Militarization of United States Foreign Policy

and Its Implications on the Republic of the

Philippines: A Preliminary Institutional
Analysis
(18 March 2007)

BONIFACIO JR.GLENN G. RIVERA

(BA Political Science)

 Table of Contents

Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………………1

Plagiarism Declaration………......................................................................................................2

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………...........3

Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………………………………..4

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………4

Background and Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………..5

Foreign Policy-Making Arena: The Executive and the Legislative Branches of the
Federal Government……………………………………………………………..6

Role and Powers of the United States Congress as Regards Military Aspects of
Foreign as well as Domestic Policies…………………………………….7
Constitutional or Express Powers…………………………………………7
Unwritten or Informal Roles and Functions………………………………8
Role and Power of the Executive Branch as Regards Military Aspects of
Foreign as well as Domestic Policies………….........................................9
Constitutional or Express Powers…………………………………………9
Unwritten or Informal Roles and Functions………………………………9
Convergence of the Roles and Powers of the Two Branches…………………..11

Overview of American Foreign Policy Mechanisms as Regards Military Issues…...12

Treaties…………………………………………………………………………..13
Congressional-Executive Agreements…………………………………………..13
Executive Agreements…………………………………………………………...14
Declaration of War……………………………………………………………....14

Federal Bodies that Affect American Foreign Policy as Regards Militarization…...15

Executive Departments………………………………………………………….15
U.S. Department of State………………………………………………...16
U.S. Department of Defense……………………………………………..16
Legislative Bodies………………………………………………………………..17
House Committee on Foreign Affairs……………………………………17
House Committee on Armed Services…………………………………...17
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations…………………………………18
Senate Committee on Armed Services………………………………......18
Independent Body……………………………………………………………….18
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)………………………………………18

2
 Isolationism vs. Internationalism (Concerning Military or Security Issues)……….19

Isolationism and emphasis on domestic policy-making………………………..20

Internationalism and emphasis on foreign policy-making…………………….20

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………21

Central Research Question and Task…………………………………………………...21

Rationale of the Study………………………………………...........................................22

Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………..22

Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………22

Militarization…………………………………………………………………………….22

Militarization as a political process……………………………………...............23

The International Dimension of Militarization…………………………..23
Theoretical Tensions between the US Legislature and
Executive Branch...........................................................................24
Militarization as a strategic measure to provide security………………………..25

United States of America’s Militarization Policies and Their Implications on the

Republic of the Philippines……………………………………………………..26

Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement………...27

Balikatan (Shoulder-to-Shoulder) bilateral military exercises…..27
“War on Terror”………………………………………………………….28
Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (OEF – P)………...30

References…………………………………………………………………………………….... 31

Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………………...33

3
 Plagiarism Statement

I, the undersigned do hereby state that this term paper, titled “Militarization of United

States Foreign Policy and Its Implications on the Republic of the Philippines: A Preliminary

Institutional Analysis,” which I submit to Dr. Natalia M.L.M. Morales in partial fulfillment of

the requirements in Political science 171 (American Government and Politics), is a purely

original work and that no part or portion thereof had been plagiarized from any existing literature

on the subject and that all sources of information, through the use of the APA citation format,

had been properly acknowledged.

Any idea, clause, or sentence thereof that had not been properly acknowledged shall be

deemed the original idea of the writer or researcher and any similarity to existing literature on the

subject shall be recognized as purely coincidental.

BONIFACIO JR.GLENN G. RIVERA

4
 Objectives of the study

The paper aims to discuss “militarization” as a recent “brand” or “phase” of American

foreign policy-making. This general objective involves two specific goals. One is to situate

militarization within the United States foreign policy-making arena, that is, within the executive

and legislative branches of the United States federal government along with several government

institutions that affect “militarized” foreign policies and the other is to define “militarization”.

In addition, the paper aims to describe the contemporary actions pursued by the first two

branches of the federal government through military means. This second major objective

includes two specific goals as well. One is to describe at least two military engagements in

which the Philippines and the United States are signatories or mutually committed and the other

is to qualitatively evaluate and/or explain the impact of militarization on the Philippines.

Introduction

The paper argues that the foreign policies pursued by the United States nowadays are

inclined to internationalism, especially of the unilateral type. Moreover, these policies are

becoming “militarized” in a sense that more foreign policy mechanisms such as international

agreements between the United States and other countries are now based on security or military

issues aimed at addressing “terrorism” and the proliferation of nuclear arms and other weapons

of mass destruction (WMDs). Terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs are thus seen as the

exogenous factors that trigger the executive branch of the U.S. federal government to undertake

militaristic actions that in many people’s view undermines the constitution and the formal

powers of Congress in the areas of foreign policy and national defense. These actions affect the

Philippine government and politics in certain ways.

5
 Background and Definition of Terms

Foreign Policy-Making Arena: The Executive and the Legislative Branches of the Federal
Government

The constitution of the United States of America contains the official rules of overall

American politics; establishes the three branches of the federal government and the states’

political role; restrained the government by expressing the inalienable rights of the people; and

distributes the power among the branches and institutions of government. The three branches of

the federal government are recipients of three broad functions or powers of legislation (for the

legislature composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives), execution (for the

executive branch headed by the president and includes the executive departments, the White

House Staff and the line agencies) and adjudication (for the judicial branch also known as the

Supreme Court). All three branches of the government participate in the policy-making process

in that, the legislature passes the bills; the president signs the bills into law (or vetoes them)

while the bureaucracy carries out the decisions; and the judiciary reviews the constitutionality

and/or legality of certain policies. In this sense, policy-making is seen as a process involving the

formal institutional actors having the task of pursuing a certain set of decisions known as a

policy. The term policy is one of the ambiguous terms in the social sciences that have multiple

meanings, which depend on who is using the term and in what context (Turner and Hume, 1997:

58). To avoid confusion, policy is hereby referred to as a product of interdependent government

decision-making within a particular context, such as domestic or international. Policies pursued

by the United States government in the latter context shall be defined as “the general set of

principles that its decision-makers adopt towards the outside world” (Nicholson, 2002: 21).

