The Apathetic Isolationism of Duterte's "Independent Foreign Policy": A Subtle Satellite Diplomacy

The Apathetic Isolationism of Duterte's "Independent Foreign Policy":

A Subtle Satellite Diplomacy

By Teofilo Odovacer Ora

The foreign policy under former President Rodrigo Duterte, often framed as an "Independent Foreign Policy," was initially positioned as a bold departure from the Philippines' traditional alliances, particularly with the United States. At first glance, this policy seemed appealing, particularly to those who felt that the Philippines had been overly dependent on Western powers and should prioritize its national interests, encapsulated in the idea of "friends to all, enemies to none." This approach was meant to assert the country’s autonomy by balancing relationships with various global powers, notably China, while avoiding entanglements in complex geopolitical or ideological conflicts.

However, over time, it became apparent that Duterte’s vision of an "independent" foreign policy was less about asserting national pride or sovereignty and more about avoiding confrontation, even at the cost of critical national interests. While the policy initially appeared to prioritize pragmatism—especially through economic engagements with China—it ultimately devolved into what could be described as subtle isolationism. Instead of charting a path that robustly asserted the Philippines’ position in the global arena, Duterte's policy was marked by a reluctance to confront contentious issues, leaving the country passive and disengaged from critical international debates.

The most glaring example of this passive approach was the Philippines' handling of its territorial disputes in the South China Sea, particularly the West Philippine Sea. Despite a landmark ruling in 2016 by the Permanent Court of Arbitration that favored the Philippines' claims over Chinese expansion in the region, Duterte largely downplayed this victory. His willingness to de-emphasize the Philippines' sovereignty over the disputed waters in favor of securing "fishing rights" with China demonstrated a prioritization of short-term economic gains over long-term national interests. This decision not only undermined the Philippines’ territorial claims but also showcased how Duterte's policy was more about avoiding diplomatic confrontation than defending core national rights.

Further complicating this "independent" stance was Duterte's handling of issues like the Chinese "Offshore Gambling Operations" (POGOs), which were suspected of being linked to organized crime and money laundering. Rather than addressing the national security risks posed by these operations, Duterte's administration largely turned a blind eye, possibly because these ventures brought in much-needed investment. The Philippine government’s apparent indifference to the illicit activities tied to these operations further exposed the hollowness of the so-called "independent" policy. It seemed more like a transactional, "you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours" approach, devoid of any deeper commitment to national security or rule of law.

Perhaps the most striking example of Duterte's disregard for the Philippines' international standing was his response to the case of Mary Jane Veloso, a Filipino woman sentenced to death in Indonesia for drug trafficking. Initially, many hoped Duterte would intervene, given his stated position against the death penalty and his mandate to protect Filipino citizens abroad. However, his response to Veloso’s plight was deeply disappointing. Duterte expressed little empathy, asserting that Veloso, like everyone else, should "abide by the law." His refusal to actively push for her release or clemency illustrated a troubling prioritization of his anti-drug stance over the protection of an innocent Filipino citizen who appeared to have been a victim of human trafficking. This was not an isolated case of apathy—it was a direct manifestation of Duterte’s rigid view on law enforcement, which often took precedence over humanitarian concerns or international diplomacy.

This stance is where Duterte’s "independent" foreign policy falls apart. Rather than representing a strong, assertive national interest, his foreign policy devolved into a form of subtle isolationism. While he avoided direct conflicts with global powers, particularly the U.S., his approach did little to advance the Philippines’ standing or security on the world stage. Instead of taking an active role in regional security, human rights, or international norms, Duterte’s foreign policy was about disengagement. It was as if the Philippines, under his leadership, simply sought to avoid being caught in global disputes or criticisms, as long as foreign powers did not interfere in the country’s domestic policies. This approach, however, often left the Philippines vulnerable and diminished its influence in shaping international affairs.

Duterte’s foreign policy should not be mistaken for neutrality or even apathy—it was far more complex and, in many ways, damaging. It was not an independent foreign policy aimed at advancing the Philippines’ interests globally, but rather an inward-focused policy that sought to avoid difficult international questions or criticisms. This "apathetic" isolationism sacrificed the Philippines’ position as a regional actor and a proponent of human rights, in favor of appeasing foreign powers and avoiding confrontation. As seen in the case of Mary Jane Veloso and the country's territorial disputes, Duterte’s foreign policy was less about asserting national strength and more about sidestepping uncomfortable diplomatic realities.

