Let slip the dogs of war

Time to read
2 minutes
Read so far

Let slip the dogs of war

Posted in:
0 comments

“If and when the Philippines confront the external threats cited by Marcos Jr., is there even a probability of victory?”

Marcos and Zelensky are the new war mongrels of the United States.

Ukrainian holdover President Volodymyr Zelensky recently visited Manila to meet Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., personally inviting him to attend the upcoming Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland. Incidentally, Ukraine has been under martial law since 2022, and its president is under holdover capacity due to the nonconduct of national elections.

This visit was not coincidental. Zelensky also attended the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, hoping to meet Marcos Jr. However, after failing to secure a meeting there, Zelensky had to fly to Manila to meet his Philippine counterpart.

Zelensky has been busy for the past few years drumming up international support for Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia.

Similarly, Marcos Jr. stated recently that the country shouldprepare for any " eventualities" as there exists a more pronounced and worrisome external threat. He has been seeking military assistance regarding the maritime dispute in the West Philippine Sea/South China Sea (WPS/SCS) against China and other ASEAN neighbors. Both leaders are navigating complex geopolitical landscapes, with Washington's influence looming large in their strategic calculations.

Behind this war-mongering machinery is Washington, orchestrating moves to further its own geopolitical interests. Ukraine, however, has received significantly more support from its most active benefactor. In a recently approved war aid package by the United States Senate, a substantial portion is headed to Kyiv, with smaller allocations for Israel and Taiwan. The Philippines, in comparison, is receiving $500 million—paltry next to the $61 billion obligated to Ukraine for 2024 alone.

This disparity in aid suggests that Manila’s aggressive stance is not seen as credible and sustaining. In recent months, influenced by Washington’s policymakers, Manila has increasingly opposed Chinese presence in the WPS/SCS, heightening unnecessary tensions in the region. Kyiv's and Manila's actions are both seen as part of the United States’ broader strategy of containment against Russia and China, its primary competitors for global hegemony.

The true victims in this geopolitical chess game are the client states, which, by strapping on war boots, place their own citizens in constant danger in an effort to stay in Washington’s favor. While there is a semblance of legitimacy in the issues,these client states face, using these legitimate concerns as foreign policy and hegemony tools will only lead the world to further conflict and instability.

For Manila, it is far better to resolve territorial disputes through diplomatic channels rather than through the active flexing of military might in the WPS/SCS. Though slow and challenging, diplomatic negotiations offer a more sustainable path to peace and stability in the region. Engaging in a war of attrition, driven by external powers' interests, risks dragging the Philippines into a conflict that it cannot sustain and will ultimately harm its people.

It is non-negotiable that Manila should prejudice sovereign boundaries. However, the Philippines must navigate complex and conflicting interests in search of the best course of action to protect our territorial claims. Should we move like Ukraine and operate with a degree of assurance that we can lay victory based on a military solution? After three years of war, billions of military aid and tranches of foreign ordnance and armaments, and about half a million people dead, victory for Kyiv remains distant and elusive. If and when the Philippines confront the external threats cited by Marcos Jr., is there even a probability of victory?

The shadow of Washington looming in our foreign policy will lead us nowhere but toward the prospect of war. History has taught us that US intervention will only coincide with the clientstate’s welfare in so far as Washington’s interest dictates. This is why, instead of Manila pouring its attention into cooperation with Southeast Asian neighbors, Malacañan is busy greasing the gears of war and conflict against China. In the process, we are alienating our neighbors who have equal claims to the SCS/WPS in favor of a backer thousands of miles away with no direct interest in a couple of islands and reefs in the open sea but the arrogance of mere presence.

Marcos and Zelensky, as pawns in a larger geopolitical strategy, highlight the perils of aligning too closely with superpowers that have their own interests at heart. The approach taken by the Philippines and Ukraine underlines the complexity of modern geopolitical alliances and the dangers inherent in pursuing aggressive postures dictated by external influences. A more prudent and autonomous foreign policy, focused on peaceful resolution and regional cooperation, is essential for the long-term well-being of these nations and their citizens.