These policies are therefore the United States foreign policies. The term foreign policy is

formally institutionalized herein by emphasizing its origin in the formal political institutions of

6
the federal government, particularly the legislative and executive branches as well as the

independent or advisory government bodies. This analytical concern implies that the role of

social forces such as interest groups and political parties in shaping foreign policies are given

less emphasis or altogether ignored since these informal institutions may constrain the main task

of doing a formal institutional analysis of foreign policy-making as regards “militarization.” The

word “militarization”, in this case, which is simply described as a “brand” or “phase” of foreign

policy, signifies a dimension of foreign policy that is inclined to the provision of security

(national and international) through military means, be it defensive, offensive or “preemptive”.

Role and Powers of the United States Congress as Regards Military Aspects of Foreign as well
as Domestic Policies

Constitutional or Express Powers

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants the Legislature the power to

“provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;” “to declare War,

grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

“to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer

Term than two Years;” “to provide and maintain a Navy;” “to make Rules for the Government

and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute

the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” and “to provide for

organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be

employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the

Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline

prescribed by Congress.”

7
 Furthermore, Section 10 provides that “no State shall, without the Consent of Congress,

lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any

Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless

actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

All of these constitutional powers allow the U.S. Congress to have legitimate decisions as

to how foreign and domestic policies, especially those that concern militarization or the use of

military means, shall be determined.

Unwritten and Informal Roles and Functions

Reference to the constitution alone will not suffice a systematic description of

congressional policy-making. Times have changed and the constitution does not have a futuristic

statement of the complex powers and practices of the United States Congress. Aside from the

constitutional provisions, self-enacted statutes also govern the conduct of the members of the two

houses of Congress including other government institutions. Through the so-called congressional

elaboration, the Congress participates in the changing of what Burns, Peltason and Cronin

(1987) call the “informal unwritten Constitution” that keeps the American system up to date even

though the formal Constitution does not undergo regular or annual amendments. Specific roles

may thus be arrived at.

Aside from appropriating defense funds, the legislature “also plays a crucial role in

approving or disapproving major weapon systems” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 421) Congress can also

overrule the president (Nicholson, 2002) particularly in times of overt executive usurpation of

defense and military power. It also requires the president to get its approval within sixty (60) to

ninety (90) days before deploying military troops.

8
Role and Power of the Executive Branch as Regards Military Aspects of Foreign as well as
Domestic Policies

Constitutional or Express Powers

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, “the President shall be

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several

States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” In addition, “he shall have

Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds

of the Senators present concur;” “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of

the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;” and “all other

Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and

which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such

inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the

Heads of Departments.” No further constitutional provisions reinforce these formal constitutional

powers of the president as the nation’s commander-in-chief and chief diplomat.

Unwritten and Informal Roles and Functions

Despite the fact that the Congress has more constitutional functions relative to the

presidency as regards military or defense matters and considerable foreign policy powers,

contemporary presidents like Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Theodore

Roosevelt, George Bush, William Clinton, and George W. Bush, Jr., find certain ways to expand

their “armed” powers and foreign policy-making influence. There are at least two manners of

viewing how the presidents have expanded their policy reach. The first is associated with the

“imperial presidency argument.” It provides conjunctural reasons for the president to exercise

extra-constitutional yet expedient powers (a.k.a. implied, inherent or emergency powers). For

instance, such exogenous crisis as wars, terrorism, revolutions, macroeconomic depressions and

9
environmental disasters (especially those with international significance), call for speedy

counter-measures. The president’s role is crucial during these national security threats and

situations since he alone has the mandate of a larger constituency, at least those who voted for

him, who can act without too much bargaining from other elected government entities. Truly,

“[in] the twentieth century presidential power has expanded as a result of wars and domestic

crises, such as economic depression” (Wasserman, 1985: 48). Furthermore, “[proponents] of the

‘imperial presidency’ view contend that the difficulty stems in part from ambiguity concerning

the president’s power as commander in chief: It is an undefined office, not a function” (Burns, et.

al, 1987: 345). In addition, “the growth of executive authority may be part of a worldwide trend”

(Burns, et. al, 1994: 263). For instance, the emergence of global or inter-governmental

organizations (IGOs) like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United

Nations (UN), facilitate the extension of presidential or executive powers. “These bodies provide

the representatives [usually coming from the executive branch or the President himself] who

attend IGO meetings and conduct negotiations” and the legislature “may only learn of an

international agreement after the government has signed up to it” (Hague and Harrop, 2004: 27,

28).