The Concept of an Independent Foreign Policy: A Moot Point for the Philippines?

Ideally, an independent foreign policy implies non-alignment and an emphasis on safeguarding national interests, allowing a country to navigate its international relations without being overly influenced by any one power. In practice, however, the idea of an independent foreign policy is somewhat moot in a country like the Philippines, whose foreign policy has historically been mendicant, often dependent on the whims of larger powers. In this context, the notion of "independence" becomes academic at best, as the practicalities of dealing with global powers—particularly the United States—often compel smaller nations like the Philippines to align themselves with dominant powers for security and economic reasons.

Countries can form alliances without sacrificing their independence, as evidenced by the United Kingdom and Germany. Both are NATO members but assert independent foreign policies by taking initiatives to safeguard their own national interests, sometimes in opposition to the broader strategic goals of the alliance. France, a founding NATO member, offers a clearer example. Under Charles de Gaulle, France famously asserted its independence, particularly in the realm of nuclear policy and its desire to keep NATO’s military command structure separate from American influence. De Gaulle’s vision for Europe, which was in direct contrast to American hegemony within NATO, remains one of the most prominent examples of a country maintaining an independent foreign policy while still being part of an international alliance.

For the Philippines, the ideal would have been a foreign policy that allows the country to maintain its alliance with the United States while standing firm on issues that pertain to its vital national interests. The Philippines, ideally, could have worked within its alliance with the U.S. to pursue its own interests, particularly in defending sovereignty and asserting its rights in the South China Sea. However, in reality, much of the Filipino criticism of U.S. policies since independence centers on the fact that the United States has often taken the Philippines for granted, remaining insensitive to its national aspirations and capacities. This disregard for Filipino interests became even more pronounced as nationalism grew, especially in the post-colonial era, yet was largely ignored by American policymakers.

Duterte’s "Satellite Diplomacy" and the Erosion of Sovereignty

This dynamic came to a head under Duterte’s administration. His approach to the West Philippine Sea dispute with China offers a stark example of the discrepancy between his rhetoric of independence and the reality of his foreign policy. In an infamous exchange, Duterte admitted to discussing the dispute with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who, in typical fashion, bluntly told Duterte to “shut up or get clobbered.” The sad part was that Duterte meekly complied, refraining from challenging China's claims or defending the Philippines' sovereignty. Rather than assert the Philippines’ rights in the region, Duterte’s response—essentially submitting to China’s demands—reflected what can only be described as "satellite diplomacy," where a nation's actions are dictated more by the will of a more powerful neighbor than by a commitment to sovereignty or independence.

This marked a stark departure from the concept of an independent foreign policy. Instead of standing up for the Philippines' territorial integrity, Duterte’s policy was passive and submissive, with no meaningful pushback against China’s assertive expansion in the South China Sea. In this instance, the Philippines was not asserting its national interest but instead retreating into a submissive role, hoping to maintain a favorable relationship with China while avoiding the costs of confrontation. This policy, which often favored economic engagement over sovereignty, became a clear example of how Duterte’s foreign policy was, in practice, far from "independent."

The exchange between Duterte and Xi Jinping certainly painted a picture of a leader more concerned with appeasing a stronger neighbor than asserting his country’s territorial rights. While some may interpret Duterte’s actions as a diplomatic attempt to avoid confrontation with China, it could also be seen as an indication that he was looking for a backer to support his domestic policies, which were often controversial and challenged by both domestic and international critics. 

By engaging in a submissive foreign policy toward China, Duterte may have been seeking economic support or political protection from a major power, allowing him to focus on domestic priorities without fear of international intervention. In essence, this could be seen as a strategic calculation: by yielding to China in the South China Sea, Duterte might have hoped to secure China’s backing in other areas, including political stability and economic growth. The irony lies in that this “support” might have come at the cost of sacrificing national sovereignty.

In this context, his actions could be interpreted not just as a failure to assert independence on the international stage, but also as a reflection of the need for external backing to secure his political agenda. This might have been particularly important given Duterte’s often contentious relationship with traditional Western allies, especially the United States, and his emphasis on pivoting toward China for both economic and political reasons. However, it’s also possible that his approach was driven by a combination of cynical pragmatism and opportunism, rather than genuine submission.

