UNIVERSITY of the Philippines Diliman History professor and New Era University-Center for Philippine Studies adviser Vicente Villan, a friend of mine for more than 30 years now, asked me a couple of months back to contribute an article for a book he is organizing about Philippines-Russia relations. I thought of writing something about the developing relationship between our country and Russia during the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte.
President Duterte went on a momentous official visit to Russia in May 2017 — which was cut short when state security forces clashed with terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State, and local Maute and Abu Sayyaf groups in the city of Marawi. This trip to Russia came on the heels of a historic trip to China in October 2016, Duterte’s first official visit outside of Southeast Asia, where he famously announced his desire as president to pivot away from the overbearing influence of the United States toward Beijing.
Then-US president Barack Obama announced in September 2016 that he was going to raise the question of human rights violations arising from Duterte’s controversial war on drugs in a scheduled meeting during the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit to be held in Vientiane, Laos — which was eventually shelved by the Americans. Duterte showered Obama with an obscenity-laced tirade about the US affront on Philippine sovereignty through its shameless interference in our domestic affairs.
Apart from the canceled meeting, the Millennium Challenge Corp., a US aid agency, moved to defer the re-selection of the Philippines (in 2016 before Duterte was elected president) for its multimillion-dollar development grant. The US State Department also put the brakes on a planned sale of M4 assault rifles to the Philippine National Police after Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland declared in late 2016 his opposition to the deal, citing human rights issues as well.
Duterte reacted to the American squeeze by approaching China and Russia to fill the void left by souring relations with the United States. Hence, he visited China in October 2016 and Russia in May 2017.
Working on my planned essay, I focused on establishing the historical context of the Philippines-Russia relations in order to provide the significance of Duterte’s initiative to improve bilateral relations with Moscow.
Duterte’s colorful and controversial language aside his moves were packaged as part of what he called the institution of an independent foreign policy for the Philippines, or essentially a signal to the rest of the world that Manila will not forever be a lapdog of Washington, its former colonial master.
Duterte is not the first Philippine president to dream of an independent foreign policy for the country, which suffered for decades from the perception — generally accurate — that we were an American lackey in Southeast Asia. Usha Mahajani wrote:
“President [Manuel] Roxas initiated a Philippine foreign policy in a spirit of virtual repudiation of Asianism when he declared that ‘the magnetic pole of our foreign policy will be the United States,’ and called upon Filipinos to ‘preserve at all costs our intimate relationship with that great country.’”
British historian Constance Mary Turnbull wrote that in an earlier iteration of Southeast Asian regionalism, the Philippines was not invited to participate in the post-World War II regionalism initiative to support nationalism in Southeast Asia because of that perception. The ostracism the Philippines received was a slap on the face because Filipinos were the first colonized people in Southeast Asia to organize an anti-colonial nationalist movement.
In the late 1960s, when the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. contemplated improving trade relations with the then-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and other communist-bloc countries, among the justification used was the decision of the Philippines to pursue an independent foreign policy. According to Thelma Beltran:
“The consideration of the trade option with the USSR and other communist countries was in line with the official decision of the government to develop an ‘independent foreign policy.’ Philippine foreign policy has been too American-centric and even one-sided in favor of the Americans as evidenced by such major agreements as the Laurel-Langley Agreement, the Military Bases Agreement and the Mutual Defense Treaty. Many Filipino leaders suggested moving gradually away from too much dependence on the United States and expanding the horizon of Philippine foreign relations to include establishing diplomatic ties with all countries, regardless of ideological differences. This included the possible normalization of the Philippine-Soviet relations.”
Trade was the primary consideration for improving Philippine relations with the USSR then (and the Russians during the time of President Duterte). This view was elucidated on March 16, 1967, by the economist Augusto Ceasar Espiritu — also the president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce at the time — in a statement before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He said:
“Trade with Russia and the East European bloc will obviously open up new markets for our traditional as well as new exports. If, according to UN figures, clothing, raw sugar, leather shoes and raw tobacco constitute 4 of the 7 major imports of Russia, while equipment for industrial plants, crude petroleum, raw cotton, wheat, tractors and parts, and agricultural machinery are five of her 10 principal exports, then there are indeed possibilities for expanding trade with Russia.”
This mimics our current situation in the context of a debilitating petroleum crisis as an offshoot of the conflict between the US and Iran crippling oil supply passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Russia produces more than 10 million barrels of oil per day (as of 2024), making it the third-largest producer in the world. Moreover, the US has recently removed sanctions against Russian oil to help alleviate the supply problems being experienced globally.
Had Duterte’s positive relations with Russia been cultivated, the country might have been in a prime position to secure much-needed supply of Russian oil in the midst of the crisis.
The problem is — as it has always been — the geopolitical agenda of the United States gets in the way of a good thing for Philippine trade.