Another view is that the extended powers of the president stems partly from his formal

constitutional powers to appoint government, especially military, officials, ambassadors and

consuls, with the confirmation of the Senate, and to ratify treaties, with the advice and consent of

the Senate. These powers widen the influence of the President over the military and foreign

policy-making including ordinary international gatherings. “Despite the Senate’s power to

approve treaties and Congress’s power to appropriate money for foreign aid and to declare wars,

the checks on the president’s power over foreign affairs are fewer than those on his conduct in

domestic matters” (Wasserman, 1985: 57). Moreover, because of his power to appoint well-

10
favored executive staff, department heads, among other officials, the President has the chance

and incentives to solicit loyalty to his programs from these bureaucrats. This loyalty is buttressed

by the fact that the United States is not a parliamentary form of government, where the prime

minister and his cabinet usually come from the legislature and retain their loyalty to the latter

because of the threat of censure or vote of no confidence. The final result is that, the American

President has at his disposal a wide array of well-funded and bureaucratic departments, councils

and agencies, which are willing to act in accordance with his policies.

Convergence of the Roles and Powers of the Two Branches

The constitution allows the president to appoint top government officials, but with the

confirmation of the Senate. This constitutional safeguard avoids the absolute discretion of the

President to allocate government seats to well-favored persons for private interests. Treaties are

also required to pass the halls of the Senate and these treaties may be declared unconstitutional

by the Supreme Court. In addition, defense budget and spending require congressional approval

though some supplemental appropriations can be requested through less formal and strict means.

The federal budget mirrors the policies of the administration and highlights its main priorities.

Burns (et. al, 1994) calls it the “policy blueprint” and discusses how it reflects the growth in

public policy in the United States along with the rise of certain government institutions that

receive bigger chunks of the federal government fiscal pie. For instance, the total requested

military and/or defense budget of the United States for 2007 was $699 billion, thus giving the

Department of Defense the single largest budget of any government agency. The budget

seemingly tells a story behind congressional approval of U.S. “militarized” policies. It also

serves as a go-signal for the American President to extend his foreign policy and war-making

scope. In times of war, the President plainly extends his authority to uphold national security and

11
secrecy (Burns, et. al, 1987, 1994; Grant 1994). “In this extension of the executive power,

Congress and the courts have often been willing partners” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 295).

Aside from going directly to Washington and bargaining with Congress, the President

also has the informal power of persuasion through the route of “going public” which means that

the President exploits his unrivalled access to the mass media to affect public opinion in an effort

to convince the Congress to support his policies. (Hague and Harrop, 2004: 270). Furthermore,

Burns (et. al, 1994: 300) has this to say about national security policies:

The framers [of the Constitution] foresaw a special need for speed and unity in
our dealings with other nations. As a result, presidents generally have more leeway in
foreign policy and military affairs than they have in domestic matters.

Thus, the legislature “granted presidents discretion in initiating foreign policies, for

diplomacy frequently requires quick action” (Ibid.: 300). Also, the “Supreme Court has upheld

strong presidential authority in this area” for in “United States v. Curtiss Wright, in 1936, the

court referred to the exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government

in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise

an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be

exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution” (Ibid.). Despite these

sweeping legal statements, the U.S. Congress still maintains, for each house, two committees that

deal with foreign relations/affairs as well as armed services. The Senate has oversight powers to

make the executive accountable for its militaristic foreign policies (Nicholson, 2002).

Overview of American Foreign Policy Mechanisms as Regards Military Issues

Foreign policy mechanisms are equivalent to international agreements and international

declarations such as the declaration of war. International agreements are of two sorts: multilateral

12
or bilateral. Multilateral international agreements, as the name suggests, usually involve more

than two signatories while bilateral international agreements typically include not more than two

parties.

Treaties

A “treaty” formally refers to an international agreement “whose entry into force with

respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its

advice and consent under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution” (U.S. Department of

State website, n.d.). Generally, arms control agreements are ratified by the treaty mechanism

because it is simpler to go through one house of Congress, the Senate, than two (as required by

congressional-executive agreements) (Wikipedia, n.d.). Treaties are not necessarily binding upon

the United States once it becomes signatory to it because many treaties such as the Anti-Ballistic

Missile (ABM) Treaty allowed the United States President to withdraw from or abrogate them.

Congressional-Executive Agreements

Although the constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative procedure of

engaging in international agreements other than through a treaty, the Supreme Court of the

United States considered congressional-executive agreements to be valid. “In Missouri v.

Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is

a power separate from the enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal

government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the executive

authority of the states” (Wikipedia, undated). If the President presents a negotiated instrument to

each house of the legislature, for majority approval, that instrument is called a “congressional-

executive agreement.” This form of international agreement can be seen as equivalent to

legislation because of the congressional procedure that it goes through.

13
 Executive Agreements

Congress has allowed the President to avoid the formal treaty-making provision in the

Constitution by the use of “executive agreements” (Grant, 1994). This form of international

agreement is made solely by the President and requires no approval or ratification by any of the

two houses of Congress. It is oftentimes employed by presidents in pursuing foreign policies that

need quick dealings with a certain country or group of countries. War coalitions, for instance, are

entered into by the chief diplomat through this form of international policy instrument. Grant

(1994) observes that “summit diplomacy” these days requires top level meetings between heads

of governments (i.e. Presidents and/or Prime Ministers) and it has been recognized that the

President of the United States must have a degree of flexibility and manoeuver when negotiating

with the former Soviet Union or other major powers.