Of backing personal political agendas than national interest

Rodrigo Duterte’s foreign policy during his presidency was marked by significant shifts, particularly in his relations with the United States and China. These shifts often appeared less about safeguarding the Philippines’ broader national interests and more about backing his administration’s domestic policies, including his controversial war on drugs and his political survival. While his actions occasionally aligned with national interests, particularly in terms of security, they often prioritized his political agenda over long-term diplomatic strategy.

Duterte’s early antagonism toward President Barack Obama was primarily driven by frustration with external criticism of his domestic policies, especially his war on drugs. Obama, known for his emphasis on human rights, was vocal about the extrajudicial killings under Duterte’s administration, which put the Philippines at odds with the West. Duterte’s sharp criticism of Obama wasn’t motivated by anti-imperialism or a deep ideological commitment to sovereignty, but rather by his desire to shield his administration from foreign interference. He wanted to assert his authority over his domestic policies, free from the pressure of Western criticism. This was not just a matter of national sovereignty, but a personal political calculation to avoid undermining his authority at home.

When Donald Trump assumed office, Duterte saw an opportunity to reset relations. Trump’s “America First” policy, which focused on national interest and less on human rights, offered Duterte the diplomatic cover he sought. Trump’s transactional approach to foreign relations allowed Duterte to pursue his controversial policies without facing the same level of external scrutiny. Unlike Obama, who emphasized values like human rights and democracy, Trump’s focus on pragmatic, national interests gave Duterte the space to continue his administration’s actions with less international condemnation. Thus, Duterte’s accommodation of Trump was less about safeguarding the Philippines’ national interests in the traditional sense, and more about protecting his own domestic political agenda.

This diplomatic pragmatism was also evident in Duterte’s approach to China. While the Philippines has longstanding security agreements with the U.S., Duterte increasingly turned to China for economic support. His willingness to downplay the South China Sea dispute, where China’s claims conflict with the Philippines’ territorial rights, marked a stark departure from the Philippines’ long-standing position on territorial sovereignty. Duterte’s approach to China, often seen as submissive, was driven by a desire to secure Chinese economic investments and infrastructure projects. This focus on economic gain over territorial sovereignty highlighted Duterte’s prioritization of short-term political and economic benefits over a firm stance on national interests.

Moreover, Duterte’s pivot toward China was in part a reaction to what he perceived as insufficient support from the U.S. under Obama, who was critical of his human rights record. With Trump in office, Duterte found a leader whose “America First” stance aligned with his own desire for minimal foreign interference. Trump’s less confrontational approach allowed Duterte to focus on his domestic policies, without having to defend or explain them on the international stage. The Philippines continued its security relationship with the U.S., but Duterte’s broader foreign policy was increasingly shaped by a pragmatic calculation of what would protect his administration’s interests, rather than a consistent, principled defense of the country’s long-term national interests. 

Thus, Duterte’s foreign policy was driven more by a desire to back his administration’s domestic policies than by a consistent effort to safeguard the Philippines’ national interests. His criticism of Obama and accommodation of Trump reflected his need for political space to pursue his controversial domestic agenda, often at the expense of traditional notions of sovereignty or independence. Whether engaging with the U.S. or China, Duterte’s foreign policy was shaped by the pragmatic need for political support and economic benefits, rather than by a strategic defense of the Philippines’ long-term position on the world stage.

Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity for True Independence

Duterte's "Independent Foreign Policy" was ultimately a failure in terms of both asserting the Philippines' sovereignty and safeguarding its national interests. Rather than engaging in meaningful diplomatic initiatives to protect the country's rights, particularly in the South China Sea, Duterte’s policy devolved into passive submission. It lacked the boldness or the necessary assertiveness that would allow the Philippines to navigate international relations on its own terms, free from external influence or coercion. 

The true essence of an independent foreign policy lies not in avoiding alliances or appeasing foreign powers but in a nation’s ability to assert its interests, stand firm on issues of national sovereignty, and shape its international relations in a way that benefits its people. Unfortunately, Duterte’s administration, by meekly submitting to China’s demands and sidelining vital national interests, left the Philippines vulnerable to external pressures and forfeited the opportunity to define its own future on the world stage. This wasn’t independence—it was, at best, isolationism and, at worst, satellite diplomacy.