PH perceived as “troublemaker” in ASEAN

IN its editorial more than two years ago, The Jakarta Post, a prominent Indonesian English language newspaper, already highlighted how other ASEAN nations see the Philippines as the harbinger of trouble in the region.

Writing on July 11, 2024, The Jakarta Post editorial titled “ASEAN and defense pact” said, “ASEAN leaders should talk loudly, clearly and in unison about the potential of the Philippines-Japan military pact to ruffle many feathers in the region and beyond.”

The alarm came out just three days after the Philippines and Japan signed their bilateral defense pact on July 8– without consulting or informing fellow ASEAN members. As the article noted, such a “major military pact with powers external to the region should require transparency and can impact regional stability.” It noted further that the signing of the agreement was witnessed by President Bongbong Marcos Jr.– without the attendance of (then) Japanese Prime Minister Fumo Kishida.

The Jakarta Post editorial criticized PBBM wholly: “The Marcos government apparently did not inform or consult (with) fellow ASEAN members about the defense treaty beforehand, which it was supposed to do given the impact of the agreement on the region.

“The (ASEAN) Charter also mandates ‘enhanced consultations on matters seriously affecting the common interest of ASEAN.’

“This means,” it continued, “that the Philippines’ ASEAN neighbors have the right to be informed about the purpose and context of the military pact.”

“This is also the case for Marcos’ decision to boost Manila’s defense alliance with Washington, including the opening of more military bases for the United States.”

This direct tirade on Bongbong Marcos is an expression of what many other ASEAN communities feel about the Philippines’ involvement with external powers in their own neighborhood.

By practice and tradition, ASEAN states, due to diplomatic considerations, refrain from commenting on their neighbors’ policy decision and they just also kept mum about their unease with the Philippines’ active collaboration with the US.

And as we can see from the article quoted above, the Marcos regime’s dalliance with the US plan to internationalize and militarize the South China is already raising concerns, for different reasons, among ASEAN nations to now include Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia and former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

A year before the Jakarta Post editorial, On November 8, 2023, Lee Hsien Loong, then the leader of Singapore, in a dialogue at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum, when asked about the South China Sea situation commented in an address to Filipinos, “Are you sure you want to get into a fight where you will be the battleground?”

This is based on his observation that some Philippine officials clearly want to invite trouble to itself and the region as the next battleground of another US proxy war.

Last August 18, the Malaysian news site ‘Malaysiakini’ headlined, “PM (Anwar Ibrahim) raises concern over US military expansion in the Philippines, to beef up Sabah defense.”

“The (Malaysian) government,” the article informed its readers, “will beef up defense infrastructure in Sabah to prepare for increasing geopolitical uncertainty in the region.”

“This follows the recent expansion of US military facilities in the Philippines to Balabac Island in Palawan province, which lies near Malaysian waters and in close proximity to Banggi Island in Sabah.

“Anwar said Malaysia still has concerns over the development due to existing territorial disputes between them.”

Last October 2, former UN Security Council president and Singapore ambassador to the United Nations, Jaya Ratnam, speaking at the Ateneo University, on the invitation by the Robert Kwan Laurel Endowment Fund, advised the Philippines to be “very, very careful” and “the danger would touch every ASEAN country but may actually be especially difficult for the Philippines.”

He also reminded Filipinos of what is happening in Ukraine, which is now a wastebasket case for agreeing to be the “proxy” of Western Imperialism against Russia.

When even our closest neighbors are alarmed by our lack of strategy in foreign policy, no wonder we are perceived as the troublemaker in the region.