Declaration of War

A war declaration is a mechanism of foreign policy, in fact it is the extreme form of

foreign policy mechanism. History is full of accounts of both declared and undeclared wars

between states. By definition a war “is a condition of open armed conflict between two or more

parties (usually states)” (Heywood, 2002: 379). Perhaps, recognizing the disastrous nature of

instantaneous ancient as well as modern interstate wars, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution

reserved the power to declare war to the Congress where chances that a war could still be

prevented are higher than in the executive branch of the federal government. Despite the

constitutional expression and the War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973 over

President Nixon’s veto in an attempt to limit the President’s ability to act unilaterally in waging

wars, still, the use of American military power by U.S. presidents such as Reagan (when he

decided to invade Grenada in 1983 and launched a bomb strike against Libya in 1986), Clinton

(when he ordered a missile attack on Baghdad and Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters

14
in 1993), George Bush (when he deployed troops during the Persian Gulf War in 1991) among

many others (most, if not all, U.S. Presidents have their own wars anyway) seems to have no real

institutional or legal limits (Burns, et. al, 1994; Grant, 1994). So far, there are only five “wars”

(those formally declared by Congress) in U.S. war-making history. They do not include the

Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Iraq War or the “War on Terror” because

scholars such as Burns (et. al 1994) and Grant (1994) articulate that the 1941 Congress

Declaration of War against Japan was the last declaration of war ever made by Congress.

Federal Bodies that Affect American Foreign Policy as Regards Militarization

“Presidents can share with Congress the responsibilities for making overall foreign policy

decisions, yet the operations of foreign policy are directly under the President” (Burns et. al,

1994: 411). “He (all Presidents have been male so far) and his advisors essentially take the

initiative in foreign policy and are the first to respond to major events coming from outside, such

as the outbreak of a war” (Nicholson, 2002: 24). He appoints the department officials and the

White House staffs who are responsible for certain foreign, particularly security-related, policy

areas and remain loyal to him. These bureaucrats, however, together with the agencies and

departments that they manage developed outside the Constitution as a matter of practical

necessity.

Executive Departments

By and large, it is the cabinet that handles the execution and progress of foreign policies

upon the command of the President. “The primacy of the executive in foreign policy is a fact of

the political life of all nations, including constitutional democracies” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 411).

To make sense of it, one has to look at how the executive branch is structured and tasked to

tackle and solve foreign policy issues. Oftentimes, as shown by Graham Allison and Phillip

15
Zelikow (1999) in their well-known book, titled The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban

Missile Crisis, the executive departments, line agencies, advisory councils and independent

bodies hold different positions regarding a particular military and foreign policy issue (such as

the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962) and pose varying, sometimes contradicting, ways of

approaching and responding to it. Nevertheless, they form an elite circle of crisis decision-

makers and security enthusiasts. The U.S. Departments of State and Defense represent the areas

of policy choices upon which a president must weigh foreign and diplomatic interests of the

nation against militaristic decision or non-decision.

U.S. Department of State

Established in 1789, the State Department is headed by the Secretary of State who serves

as the “president’s principal foreign policy advisor” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 411) and is not a

member of the legislature. This department, presently managed by Condoleezza Rice, “is

regarded as an élite branch of government” (Nicholson, 2002: 24) and is responsible for national

security. Specifically,

It maintains contacts and relations between the United States and foreign countries,
advises the president on recognition of new foreign countries and governments,
negotiates treaties and agreement with foreign nations, and speaks for the United Nations
and in other major international organizations. The departments maintain more than [two
hundred fifty] 250 diplomatic and consular posts around the world. In 1999, the
Department of State integrated the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the
U.S. Information Agency into its structure and mission (Targonski, USIA, 2000: 59).

It also serves as the mother department of the American Foreign Service which is “the eyes and

ears of the United States in other countries” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 412).

U.S. Department of Defense

Created in 1947, the Defense Department is responsible for four (4) separately organized

branches of the United States Military: the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps as well as

the four military service academies (the United States Military Academy, United States Naval

16
Academy, United States Air Force Academy, and United States Coast Guard Academy) and the

National War College, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (commonly known as the JCS), which serves as

the principal security advisor to the president and other specialized combat commands

(Targonski, USIA, 2000: 54). Headquartered in the Pentagon, this department consists of about

one million persons on active duty backed, in case of emergency, by one and a half million

members of state reserve components, known as the National Guard. In addition, about 730,000

civilian employees serve in the Defense Department in such areas as research, intelligence

communications, mapping, and international security affairs. The National Security Agency,

which coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized intelligence activities in support of

U.S. government actions, also comes under the direction of the Secretary of Defense (Ibid.: 54).

Currently headed by Robert Gates, DOD also keeps overseas forces in order to meet U.S.

treaty commitments to provide air and support forces, and to secure America’s faraway

territories and trade.

Legislative Bodies1

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs is a standing committee which is in charge of

bills and investigations related to the foreign relations of the United States. So far, it has seven

subcommittees.

House Committee on Armed Services

The House Committee on Armed Services is a standing committee which is responsible

for funding and oversight of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States armed

forces, as well as substantial parts of the Department of Energy. It currently has seven

subcommittees.

17
 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is a standing committee of the United States

Senate in charge with leading foreign-policy legislation and debate. Having eight existing

subcommittees, this committee is generally responsible for overseeing (but not managing) and

funding foreign aid programs and training for national allies as well as arms sales. It is also

involved in treaty or ambassador confirmation.

Senate Committee on Armed Services

The Senate Committee on Armed Services is a committee of the United States Senate

empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of

Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy (as pertaining to national security),

benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and other matters related to

defense policy. It currently has six subcommittees.

Independent Body

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is responsible for the coordination of intelligence

activities of various government institutions, especially executive departments and line agencies.

It makes security proposals to the National Security Council and the Office of the President. The

CIA also became involved in international data and information gathering, often through covert

means, and wiretapping services for President Richard Nixon, whose other illegal use of his

office and other government institutions led to the celebrated Watergate Scandal.

