid the growing tension in the disputed waterway.

The strategic location of the Philippines in the region and its historical ties with the United States have sparked debates on whether the administration is right to pivot back to its long-time ally in dealing with the dispute, particularly concerning the West Philippine Sea.

China’s expansive claims in the region, as evidenced by its construction of artificial islands and military installations, have raised concerns among neighboring countries and the international community.

As one of the area’s claimants, the Philippines has sought to assert its sovereignty while navigating its relationships with other stakeholders, including Washington.

The US has historically been a key ally of the Philippines, particularly in terms of security and defense.

The 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty established the two countries’ commitment to mutual defense in the event of an armed attack. In recent years, the US has ramped up its presence in the Indo-Pacific region as part of its strategic pivot to counter China’s growing influence.

Critics, including Senator Imee Marcos, argue that Washington is using the Philippines as a pawn in its effort to contain China’s rise. They point to the increased military assistance provided by the US to the Philippines and the joint military exercises conducted in the region as evidence of this assertion.

However, supporters of the alliance argue that the partnership between the two countries is based on shared values and interests, including the promotion of democracy, human rights and regional stability.

Imee Marcos’ advice reflects a deep-seated skepticism among some Filipinos regarding the country’s alliance with the Americans. The legacy of colonialism and the history of unequal power dynamics have fueled suspicions about the true intentions behind the US involvement in the region.

Moreover, there are concerns about the potential consequences of antagonizing China, a major economic partner and investor in the Philippines.

Therefore, the question of whether the Philippines is being used by the US in the West Philippine Sea is complex and requires careful analysis. While it is indisputable that the United States has its own strategic interests in the region, including maintaining the freedom of navigation and upholding international law, it would be overly simplistic to characterize its relationship with the Philippines solely in terms of exploitation.

As a sovereign nation, the Philippines must be forthright in its foreign policy decisions and balance its alliances and partnerships to serve its national interests.

While cooperation with the US can provide security benefits, the Philippines must assert its sovereignty and pursue diplomatic solutions to the dispute. Imee Marcos’ advice highlights the importance of critically assessing the implications of our foreign relations and avoiding an overreliance on external powers.

While suspicions about US intentions may persist, the Philippines needs to assert its sovereignty and pursue diplomatic solutions to the dispute.

Imee Marcos’ advice reminds us of the need for critical engagement and vigilance in safeguarding the country’s interests on the global stage.

Ultimately, a balanced approach that prioritizes national sovereignty and diplomatic dialogue is crucial in addressing the ongoing tensions in the West Philippine Sea.