Maneeka Sarza

IS NEUTRALISM STILL RELEVANT AS A GUIDE FOR

THE PHILIPPINE FOREIGN POLICY?

Introduction

Neutralism and the Bandung Conference

        It was during the Cold War.  On April 18-25, 1955,

twenty-five African and Asian countries met in order

to discuss their shortcomings and how they could help

each other attain their common goals.  Their agenda

was race, religion, colonialism, nationalism, and

world peace.  In line with these, the countries, the

Philippines among them, resolved to adopt

non-aggression and to move move away from the conflict

between the United States and the Union Soviet.  They

would neither be Communist nor capitalist.

The Bandung Conference was sponsored by Indonesia

(under Ahmed Sukarno), Ceylon (now Sri Sri Lanka),

Burma (Myanmar), and the Philippines.  Other countries

were China, Egypt, and other countries in Asia and

Africa.  It was a “meeting of the underdogs of the

human race,” as what an American writer put it.  It

marked the birth of two concepts which became very

significant during the Cold War, and even up to the

present—“neutralism” and the “Third World.”

Neutralism implies that the foreign policy of a

country should remain non-aligned to any country.

During the time of the Bandung Conference, the

twenty-nine countries agreed that they would not

participate in the “war” between the two world powers.

 Instead, they would promote non-aggression among

themselves.  Neutralism does not entirely mean that

the nuetralist country would isolate itself from the

international community.  In fact, “positive

neutralism” was encouraged, meaning the neutralist

would have an active interest in world affairs.  At

the time of the Cold War, the countries who

participated in the Bandung Conference got between the

Soviet and the US, though not too often.  This was in

accordance with their goals for world peace, which the

countries need to attain and sustain their respective

nation’s development.

Relevance of Neutralism

        “Relevance” would be taken to mean as whether the

policy of non-alignment would be effective for the

realization of the Philippines’s goals, even at a time

when the original sense of the concept has been lived

out with the ceasing of the Cold War.  Whether

neutralism would be important in the pursuing and

attainment of the national interest is the question.

However, this is the point where two conflicting ideas

come in.

The National Interest

        The foreign policy of a country reflects the national

interest, at least theoretically. It would then be

easy to figure out what the Philippines’s national

interest is by simply looking at the trend of the

Philippine foreign policy of the past and current

administrations.  However, our foreign policy was and

still is merely an “extension” of the American foreign

policy,” making the above textbook explanation very

problematic.  Theoretical explications may sound nice,

but in reality, the government—or the adminsitration

currently in power—also has its own interests.  These

interests are very different, and most importantly,

contradicting than that of the people.  In drafting

the foreign policy, the government, as history proves

to us, considers its self-interests and not of the

nation’s.  In addition, the people in governmentwere

put to power and given support by the US government,

now the only world power left to deal with.  Hence,

the foreign policy of the Philippines has always been

reflective of the current administration’s—and the

US’s—interests.

        The other view of the national interest may be

derived by looking into the composition of the

Filipino population and the economic status of the

Philippines in general.  Majority—almost 80%—of the

people is below the poverty line.  By looking at just

that, it can be deduced that since the Philippines is

part of the Third World (in today’s sense) with its

people dominantly impoverished, it is in the interest

of the Philippines to be freed from hunger and

destitution.  Though emancipation from poverty is not

the only problem of the people—crime, prostitution,

and lack of education are also some of the ill

conditions of the Philippines—it is the main root of

all these.

Neutralism: The Policy’s Advantages

and Disadvantages

        The feasibility of neutralism being adopted by the

Philippines can be assessed by looking at its

advantages and the disadvantages.

Advantages of the Policy

Though a foreign policy of non-alignment never really

did emerge in the Philippines, a number of people from

the academe, the government (usually from the

opposition), and several sectors of the society

advocated for the adoption of neutralism.  Militant

organizations, usually those which revolved around the

issue of the US bases retention, pointed out the

advantages of the policy to the identity of the

Philippines.  Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN),

Anti-Baseng Kilusan (Abakada), the Anti-Treaty

Movement (ATM), and many others took to the streets,

arguing that genuine sovereignty and freedom from US

military and political intervention will be achieved.

The protection of the country’s security from possible

anti-US attack was also stressed.

Former Senator Claro M. Recto also advocated for

neutralism, in the grounds of nationalism.  According

to him, nationalism can only be achieved with the

reassertion of sovereignty, ad that entails removing

ourselves from the sphere of US influence.

Adopting neutralism will also mean for the Philippines

economic, political, and cultural emancipation.  This

is the point of focus of Jose Ma. Sison’s “Struggle

for National Democracy” and several books of Renato

Constantino.  According to them, the problems of the

country today result from only one cause—our

subjugation to the United States.  Ever since we came

under its power, the US government realized the

Philippines’s significant position in the Asia Pacific

region and how this small country would be vital for

American interests.  The US then moved to govern the

Philippines in accordance to its short- and long-term

strategy.  It succeeded in this aim through its taking

hold of the Filipino’s economic, political, and

cultural consciousness.  The “Filipino” was then

molded into becoming something that is subservient to

the American.  The educational system, for one, is

servile to American ends—the Americans taught our

forefathers to respect and be inferior to the American

neocolonial system.