Aside from the aforementioned formal government bodies, the federal government has

other groups of foreign policy and security zealots. The executive branch, for instance, has “staff

organizations grouped into the Executive Office of the President” that “include the White House

18
staff, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of

Economic Advisers, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and

Technology Policy” (Targonski, USIA, 2000: 49). The list also includes the Council on

Environmental Quality, the Office of National AIDS Policy, the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the White House Office for

Women’s Initiative and Outreach (Ibid.). Of all these, the National Security Council and the

President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board apparently have something to do with military

policies directed towards other nations. Created by Congress in 1947, the National Security

Council is the “key coordinating agency for the president” and is “intended to help him integrate

foreign, military, and economic policies that affect national security” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 411). It

is legally composed of the president himself, the vice-president, and the secretaries of Defense

and State departments, but contemporary presidents have even included the CIA director, the

White House Chief of Staff, the attorney general, and the national security adviser as ex officio

members (Ibid.).

Isolationism vs. Internationalism (Concerning Military or Security Issues)

Foreign policy issues are the concerns not only of federal government officials. Ordinary

citizens need to have their say as well. However, as this study focuses more on the formal

government mechanisms and institutions, the citizens’ opinion on world affairs are not

thoroughly discussed. Nevertheless, Brewer, Gross, Aday, and Willnat stress the importance of

assessing the two major opposing principles of foreign policy-making based on people’s beliefs

and opinions. In their study, titled International Trust and Public Opinion about World Affairs

(2004), they define the principle of isolationism as “the belief that the United States should avoid

getting involved in other nation’s problems” and the principle of internationalism as “the belief

that the United States should play an active role in world affairs” (Brewer, et. al, 2004: 94).

19
When translated to the jargon of institutional analysis, these principles will certainly adopt

different although related meanings.

Isolationism and emphasis on domestic policy-making

Isolationism is defined by Heywood (2002: 135) as the “policy of withdrawal from

international affairs and, in particular, avoiding political or military commitments to other states.”

In terms of institutional activities and matters, this would mean fewer international agreements or

foreign policy mechanisms, fewer activities for the federal bodies focusing on foreign policy-

making to undertake, and little amounts of government funds spent on foreign policy and

international security endeavors such as foreign aid and joint military exercises. Isolationism is

also seen as a presidential or leadership tendency associated with American President Andrew

Jackson. Jacksonians “are closest to what we normally think of as isolationists – they seek to

avoid involvement in world affairs as far as possible, although it should be noted that when US

territory or US citizens are attacked they respond with righteous fury, demanding total war and

unconditional surrender” (Brown and Ainley, 2005: 238).

Internationalism and emphasis on foreign policy-making

Internationalism is defined by Heywood (2002: 128, 424) as a “theory or practice of

politics based on transnational or global cooperation”; “the belief that nations are artificial and

unwanted formations.” Contrary to isolationism, this would mean more international agreements

or foreign policy mechanisms, more activities for the federal bodies focusing on foreign policy-

making to pursue, and greater amounts of government funds spent on foreign policy and

international security endeavors such as foreign aid and joint military exercises. Same with

isolationism, internationalism is also viewed as a presidential or leadership predisposition, this

time related to President Woodrow Wilson, who pushed forward his Fourteen Points during

World War I and signed various “peace treaties”, which helped establish the League of Nations

20
after World War I (Groisser, 1971). Wilsonians “believe that US values such as democracy and

the rule of law are universally applicable and seek actively to promote them in the world, in the

process challenging the old rules of European statecraft” (Brown and Ainley, 2005: 238).

Internationalism, per Brewer (et. al, 2004), based on people’s trust and public opinion,

has two “faces”. One is “militant internationalism (i.e., support for intervention through military

force), and [the other is] cooperative internationalism (i.e., support for intervention through

cooperative methods such as foreign aid)” (Brewer, et. al, 2004: 94). Brown and Ainley (2005)

present a different set of subcategories based on the International Relations discipline. They

distinguish between unilateralism (a.k.a. “hard” Wilsonianism) and multilateralism (a.k.a. “soft”

Wilsonianism). The former aims to spread American ideals without the need to form alliances or

establish international institutions while the latter aims the same but with the support of other

countries through international institutions, organizations or alliances.

Statement of the Problem

Central Research Question and Task

The central research question that the paper attempts to answer is “What is

‘militarization’?” Since it is seen as an institutional phenomenon in the area of foreign policy-

making, the most appropriate way of describing it is using an institutional approach, which

focuses on how formal political institutions (or sets of rules embedded in an organization or

group of people) function and determine policies. The paper initially describes “militarization”

as a “brand” or “phase” of foreign policy-making. The term is used in its international context

and manifests through the military and foreign policy mechanisms.

21
Rationale of the Study

The study aims to tackle the nature of “militarization” of American foreign policy. The

researcher wants to impart his research findings and personal interpretations about the

phenomenon, to give a clear and coherent definition of it drawn from various sources and to

address its effects on the Republic of the Philippines specifically on the country’s security-

related activities.

Significance of the Study

The study is set out to contribute a small amount of information to the knowledge base of

American studies. The author maintains that this study provides the bare bones of the road map

for an institutional approach to “militarization”. In spite of this enthusiasm, he still believes that

this study is lacking because of time, technical, financial and academic constraints.

Limitations of the Study

The main discussion on the subject covers the period between the September 11, 2001

bombing (marked by simultaneous terrorist attacks carried out by banging airplanes on the

World Trade Center twin towers, the Pentagon and another area near the White House) and the

earlier part of President George W. Bush’s war waged against Iraq.

