Independent foreign policy defined

and non-communism. The major proponents of the policy were the newly minted nations, recently freed from the yoke of colonialism. Spearheaded by such countries as India, Yugoslavia, and many of the new states of Asia and Africa during the period of the Cold War ( 1945– 1990), they refused, for the most part, to align themselves with either the communist bloc, led by the Soviet Union, or the Western bloc, led by the United States. Though neutralist, they were not isolationist, continuing as they did to participate actively in international affairs and take positions on international issues.

While neutralism was a postWorld War 2 phenomenon, similar policies were followed prior to the period in the form of isolationist policies that avoided entangling alliances. Indeed, the United States managed to avoid the European - riod – the period between the two great wars. It only entered the fray in the latter part of the European Pearl Harbor was bombed.

In the case of this Philippines, despite the grant of independence by the US in 1946, the presence of American bases inevitably drew us into the theater of war e.g. Korea, Vietnam and even to a certain extent the Iraq war.

Foreign policy an extension of domestic policy

We in the Council of Foreign Relations believe that foreign policy is an instrument in pursuit of the common good as prescribed by the Constitution. Loosely defined, it is the promotion by the state of a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living and improved quality of life for all.

It is against this background that the government after Edsa pursued economic diplomacy in its engagement with other nations even as it took its place in the community of nations eager to promote regionalism and multilateralism in the age of international solidarity following two disastrous world wars and the end of the age of colonialism. Independence and isolationism therefore gave way to interdependence and regionalism. This is what the Asean is trying to achieve in our part of the world. To a certain extent, this requires some surrender of sovereignty and the achievement of common- ality of purpose and harmonization and interdependence in the pursuit of development.

Non-alignment, not isolationism

Non- alignment is the state of affairs in most Third World countries which have opted not be formally involved in military alliances with the world’s major superpowers. This Philippines is one of the few exceptions, having gone into a mutual defense agreement with the US and hosts military bases ( EDCA).

The Non-aligned Movement has at present over 100 members. It however supports a UN mandate of non-aggression and respect for the territorial integrity of nations. NAM members participate actively in international affairs and with full membership of the UN.

Non- alignment is not isolationism, because in this age of regionalism and multilateralism nations find refuge in international solidarity. The Philippines, for example, belongs to the Asean community of nations that has adopted a common agenda with regard to security and development even if in the case of defense, it has still to conclude a treaty of sorts.

The difference between non- alignment and isolationism cannot be overemphasized. It may be recalled that isolationism was the official US policy towards all international affairs outside its own hemisphere from the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 until its entry in World War 2 in 1941 (with a brief break from 1917-1920). The US could easily adopt such a posture in the past since it was and is the richest country in the world international trade being only a fraction of the total goods and services it produces.

Independent foreign policy

In conclusion, if this country truly wishes to adopt an independent foreign policy, it must refrain from aiding combatants actual or prospective by allowing either to use its territory for the purpose of aggression. In the process, it may continue trading with either or both.

It must be said, however, that in the age of nuclear warfare invoking an independent foreign policy will not necessarily save a nation from the holocaust. The same can be said about the era of international terrorism where every nation big or small can be victimized.