Think Piece: Our Mendicant Foreign Policy

In this paper of Claro M. Recto, discusses that domestic policy is paramount, wherein the foreign policy
serves only as an extension, adjunct, and implementation of it. In a nutshell, our foreign policy is
reflected and dictated by the needs of our domestic politics. This means that we should have the sole
discretion in which states are we going to trades and engage in agreements base in our national interest.
The very essence of our independence is for us to be responsible for ourselves because “no one else
will”. It would be futile for us to expect another country to sacrifice its own welfare and security in the
rhetoric of idealism and sentimentalism just like the case of United States to the Philippines, and even if
they do so the truth it is not given for free as they always seek for compensation which is dictated by
their own national interest. Moreover, he said to be a realist, we must ease believing that there is
“altruism” among nations; every state take care of its own national interest and it is the responsibility of
the government to identify those interest; to serve our own self-interest and safeguard our security
should be the basis of forging military and diplomacy establishments such as common defense, mutual
security and partnership. Additionally, he requires us to have a legitimate government that believes in
our independence and efficiency to lead us in the course of “self-help” and “self-reliance” towards our
own “national survival”. Lastly, accustomed to saying that America is our only friend which then proven
to be not beneficial in the pursuit of own national interest, necessitates us to have Asian friends whom
we share the common quest for independence and united stand against any form of colonialism to
promote cooperation and solidarity among them.

Our foreign policy is said to be mendicant by subordinating it in the American interest. After giving us
the independence, better say nominal independence we allow ourselves to pass laws like parity rights
and Bell trade which started to make us export-oriented and import-dependent. We tend to forget to
make our own products in the onslaught of surplus goods from U.S. In the military, we allow 99 years of
its military presence in exchange for security and defense favors because we see them as our only
friends. Going on, this paper utilizes the realist theory which views international system as anarchic,
each state acting as the main actor wherein they compete with one another to meet national interest
and ensure its survival. Firstly, on the assumption that state is the main actor in the international
system. This is manifested in when he argued that the Philippines should be the sole author of its
national interest as its guidelines in dealing with other countries. Secondly, it gives high attention to the
values of national security as well as the existence of a state. The author said that you cannot expect any
country to sacrifice its own welfare and security for another state, thus insist that in dealing with
agreements regarding mutual defense we should affirm guarantees, unconditional assistance and
equality of rights so that we will not compromise our security and to the extent our sovereignty.
Moreover, in the realist concept of survival, the purpose of the state is for its survival defensively in the
form of the use of the security system and offensive in the form of the struggle for hegemony in the
international system. Being friend with the United States creates the problem of our national survival
interest as their bases, weapons and the likes placed in the soil invites an attack to that would cost the
destruction of our state. Thus, the Philippines should seek “national survival” wherein we are the
guardian of our own security, by not putting so much trust and dependence on the support of United
State, as again at the end of the day we are alone responsible to ourselves. Lastly, in the realist concept
of self-help, a country should rely on themselves rather than relying on another state. In line with my
previous answer, that is why we have to develop our capabilities in the economy through
industrialization and military by ending its dependence on support and faith in Americans that it will
fight for us if are to attack and being attack by another state. It is important to realize that we are just
“part of a broader policy of U.S in the Southeast Asia and Western Pacific” for its strategic pivot to Asia.
The support of this country always depends upon their national interest, as said Americans are not that
foolish to go to war when they do not have to.

In the sphere of economy, decades have passed and still, we have not undergone industrialization to
develop our own economy by producing jobs with decent pay that could solve the long problem of
unemployment and poverty. We remain to be the supplier of raw materials and making our local
companies subsidiaries which work it to assemble semi-process goods and services. Additionally, we
wholeheartedly embrace globalization to a line our market to the needs of the global market, which we
take in the better pill of liberalization, privatization and deregulation amidst the Philippines
precariousness thus exposing our still sick and subsistence-based economy on foreign competition and
dominance. This is even the reason why we still continue our labor export policy; the government still
can’t produce jobs for its citizens. On the other hand, our military capacity remains weak after a decade
of the promise of United States that they will support our military under different mutual defense treaty
and agreement between them. At present our military is undergoing modernization, the promise to
strengthen our military capacity by those mutual defense treaties never happened. If happens that
today China wage war on us regarding the issue in the West Philippine Sea, definitely we would be
defeated and cannot expect U.S to attack China.

In conclusion, the realities he mentioned in his paper are still the problem we still faced at present and
our foreign policy clearly is still not based on our domestic needs. Indeed, we still need to develop our
own society, economy, and military based on our national interest to ensure our countries survival
amidst the pressing internal problems and external issues of globalization and security threats.