SAN PABLO, Laguna — United States military activities in the Philippines have increased in the past few months, sparking concerns from various groups over national sovereignty and the increased risk of conflict.

Following US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s initial meeting with Malacañang officials last March, the US and Philippine governments have stepped up commitments to a “military deterrence against Chinese aggression,” including the US spending USD 500 million to provide missiles and drones to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as well as the start of the Balikatan joint exercises on April 21. 

US allies have also set agreements with the Philippines. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba recently visited Malacañang last April 29 with promises to strengthen intelligence sharing against a “looming” Chinese threat. The same day, joint maritime exercises were conducted on the West Philippine Sea by US, Filipino, and Australian troops.

This was followed the next day with National Security Adviser Eduardo Año announcing that the Philippines has signed a Status of Visiting Forces Agreement with New Zealand, calling it an “important milestone” and crucial to “regional peace and stability.”

The National Democratic Front of the Philippines called the recent series of military partnerships between the Philippines and the US and her allies a “web of war provocations” meant to maintain Washington’s “military dominance in East and Southeast Asia.”

“The so-called ‘Strengthened Strategic Partnership’ is not about mutual security, but about tightening a US-led military net aimed at ensnaring China in an inter-imperialist conflict,” the NDFP said in its statement. The organization also emphasized that these agreements “[undermine] national security” and “drags the country into conflicts not of [its own] making.”

Likewise, progressive alliance Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) described the intelligence-sharing agreement between the Philippines and Japan as a “thinly veiled endorsement of the United States’ aggressive posture in the Asia Pacific,” emphasizing that the agreement “risks perpetuating a cycle of imperialist domination.”

Bayan also cited the recent procurement of NMESIS and Typhon missiles from the US as posing risks to Filipino civilians. According to the group, there are reports of Typhon missiles deployed in Laoag airport in Ilocos Norte and in naval facilities in Batanes; both sites are not part of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.

“There is a lack of transparency in the ongoing exercises and expanded presence of US troops and US weapons,” Bayan concluded. “We are being dragged into uncritically embracing the geopolitical agenda of the US even if this would mean turning several towns into war zones and military [playgrounds] of the US and its allies.”

Think tank Center for People Empowerment in Governance also expressed concern over aggressive military posturing in the West Philippine Sea, stating that “such actions risk escalating tensions in an already volatile region.”

“The Philippines’ increasing alignment especially under the Marcos government with US-led military initiatives compromises and risks our nation’s sovereignty and undermines the principle of an independent foreign policy,” said CenPEG Vice Chairperson Bobby Tuazon. “Engaging in joint military activities with foreign powers in contested waters not only provokes neighboring countries but also unnecessarily entangles the Philippines in geopolitical rivalries that do not serve our national interest.”

A century of American presence

US efforts to counter China’s emergence as a major power in the region date as far back as 2009 under the Barack Obama administration’s announcement of its “Pivot to Asia.” However, US dominance in East and Southeast Asia can be traced back to the turn of the 20th century and the aftermath of the Philippine-American War.

The US directly controlled the Philippines as a colony until 1946. At the end of the Second World War, US interests shifted towards distrust against the Soviet Union and fears that communism would spread if left unchecked. These fears became more pronounced following uprisings in Korea and the establishment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 1946, and the subsequent victories of communists in Vietnam and China.

The US pursued a strategy of containment and increased its presence in Asia, propping up regimes and economies in South Vietnam, Indonesia, and Korea while maintaining a military presence in the Philippines, Japan, and other sites. Direct participation in the conflict in Vietnam also meant that US allies were increasingly being pulled into other regional conflicts.

The end of the 20th century saw the United States dominant as the world’s sole superpower. It used its influence to wage a “war on terror” in the Middle East and further exert its global influence. A quick victory in Iraq would not come, however, and the crash of the US housing market meant that smaller powers now had the opportunity to exert their own influence.

China, on the other hand, has steadily opened its markets to capitalist reforms since Deng Xiaoping seized power in 1978. Today it is the world’s second largest economy and is steadily exerting its influence in Asia, Africa, and Latin America through various trade deals, cooperation agreements and joint military exercises.

Independent foreign policy needed

The NDFP noted that while the US is laying the “groundwork for war, the Filipino people wage their own war for liberation,” referring to the ongoing armed struggle led by the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army. As a coalition of revolutionary organizations, the NDFP is intimately connected with the present revolutionary struggle.

In their 12-point program, the NDFP emphasized the need to both “terminate all unequal relations with the United States and foreign countries” and to “adopt an active, independent, and peaceful foreign policy.”

Likewise, CenPEG urged the Marcos Jr. administration to “step back its participation in foreign-led military operations that compromises national sovereignty and regional stability,” pushing instead for an independent foreign policy “rooted in diplomacy, peaceful conflict resolution, and mutual respect among nations.” According to the group, such a policy is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, under Article II, Section 7.

Progressive groups have long pushed for Philippine governments to break from serving US interests. “The Philippines must resist becoming a pawn in a larger power struggle,” Bayan said in its statement. For Bayan, this means that the US should remove its military facilities and materiel while the Philippines junks its defense treaties and agreements with the US.

Bayan also emphasized that the dispute with China can be resolved diplomatically. “The issue with China shouldn’t be used to strengthen and expand the US military’s presence in our country,” said Bayan Secretary General Mong Palatino. (RVO)