Militarization

There are only two points that are raised. These include the argument that the main

driving force of “militarized” foreign policies of the U.S. is “terrorism” as well as the further

threat posed by non-democratic regimes (like Iraq), which allegedly harbor nuclear weapons.

Another point is related to the presidential usurpation of the war powers. Exaggeratedly

exercising such powers, the current President of the United States called for additional funds for

his activities against the so-called “enemies of democracy” or the “axis of evil.” The resulting

increase in government spending coupled with a loose fiscal (or revenue-raising) policy

22
generated economic problems such as budget deficits and reduced health and welfare program

allocations.

Militarization as a political process

Militarization is best understood as a “brand” or “phase” of foreign policy-making.

Understanding such a complex phenomenon entails the consideration of at least two things: its

international dimension and the superficial tension between the US legislature and the executive

branch.

The International Dimension of Militarization

Whereas domestic policies of the United States have witnessed shifts in the roles of the

state: from a “nightwatchman” (i.e. less state intervention in the economy) to a welfare state and

then to a regulatory state (Hague and Harrop, 2004); the international realm of the United States

policy-making involves a cycle where there exist apparent shifts (in terms of dominance) in the

four main aspects of global relations: (i) economic globalization, (Brown and Ainley, 2005) (ii)

political (‘soft power’) influence (Smith, 2002), (iii) cultural imperialism (Nicholson 2002), and

(iv) military internationalism/interventionism (i.e. “militarization” of foreign policy) (Brown,

2005; Goodman, 2004; Smith, 2002). Scholars such as Brown and Ainley (2005), Goodman

(2004) and Smith (2002) tackle the dominance of the last aspect of global relations in U.S.

foreign policy-making. They have identified the withdrawal of the U.S., President Bush Jr. in

particular, from international agreements that seek to regulate the use of military means in

addressing certain issues in the international realm such as the rise of terrorist organizations and

the proliferation of nuclear weapons. “Military force is now looming larger than ever as the main

instrument and organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy” (Goodman, 2004). “In part this is

because the US has considerably increased its military and intelligence expenditure, but it also

reflects the ability of the US to impose leadership on allies under the theme of a war on terrorism”

23
(Smith, 2002: 173). Two “coalitions of the willing” have been formed. One suited the US desire

to take revenge on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the other, composed of a new set of

allies, supported the Anglo-American drive to attack and eventually invade Iraq (Brown and

Ainley, 2005). These ad hoc coalitions whatsoever did not qualify any form of international

agreement described above and it seems that these engagements were unilaterally pursued by the

U.S. since it did not really matter whether legitimate international organizations such as the

NATO and the UN approved of it or not (in fact the US failed to get the approval of the United

Nations Security Council) (Smith, 2002; Brown and Ainley, 2005; Goodman, 2004).

Theoretical Tensions between the US Legislature and Executive Branch

Many scholars who emphasize the domestic dimension of policy-making point to how the

foreign affairs prerogatives of the President have undermined the formal constitutional and

statutory powers of Congress with regard to declaring or engaging in wars and deployment of

military troops. As a political process, militarization entails the political struggle on who should

have the legitimate function to determine such a policy process or “brand”. Questions arise

whether the “War on Terror” and the “War in Iraq” have legitimate constitutional basis or any

valid international legal justification. In terms of congressional approval and declaration, the two

wars engaged in by the executive branch have no valid constitutional justification and, of course,

congressional authorization. The last war hitherto authorized by Congress was waged against

Japan in 1945.

Aside from these institutional considerations, there are also some moral and economic

ramifications. It is argued that the war in Iraq, as well as the “war on terror,” has no valid

justification (in terms of whether or not Iraq really had the WMDs) and precision (in terms of

who the real “enemies” are, whether they be the Muslim societies, the authoritarian states or

particular “terrorist groups” including their supporters) (Nicholson, 2002; Brown and Ainley,

24
2005). As a result, the Muslim world, especially the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC) is becoming anxious that the US is waging a war against Islam. Economic

consequences of the two wars include the skyrocketing of oil prices that led to the increase in

production costs as well as budget deficits in U.S. due to increasing government spending.

Militarization as a strategic measure to provide security

As discussed earlier, the executive branch undertakes most part of providing national

security. It is important to highlight at least two points regarding this task: how it is economically

determined through the fiscal power (i.e. government fund-raising and spending) and what is the

current exogenous factor that affects the institution of budgetary allocation.

The task begins with the executive budget proposal that is presented to the House of

Representatives for approval. This budget or financial plan, referred to as a blue-print of policy-

making, mirrors the security-related priorities of the current Bush administration. The prevailing

view held by scholars who criticize US military engagements is that scarce resources of the

nation are not allocated fairly and efficiently to the leading government priorities – the “warfare

vs. welfare” argument. The defense budget for instance has been growing from year to year

during the term of President George W. Bush. Goodman (2004) states:

Reversing a trend that pre-dated the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has
increased its military budget to more than $400 billion and its intelligence budget to more
than $40 billion. Current projections point to a defense budget of more than $500 billion
before the end of the decade, with another $50 billion for the intelligence community.
Led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Department of Defense has moved
aggressively to eclipse the State Department as the major locus of U.S. foreign policy,
arrogating management of the intelligence community, and abandoning bipartisan
policies of arms control and disarmament crafted over the past four decades. Funding cuts
have prompted the Department of State to close consulates around the world and assign
personnel of the well-funded CIA to diplomatic and consular posts. Though current
defense costs represent nearly 20% of Washington’s expenses, less than 1% of the federal
budget is devoted to the needs of the State Department.

