Вместо противостояния Китаю эксперты призывают оценивать политику Филиппин по критерию «про-Филиппины или нет»

IN international diplomacy and domestic political posturing, labels are often weaponized to stifle genuine debate. A prime illustration of the absurdity of such naming conventions can be recalled from the United States, when President Donald Trump ordered the federal government to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” Were American officials who chose not to use this new name branded as pro-Mexico or anti-American? Nope. Yet, a similar linguistic litmus test has been awkwardly imported into the Philippines. In a recent public exchange between Vice President Sara Duterte and Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro Jr., the defense chief asserted that a refusal to use the term “West Philippine Sea” — as mandated in an administrative order issued by then-president Benigno Aquino III — provides grounds to consider an official “pro-China.” This raises a fundamental question: Is refusing to use the term “West Philippine Sea” really a sound reason to label an official “pro-China”? The true metric: Pro-Philippines Far more important than determining whether officials are pro- or anti-China is looking past these foreign-focused binaries. Rather, the only question Filipinos should answer is whether our leaders are pro-Philippines or not. Do their positions and actions genuinely serve the interests of the Filipino nation? True patriotism is measured by outcomes, not rhetoric. If another nation enacts policies that benefit the Philippines, a patriotic official would naturally support those actions. However, doing so does not automatically make that official pro-foreigner; rather, he or she remains firmly pro-Philippines. Conversely, if that same foreign country acts against our national interests, a true patriot would oppose it. Opposing foreign encroachment does not make an official anti-foreign; instead, he or she continues to act in the best interest of the Philippines. In deciding whether national leaders and officials are pro-Philippines, one must rigorously assess whether the policies and actions they advocate actually advance Philippine interests. That evaluation goes far beyond what geographic terminology one uses. When examining our policies relating to our maritime disputes with China, we must ask: What will actually advance Philippine interests better? Is it challenging China’s claims through repeated sailings by coast guard and naval vessels — tactics that frequently lead to near-bloody encounters? Or is it pursuing pragmatic bilateral negotiations, including the possibility of joint resource exploration, as then-president Rodrigo Duterte attempted and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. initially welcomed during his January 2023 state visit to China? Notably, none of our fellow members in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations support our aggressive efforts to counter China’s claims in the South China Sea, as Secretary Teodoro has urged; nor do they back our July 2016 arbitral award in The Hague. Even regional nations with competing claims against China refuse to back our confrontational strategy. Is this reluctance born out of fear of riling Beijing, or is it grounded in the realistic belief that no superpower will ever give in to outside pressure — certainly not from a far weaker neighbor? As for Western support for our maritime claims, no Chinese leader can afford to give in to it without risking a political backlash for reprising the historical weakness of imperial China centuries ago. Do our alliances endanger us? Some geopolitical analysts view the repeated confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels as serving a larger Western narrative — one that paints Beijing as an unmitigated bully and compels Asian nations to ally with the West to counter China. This brings us directly to the current Marcos administration policy of allowing the United States, Japan, Australia and other Western nations to vastly increase their military presence and activities in the Philippines, granting them access to our strategic bases and defense facilities. Does this policy truly serve the Philippines’ national interest? Looking back at history offers a sobering perspective. What then-president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. stated in 1975 remains profoundly relevant: Giving foreign powers military access to our bases inherently endangers us. Half a century ago, our current leader’s father warned in the Philippine Council of Foreign Relations journal (available in the third article at http://pcfr.weebly.com/pcfr-journal.html): “If the purpose of American military bases is to strengthen American military posture in the Pacific, or in the Indian Ocean and throughout the world, does this not expose the Philippines to the animosities, suspicions and the conflicts arising out of the American military buildup — animosities and conflicts that we have no participation in making — and do not these bases endanger the safety of the Filipinos and the Philippines not only from conventional armed attack, but from possible nuclear attack?” Echoing these timeless warnings, former president Rodrigo Duterte cautioned in March 2023 — the very month after Marcos Jr. granted American access to nine enhanced defense sites — that these locations would serve as “US platforms for war” where “missiles would rain on us” during a conflict. Iran’s retaliatory bombardments of Middle East states hosting US military assets tragically confirm the prescient warnings articulated by both Marcos Sr. and the elder Duterte. When media failsto serve us Assessing whether national leaders and their policies are truly pro-Philippines can also be measured through public satisfaction and approval ratings. By this metric, current administration leaders, including President Marcos, appear to lag far behind Vice President Sara Duterte in public trust. VP Duterte has consistently scored far ahead of Marcos and other top government officials in comprehensive surveys conducted by established pollsters Pulse Asia and Social Weather Stations. The views of prominent leaders are critical when evaluating whether national security policies serve the broader Philippine interest. Yet, President Marcos has notably never consulted the full National Security Council — which includes former presidents and opposition figures — regarding his administration’s massive escalation of foreign forces in the country. A final note: In assessing whether officials and policies are genuinely pro-Philippines, media coverage is crucial. If reporting heavily favors foreign interests, then the media itself may fail the test of being pro-Philippines. When local journalists routinely ignore the views of American generals, military analysts and media that bases used by the US would be attacked, is our media truly serving Filipino interests?