A neutral foreign policy will not work

TWO ARTICLES in the INQUIRER, one written by Roland Simbulan and the other quoting ACT Rep. Antonio Tinio (6/21/15 and 6/25/15, respectively), raise the desirability of a neutral foreign policy, meaning nonalignment with other countries. This proposal has also been advanced by others, but no one has bothered to explain how a neutral foreign policy can be implemented.

The proposal is based on the naive assumption that by declaring a neutral foreign policy, a country will no longer be an object of aggression. But in World Wars I and II, Belgium was not merely neutral but neutralized, meaning its status as such was guaranteed by international agreement. Nonetheless, Belgium became a battleground during both wars.

The reason for this is the world community is lawless, and might makes right. A country with a weak military invites aggression. This matter is evident now in the dispute over the South China Sea. The claimant-countries, besides China, are Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. China has thus far bullied only the Philippines and Vietnam; it has not encroached on territories claimed by Malaysia and Taiwan. An easy explanation for this is: Malaysia and Taiwan have an adequate military force to deter aggression.

Both countries have guided-missile warships and a modern air force. Malaysia has the F-18 Hornet and Taiwan the F-16 Falcon. By way of contrast, both Vietnam and the Philippines have a decrepit armed force. Vietnam operates Vietnam-War-era Soviet-made jet planes and ships. In our case, we have no combat planes and no modern warships. The RPS Raja Humabon is a World War II frigate. (Data on each country’s armaments are found in Jane’s Armed Forces, published annually.)

In this regard, China takes the path of all aggressors by picking on the weakest prey first. Hitler started his aggression before World War II by going after the countries in Eastern Europe before turning west. Then as now, the countries in Eastern Europe are less developed than those in the west. Japan in the 1930s took the same path. It first picked on China (a deeply divided country at that time) before going after the western colonial empires in Southeast Asia.

A go-it-alone policy is a path we cannot afford to take. The cost of modern weapons is prohibitive. The fifth-generation stealth warplanes like the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 Lightning cost around S200 million and $150 million each, respectively. The cost of owning and operating just one squadron of such planes will exhaust our defense budget. If we pursue such a policy, we will have to increase our defense budget and cut down on expenditures on education, social services and infrastructure. When a country devotes a huge portion of its GDP to national defense, the living standard of its population declines.

We were assigned in Moscow during the waning years of the Soviet Union. It was then devoting as much as 40 percent of its GDP to armaments. The outcome was what is termed an “economy of scarcity.” Consumer goods were in short supply as most resources were siphoned into defense industries. One had to fall in line to buy bread or milk. Ordinary consumer goods like toothpaste, tissue paper, soap, detergent, etc. were not readily available.

The bad part was that the Nomenklatura (the Communist Party elite) did not suffer from these shortages in the way the ordinary Soviet citizen did. There were Beryozka shops where imported goods were available but were open only to party apparatchiks. In addition, these apparatchiks were paid in hard ruble, which was convertible currency, while the ordinary Soviet citizen was paid in ordinary ruble, which was nonconvertible. This allowed top party officials to shop in the West. This unegalitarian setup worked because the Soviet Union had a controlled press. This anomaly was not unveiled until Boris Yeltsin exposed it in the October 1987 meeting of the Communist Party’s Central Committee.

The bottom line is, if we pursue a neutral foreign policy, we must increase our defense expenditures. We will end up with an economy of scarcity, but will the members of Congress advocating this policy join the bread lines that will result? Or will they, like the apparatchiks in the Soviet Union, exempt themselves from this hardship by establishing special shops where they can buy imported goods not available to our fellow Filipinos? Such an arrangement will not work and will even cause instability in our country. Unless, of course, we abolish our free press.

Thus, the advocates of a go-it-alone foreign policy is misrepresenting the issue to our people. The choice is not between an independent foreign policy or a policy based on alliances. The choice before us is to pursue a foreign policy that will allow us to maintain our present standard of living.

Our inadequate armaments have opened us to Chinese aggression. And it will get worse if we do not form alliances with other countries with whom we share common goals. Japan after World War II placed itself under the US defense umbrella. It was thus able to limit its defense outlay to just 1 percent of GDP. The savings in defense outlay Japan used instead to modernize its economy.

This may be the preferred route for us. We can join alliances to minimize our defense expenditures and allow our economy to expand. We can consider an independent foreign policy at a later date when we can afford one. Hermenegildo C. Cruz was accredited as Philippine ambassador to the United Nations in 1984-1986.