President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines shook the global sphere last Wednesday when he announced that he was renouncing the United States and embracing China. His increasing anti-American rhetoric has not only been a surprise to American diplomats but also to country officials and the Filipino public.
Before contacting American officials, Duterte fired off aggressive rhetoric about forcing U.S. Special Forces to withdraw from the southern island of Mindanao and ending joint maritime and military exercises with the U.S. These statements have left diplomats and officials alike confused, and left wondering whether or not Duterte’s words will actually transmit into policy.
Following his controversial statements, President Duterte clarified his comments and said that he was advocating for the departure of the alignment of foreign policy with the United States rather than a severance of ties. He stated that it would not suit the Philippine’s best political, economic, or social interests at the time to cut ties with the United States; however, last Thursday in Beijing, Duterte told Chinese business officials that “America has lost now. I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow.” He followed this contentious statement with, “And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It's the only way.”
His questioning remarks present a large shift in the current state of international relations. Former President Benigno Aquino had U.S. support in his efforts to gain international acknowledgment for China’s illegal occupation of the South China Sea territory. Now, Duterte has completely realigned Filipino motives and even made overtures to Beijing involving the scandal. Furthermore, according to the Washington Post’s Emily Rahaula, “the foreign policy and defense establishment has worked with the Americans for years and relies to some extent on U.S. money.”
Scholars who have been analyzing Duterte’s divisive rhetoric all present varying theories for his actions. Some believe that the President actually intends to move away from the Western world, and create alliances with China and Russia; however, still others believe that the President is manipulating his shrewd commentary as a political tactic in order to cajole China without completely ousting the United States. Some scholars are even going as far as saying that Duterte’s troubling childhood experiences with being sexually abused by an American Jesuit priest have created innate anti-American sentiments.
Nonetheless, Washington is still on edge following President Duterte’s remarks. The Philippines is a key ally of the United States, and if Duterte decides to actively follow through with his statements and depart from this alliance, then China may grasp the foothold it needs to overcome the United States as a hegemonic power. With the election looming overhead, it will be interesting to see how the next administration handles this foreign policy debacle. Duterte’s comments, including how the potential administration handles it, will have a large impact on the hegemonic future of the United States.
