Wither the White Man's Burden

The Philippines recently made headlines in the U.S. and no Manny Pacquiao was not involved this time. Perhaps Pinoy proper received attention from a few sarcastic and nostalgic hisses about Imelda Marcos' opulent, Kardashian-level of consumption? No not this time. Besides that's ancient history for an American culture obsessed with trendiness, the prisoner of the here and now. Instead the U.S. media showed us an otherwise obscure mayor of Davao who overnight emerged as a "strongman." The strongman moniker in this case suggests a man whose presidential candidacy reflects a reactionary appealing to gullible masses. But because Americans often possess no interest in comprehending any cultural or social or political phenomenon lacking any superficial glamour, the U.S. media serves up Rodrigo Duterte using language they can relate to more easily. Hence, Duterte enters the American psyche as a Filipino echo of Trump. Of course this signifier bears little relation to reality. Duterte is his own man for better or worse. Let the media obsess over how much he resembles Trump. We should focus of understanding the political and social milieu wherein Duterte and his friends and foes alike have risen to power.

The U.S. media have spoon fed the narrative of Duterte's rise to power. The Filipino Trump has risen to prominence as a demagogue whose coarsened rhetoric is filled with too many expletives to be broadcasts on an episode of The Apprentice. Their seeing his personae as Trumpesque reveals another example of some in the U.S. projecting more self-serving visions of itself. They see their cultural icons echoed in the actions and faces of others.

In this context Duterte's rise is not seen as a product of Philippines' history and the resultant political conditions and power structure. This current power structure developed from the Philippines serving as a colony serving the U.S. empire. Trump's political development by contrast was not affected or shaped by his being raised within a colony subject to the geopolitical whims of imperial masters. Trump's very public life as a celebrity billionaire would never remind us of the racially and culturally inferior subjects of which Rudyard Kipling condescendingly referenced in his poem The White Man's Burden:

Take up the White Man's burden--

The  savage wars of peace-- 

 Fill the full mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease: 

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to nought. [1] 

Kipling's observations of the U.S. taking effective control of the Philippines from Spain in 1898 inspired his verses quoted above. Does the U.S. empire really believe that Filipinos have progressed beyond sloth and heathen Folly? Maybe. Nonetheless, it is equally important that we examine whether the U.S. opportunistically still sees the Philippines as its colonial possession, facilitating its hegemony in the surrounding region. Historical trends of the U.S./Philippines relations deserve more attention than the current focus on Duterte's eccentric and erratic rhetorical provocations.

A review of the historical factors shaping Philippines political milieu encourages our studying this region more instead of merely labeling Duterte as a local version emanating from a Trumpesque archetype. Regardless of his flaws, Duterte's image as a volatile "strongman" obscures the bloody legacy enabled significantly by Philippines history of being a colonial possession. Instead of the "enlightened intelligentsa" expressing indignation at Duterte's unapologetic rhetoric, they should debate whether the Philippines' underlying conditions resulted from its being a colonial subject of the U.S.?

I will make an apriori claim that the U.S. being the dominant world power induces a hubris that the ideal global order hinges on it acting with impunity. Consequently, the U.S. has turned a blind eye to wounds its imperialistic actions has inflicted on the Philippines. The U.S. viewed the Philippines in 1898 and thereafter as a nation of inferiors incapable of charting their own independent course:

This view was most strongly advanced by Bernard Moses (who later served in the Philippines) and Woodrow Wilson (then a professor at Princeton whom colonial officials cited). Both contended that the new empire was the necessary outcome of the overwhelming forces of globalism and the reality of racial hierarchy. Moses claimed that because of "modern means of communication " and the ever present "commercial motive," the world was becoming one. Thus, any notion that the "lesser races" could proceed through history in an autonomous way-that is, without intervention by the "superior races"-was simply "utopian." Supposedly, the "superior races" were bound to empire. Wilson stated similarly that advances in technology and European political and commercial expansion had served to create a "new world order." In the new order, "no nation can live any longer to itself," and the West would necessarily dominate the East: The East is to be opened and transformed, whether we will it or no; the standards of the West are to be imposed upon it" [2]    

Does racism as an integral part of an imperialism induce resentments among future leaders of the supposed "lesser races?"