25
 In addition, the Bush administration allegedly has placed the Pentagon atop the national

security policy decision-making ladder, thus weakening the role of the State Department and

other agencies dealing with foreign policy.

The current exogenous factor that affects the decision of the federal government, the

executive branch in particular, is the “war on terrorism.” Aside from the budgetary funds devoted

to defense spending, there are also congressional appropriations that reinforce “discretionary

spending” and they include those funds allotted to the war in Afghanistan (the starting point of

the “war on terror”) and war in Iraq.

Although the type of “war” that the US president wages is not the same as the “war”

authorized and formally declared by congress, the former nevertheless calls for the utilization of

the U.S. military forces, intelligence communities and other resources. It is one type of

“emergency” situations that the President takes advantage of in order to either bypass the

Congress or obtain its approval by “going public”. Just like the Cold War, the War on Terror

represents another era of the primacy of the U.S. executive in the area of foreign relations and

international security. As stated earlier, wars and other major crises aid in extending the powers

of the President.

United States of America’s Militarization Policies and Their Implications on the

Republic of the Philippines

The paper shall try to explore at least two important foreign policies that the United

States has pursued in dealing with one of its allies: the Republic of the Philippines. The two

foreign policies comprise a bilateral treaty (an international agreement) and an informal

Presidential declaration of his type of “war”.

26
 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement

Signed and ratified on August 30, 1951 in Washington, D.C., the Mutual Defense Treaty

is a bilateral treaty involving the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America. It

contained eight articles and dictated that both nations would support each other if either the

Philippines or the United States were to be attacked by an external party and take mutual efforts

to promote international peace and security while still upholding each others’ territorial integrity

and United Nations Charter or responsibility.2

Balikatan (Shoulder-to-Shoulder) bilateral military exercises

Balikatan is conducted to meet RP-US commitments under the Mutual Defense Treaty

and to fulfill RP-US mutual training and readiness requirements.3 The Balikatan resumed in 1999

after being suspended in 1995.

Aside from conducting military exercises and combat simulations, the US troops also

engage in “humanitarian missions” in certain parts of the Philippines, particularly in Lanao

provinces. These missions however are not viewed as entirely humane by the affected population.

For instance, statements from a Filipino militant group’s website contend, “US troops are

benevolent by day and monsters by night”4 because of their alleged sexual harassment and

deliberate killings. Whatever the psychological, social or cultural implications of U.S. military

endeavors in the Philippines may be, the fact that our country has submitted to the institutional

mechanisms being employed by the U.S. federal government stays put. Arguing from an

institutional perspective, the author believes that this bilateral agreement must not only be

viewed in terms of its “good” or “bad” consequences. The entire political process of engaging in

a militarized yet institutionally justified foreign policy is complex. Efforts aimed at assessing the

effects of the Balikatan Exercises on the emerging democracy in the Philippines need to take first

27
into consideration the legal sanctions and or constitutional bases of the military endeavor. These

institutional safeguards pose serious and formal institutional ways on how to mitigate the

spillover effects of the Balikatan exercises as a product not only of U.S. foreign policy-making

but of Philippine policy-making as well. This stance was demonstrated by the Senate decision to

close (permanently) the U.S. military bases in Subic, Zambales and Clark, Pampanga for the

main reason that the 1987 Philippine Constitution does not allow long-term basing by another

country in the Philippines. Furthermore, in 1995, the legislative body ended Balikatan because of

a dispute over certain institutional details of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The VFA

gives the United States the jurisdiction over crimes committed by military personnel while on

duty in a foreign country. Some critics of the agreement believe that this provision allows for the

insulation of U.S. servicemen from local litigations once they commit criminal or illegal acts

thereby facilitating their acquittal or, at least, special treatment. It becomes more complicated if

we consider the ethnocentric beliefs held by many Americans that the VFA’s host country’s

justice system grants a much weaker set of protections to the accused than that of the U.S. and

that the host country’s courts can be subject to popular pressure to deliver a guilty verdict.

Furthermore, it is believed that American servicemembers ordered to a foreign posting should

not be forced to give up the rights they are afforded under the U.S. Bill of Rights.5

“War on Terror”

This Bush Administration’s campaign is said to be a reaction to the 9/11 event that has

generated so little support in the rest of the non-Western world (Brown and Ainley, 2005)

relative to the World War II, the Cold War and other minor “named-after-a-country” wars.

Notwithstanding, the “9/11 galvanized the American people, and President Bush’s declaration of

a ‘War on Terror’ was widely welcomed in the US” (Ibid.: 242). In terms of institutional

considerations, this war falls short of its congressional and constitutional approval. The War on

28
Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress only under the “Authorization for Use

of Military Force Against Terrorists” passed on September 18, 2001 and not by a formal

declaration of war.