In the political aspect, the Americans indoctrinated

Filipinos into the Western-style of both in governance

and political culture.  The American government then,

through force and deceptive means, placed people—whom

they are sure of serving American ends—in power.  This

is the reason why even now, the same old tactics were

in the government even though the ones who display

them are of new faces.  And most of the time, those

faces are the people who are greatly indebted to the

US for them having been put into power, and also for

other political concessions.  This is where the

subservience of the Philippine foreign policy to

American power comes in.

        This effective hold of the US of the Filipino

consciousness ensures the protection of the American

interests in the Philippines, not only in its human

and non-human resources but also of the country’s

important position in the Asia Pacific region.  This

fact entails the root of all the Filipino’s

problems—when the interests served by the government

are not of the people’s, it is bound to happen that

the needs of the masses will not be met.  The people

will remain poor and destitute if the basic services

are not provided and the taxpayers’ money goes to the

armed forces, for example.  And with the continuing

subservience of the Filipino consciousness to

everything American, the vicious cycle goes on and on.

        Deriving conclusions from these, we can therefore say

that neutralism is advantageous to the Philippines in

the long run.  This can be further proven by the

American experience.  When it was still a young

nation, the US government adopted a strict policy of

neutralism in its relations with other nations.  This

indepedence enabled the young nation to concentrate on

its local concerns and assured the country’s continued

development.

Disadvantages of Neutralism

        Though all these mentioned movements and people

pushed for the adoption of neutralism, the government

never once took it, wholistically and sincerely, for a

guide in making its foreign policy—and with good

reason (at least for the government).  Neutralism can

bring about several disadvantages, albeit in the short

run.  For one, the government has seen the economic,

military, and political sanctions which were imposed

on Iraq, Indonesia, Cuba, and other countries which

tried to adopt even a semblance of neutralism.

Withdrawal of American political support and economic

embargoes, blockages, and other types of economic

sabotage are only some of the things that the

Philippine government has feared and still fears.  The

bulk of the foreign aid that it receives comes from

the US and should neutralism be adopted, the US would

withdraw said aid.  The economy then, as the logic of

the Philippine government states, will suffer adverse

effects.  Not only the economy, but the benefits the

politicians gain for their acquiescence and

willingness to strike an American deal, will be lost.

However, it will only be for the short run.

Conclusion and Personal Recommendations

“Neutralism is Irrelevant”

        Given the above facts and analysis, it can be

concluded that if we are to consider only the short

run, and with that the given vested interests of the

Philippine and the United States governments,

neutralism will be irrelevant.  If we are only to look

at a very short range of time, and follow the logic of

the Philippine government, our alignment to the US is

beneficial.  The economic aid, one that provides for

the people their “protection from want” and their

“security,” that our country gets from the US is

helping the country achieve short range

goals—temporary and minor alleviation of poverty.

Also, on the side of the Filipino officials, the US

and its support for the Philippine government

(“support” being taken to mean loosely, into including

monetary and assurance of political power) means that

neutralism would be a “very bad idea.”

Without the Americans, the Philipppines will surely go

down.  Neutralism would be “a shortcut to suicide.”

For a “third force or a neutral bloc” will never be

tolerated by the US government, especially now that it

is waging a “war against terrorism” of its own making.

 The prospect of neutralism will mean for a country

lesser American concessions.  It also means earning

the ire of a raging superpower.  With American

president Bush’s

either-you’re-with-us-or-you’re-against-us attitude in

his campaign against his version of terrorism, a

policy of non-alignment will earn for an aspiring

neutralist the dangerous brand of “terrorist.”

“Neutralism is Relevant”

        However, if we are to force our vision into looking

at a longer range, non-alignment, especially to the

United States, will result for us genuine and longer

term of benefits.  In light of the threat of the

Philippines’s American servitude to the country’s

well-being as a nation, non-alignment deserves a more

serious consideration by the government.  It is good

to be reminded of the “vicious circle” that we are in

which is caused by the US’s hold of our economy,

politics, and culture—our whole lives as a nation—and

that it is the cause of our problems.

        “Neutralism” was born with the meeting of colonized

peoples during the 1950s.  However, the concept was

existing even longer than that.  For the spirit of

non-alignment is actually independence.  Independence

is self-determination and a nation’s charting of its

own path and destiny, not being dominated and dictated

to the letter by a foreign power.  This is entirely

reasonable, for who knows what is really beneficial

and important for a country but the its people

themselves?

        For neutralism to genuinely work, it is this writer’s

recommendation to first start small.  That is, the

Filipino, especially the government, should sincerely

want to stand alone (though not totally, as what

positive neutralism states).  Then, we should remove

ourselves from the roots of our predicament.  We

should begin to arouse the consciousness of our fellow

Filipinos that we are an oppressed people, that we are

being held by the Americans by our necks and that we

are not really in charge of our own selves.  As long

as the miseducation of our people, and with it, the US

government’s political, military, and economic control

of the Philippines, neutralism will be irrelevant—and

we will continue to be in poverty and destitution.

        It is the stand, therefore, of the writer that

neutralism is still relevant to the Philippines as a

guide for the Philippine foreign policy.