The Philippines' geographical position makes them vulnerable to be used as a geopolitical tool. This pattern of U.S. using Philippines as a geopolitical-enhancing tool started in earnest at the dawn of the 20th century:

With the American victory in 1898, the Philippines became America's stepping stone to empire (and China; the U.S. presence in the Philippines was seen as a key leverage point for the pivot, excuse me, the "Open Door" policy that would properly integrate China into the family of nations). [3] 

That was the U.S. in 1898 integrating the Philippines into its empire rather than assisting their developing their path to becoming an independent nation. What has changed?

Ample evidence exists that the U.S. continues to show selective respect for Philippines' territorial integrity and sovereignty:

Since the early 2000s, the US has been invoking the specter of “terrorism” in the Philippines to justify the entry and continuing presence of its “counter-terrorist” troops in the country. The Abu Sayyaf bandit group, which was formed by former US forces who joined subversive activities in Afghanistan, was linked by the US to Al Qaeda and other groups accused of perpetrating the terrorist attack on New York City on September 11, 2001. [4]

The aforementioned citation reads like a vaguely worded statement extracted from a manifesto. But, subsequent events occurred uncovering U.S. involvement and usurpation of Philippines' managing law enforcement and anti-terror operations.

The U.S. can rhetorically finesse such selective respect and disrespect by claiming terrorism is broad enough in scale and scope that prudence dictates effectively internationalizing the operations to combat it. Once the U.S. establishes that premise then local leaders in the subject nation who express concerns of their sovereignty being weakened will be appear oblivious to mortal threats. Thus, this narrative delegitimizes such critical voices. Enter Duterte in 2002. He became a leader in the post 9-11 environment who opposed the U.S. expediently adopted rules (formal and informal) to fight terrorism if he believed adherence to such rules weakened sovereignty in the southern Philippines.

In addition to Philippines serving as another node in the U.S. global anti-terror network, they also provide an important base of operations on which the U.S. will launch its much celebrated Asian Pivot.

Whatever praise Dutertes's predecessor Benigno Aquino III receives in bourgeois media outlets about the Philippines GDP growth experienced from 2010-present, those statistics show no transcending of a political economy that privileges an oligarchy:

Philippine capitalism is controlled by a ruling class Alfred W. McCoy has described as an “oligarchy” made up of “a cluster of families, knitted together by ties of blood and marriage,” who combine “political power and economic assets to direct the nation’s destiny.” [5]

Will Duterte impose measures to help distribute Philippine's economic successes more equally?  Early indications suggest he will not. Duterte's rhetoric will provide comic relief while his nation continues its process of being integrated further into the U.S. led Neoliberal order.

The elephant in the room is how will Duterte handle relations with China. Will he continue Aquino's (and Philippine tradition for that matter) pattern of presenting the Philippines as vulnerable to China's aggressive moves in the South China Sea, requiring a resurgent U.S. presence as their protector? Or, will he opt to initiate bilateral negotiations with China? If so, Duterte's initiating bilateral relations will aggravate a U.S. empire who fears losing a key geopolitical asset. Regardless of Duterte's direction, his challenges deserve more attention than simply reducing him to a set of machismo-filled memes. Whither the White Man's Burden.

 [1]. Kipling, Rudyard. "The White Man's Burden." 1899. http://ux1.eiu.edu/~cfnek/syllabi/british/kipling1899.pdf

[2]. Go, Julian. "Imperial Power And Its Limits: America's Colonial Empire In The Early Twentieth Century." Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power. eds Craig Calhoun, Frederick Cooper, and Kevin W. Moore. The New Press. New York. 2006. pp 204-5.

[3]. Lee, Peter. "Mindanao, Duterte, and the Real History of the Philippines." May 23, 2016. China Matters. http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/?m=0

[4]. U.S. terrorist intervention in the Philippines.' Ang Bayan.  Feb 21, 2015. http://www.philippinerevolution.net/publications/ang_bayan/20150221/us-terrorist-intervention-in-the-philippines

[5]. de Jong, Alex. "The Philippines New Strongman." Jacobin. May 28, 2016. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/philippines-duterte-populism-marcos-neoliberalism/