The use of the term “war” is also questionable since wars usually involve states or

countries and not merely groups or sections of society (Al Qaeda and other “terrorist” groups in

particular). Furthermore, it became clear that this “war” involves not only one country but an

entire set of countries referred to as by President Bush as the “axis of evil.” Should the Congress

have declared the “war”, it might encounter more and more contentions with the executive

branch regarding the deployment of troops, the appropriation of funds and other security and

foreign policy-related issues. Nevertheless, the “War on Terror” including the subsequent

authorization made by Congress unleashed the warpowers and foreign policy functions of the

President and the executive branch as a whole like never before. This entire set of policies and

rules has major effects on the institutions of other countries as it encourages preemptive

responses against alleged “terrorist” local groups. For exemple, in the Philippines, the War on

Terror campaign by the United States led to actions aimed at quelling Abu Sayyaff activities and

even communist and religious (or ideologically-based) rebellions. However, reflecting the

widespread ambiguity of the term “terrorism”, the Philippine government still has neither a

universally accepted definition of it nor any mechanism to curb certain activities labeled as

“terroristic”. The Philippine Congress has already passed the Human Security Act of 2007

(Republic Act 9372) commonly known among critics as well as members of the academe and

media as the “Anti-Terror Law.” It was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

and eventually took effect on February 8, 2007. This law is still controversial however due to the

resistance mounted by militant groups, such as AKBAYAN, that are usually assumed by the

government as formal political wings of the ‘Left’ and the New People’s Army (NPA), which is

29
associated with, allegedly, “terroristic” activities such as burning telecommunications sites and

threatening civilians. Relative to extremist Muslim rebels such as the Abu Sayyaff, Rajah

Sulayman group, and Jemaah Islamiyah, the communist NPA is said to pursue milder violent

acts since the former are more inclined to mass killing through bombings and ambush and

terrible acts such as mutilating the bodies of their victims and even decapitating them.

Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (OEF – P)

Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines (OEF-P) is part of Operation Enduring

Freedom (OEF), the official name used by the U.S. Government for one of its military

campaigns in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) which was started after the September 11,

2001 attacks on the United States. Wikipedia.org says that about 500 U.S. military personnel are

advising and assisting the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in the Southern Philippines.

Furthermore,

Special Operations Command-Pacific (SOCPAC) troops are the core of

Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (OEF-P), an operation which supports the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines counterterrorism efforts. With U.S. advice
and training, the AFP and civilian authorities have improved their ability to coordinate
and sustain counterterrorism operations. U.S. and Philippine forces have also worked
together under the new Security Engagement Board framework – the primary mechanism
for consultation and planning regarding non-traditional security threats – to complete
humanitarian and civil assistance projects and improve living conditions in the southern
Philippines. As a result of their combined efforts, support for terrorists has waned
markedly.

This American foreign policy and security-related endeavor has certain implications on

the capacity of the Philippine government to provide security to its own people. It helps in

addressing the weaknesses of the Philippine armed forces and provides instruments as well as

institutional suggestions (e.g. through the legislative-backed modernization of the armed forces)

to advance our military capability, especially in curbing terrorism. However, this form of

military intervention is questioned all over the world because it apparently violates the

Westphalian system of sovereign states (Nicholson, 2002; Brown and Ainley, 2005).

30
 References

Books, Articles and Thesis

Brown, Chris with Ainley, Kirsten. (2005). Understanding International Relations (3rd Ed.).

Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brewer, Paul R., Gross, Kijmberly, Aday, Sean, and Willnat, Lars. (January 2004). International

Trust and Public Opinion about World Affairs. American Journal of Political Science

Vol. 48, No. 1 pp. 93-109.

Burns, James MacGregor, Peltason, J. W., and Cronin, Thomas E. (1987). Government by the

People (13th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Burns, James MacGregor, Peltason, J. W., Cronin, Thomas E., and Magleby, David B. (1994).

Government by the People (Brief Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Goodman, Mel. (February, 2004). The Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy In

Focus Vol. 9, No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol9/v9n01military.html

on 1 February 2008.

Grant, Alan R. (1994). The American Political Process (5th Ed.). Aldershot, Hants, England:

Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd.

Groisser, Philip L. (1971). Mastering World History. N/A: Keystone Education Press.

Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin. (2004). Comparative Government and Politics (6th Ed.). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heywood, Andrew. (2002). Politics (2nd Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Liwanag, Marichu C. (2005). RP-US Security Relations in the Post-Cold War Era: A Study of the

Visiting Forces Agreement. Unpublished master's thesis, University of The Philippines –

31
 Diliman, Quezon City.

Nicholson, Michael. (2002). International Relations (2nd Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith, Steve. (2002). The End of the Unipolar Moment? September 11 and the Future of World

Order. International Relations Vol. 16, No. 2 pp. 171-183.

Targonski, Rosalie (Ed.). (2000). An Outline of U.S. Government. United States Information

Agency. Office of Internatrional Information Programs. United States Department of

State.

Turner, Mark and Hulme, David. (1997). Governance, Administration, and Development:

Making the State Work. Basingstoke, Hants, England: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Wasserman, Gary. (1995). The Basics of American Politics (4th Ed.). Canada: Little, Brown and

Company Ltd.

Internet Sources

Arkibong Bayan. (February 2008). Protests against the US-RP Balikatan Exercises in Marawi

City and Quezon City. Retrieved from http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2008-02Feb21

MarawaUStroopsOut/manilamarawiusout.htm on 17 March 2008.

Department of Foreign Affairs (Philippines) – http://www.dfa.gov.ph

Global Security – http://globalsecurity.org

United States Department of State - http://www.state.gov

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

32
 Endnotes

1 All descriptions come from wikipedia.org. The details were verified by the author through the legitimate

Congressional websites available on the links section of wikipedia’s webpages.

2 The terms of this treaty are available at the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs website

(http://www.dfa.gov.ph), wikipedia.org, and Liwanag’s (2005) thesis.

3 Sufficient information about the annual series of Balikatan Exercises are provided by Liwanag (2005) and Global

Security at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/balikatan.htm.
4 Arkibong Bayan (i.e. arkibongbayan.org), a Filipino militant group has online postings regarding the alleged

abuses of American troops that conduct military operations and training in the Philippines.
5 These controversies are formally raised mostly through the media, such as the television and government websites.

33