President Duterte’s anti-US populism is a dangerously isolationist path

After barely two months in office, Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte’s colourful words are already catching up with him. Duterte is playing a high-stakes game with global superpowers and in using expletives against United States President Barack Obama, before hastily claiming it wasn’t personal, he has clearly demonstrated his hollow foreign policy.

During his election campaign, Duterte had both the confidence and good cause to speak out against the overbearing US influence on the Philippines. Indeed it was one of the issues that marked him out against the Manila oligarchy’s continuity candidates. It is not difficult to understand the extent and level of resentment there is to diplomatic, economic and cultural dependency on America among the general public in the Philippines. And any leader, bold enough, will call for “a foreign policy reset”, seeking an obvious and much-demanded opportunity for change.

However, the terms of this foreign policy reset have not been stated or the reset process hasn’t even been thought through. This has been a chaotic couple of months for the Philippines and the administration is without any short-term direction, other than the mass of extra-judicial killings in the war on drugs. As a former US colony, the Philippines is unlikely to dilute US influence quickly and Duterte’s overt anti-colonial tone is, thus far, mere words. Words that are only causing the country embarrassment and not redressing the unbalanced US-Filipino relationship. Duterte’s sensitivity to condemnation of his murderous crusade against drugs and his assertion of sovereignty are yet to be backed up with any actual shift in foreign policy.

The most obvious change would be to deny or limit US access to military bases. On this, Duterte has so far been quiet. The Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement, ratified in January, locked in the next administration, but Duterte has little regard for the law or protocol. Relics of previous eras of cosy US-Filpino relations in the shape of Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay Naval Base (the two largest overseas US military bases) were back on the table and US aircraft were quickly relocated from Korea to Clark. Further deals with Japan and Australia have also been locked-in as part of regional alliances against China. Duterte is not offering a convincing alternative model for US-Filipino relations other than cheap insults.

In contrast, despite a frosty relationship with China from the back-end of the Benigno Aquino administration, Duterte has looked (relatively) more diplomatic and open to engagement. Movement in the islands disputes in the South China Sea and the recent, if fairly meaningless, legal victory at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, initiated unilaterally under Aquino, has been noted. Duterte is openly courting Chinese investment to build much-needed infrastructure. Some observers have suggested there is the possibility of a healthier balance for the Philippines, but it is unclear what that means — Islands for railways perhaps?

It is worth noting that Duterte considers himself a socialist, who has offered rebel Communists cabinet positions and peace deals, but he is also a nationalist. At the age of 71, he has threatened to jetski to disputed islands and plant the Filipino flag himself. Such campaign bluster on the islands though has been replaced by talk of a deal with the Chinese. The issue cannot be ignored entirely as Duterte attended the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) summit in Laos on Tuesday.

In short, there is little Duterte can offer the Chinese other than surrender of the US alliance and the islands. Neither is that likely nor is it in the better interests of the Filipino people.

Duterte has thus far been uncharacteristically quiet with regard to his Asean neighbours, where there is significant unease about his leadership. For many, he is fuelling an already tense Sino-American confrontation to little end. Somewhat hypocritically, Duterte is prepared to infringe on Indonesian sovereignty to seek mercy for convicted Filipino drug trafficker Mary Jane Veloso. While it is a noble effort, Duterte may well struggle to get far with President Joko Widodo, given his push to reinstate the death penalty back in the Philippines and his lawless campaign of murder against drug users and dealers.

Many in Washington will be watching closely, but until it is clear what Duterte wants as payment, as he auctions the country to the highest bidding superpower, there will be little concern about Duterte’s insults. His brand of anti-American populism is certainly a few notches below that which helped Hugo Chavez to power in Venezuela, but it is a dangerously isolationist path to take, as most Venezuelans would now attest.

Many in the State Department should also welcome a different relationship with the Philippines that could be good for Filipinos — rooting out corruption rather than furthering it, aiding economic stability for investment and economic development. But Duterte is unlikely to be the person that will make such commitments. More likely, these considerations will again be secondary until a more predictable ally takes office in Manila.

— Guardian News & Media Ltd

Tom Smith is an academic specialising in political violence and ‘the Jihad’ in South East Asia. He is currently the lecturer in International Relations for the University of Portsmouth at the Royal Air Force College Cranwell.