Skip to main content

The U.S. Won’t Help Duterte in The Hague—It’s Not in Their Interest

The arrest and transfer of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is nothing short of a state-sanctioned kidnapping. Stripped of his rights and forcibly taken from his homeland, Duterte’s extradition was not about justice but about political convenience. It was an act of betrayal, orchestrated by an administration too eager to please foreign powers rather than uphold national sovereignty. However, the United States will not intervene to rectify this injustice—because doing so does not serve its interests. With President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. proving to be weak and easy to manipulate, the U.S. is already getting everything it wants from the Philippines without lifting a finger for Duterte.

Why the U.S. Won’t Intervene

To understand why Washington will not step in to aid Duterte, one must recognize the fundamental principle that guides U.S. foreign policy: national interest. While the U.S. has a long history of supporting—or undermining—leaders in pursuit of its strategic goals, Duterte is now politically expendable. When he was in power, Duterte pursued an independent foreign policy, shifting closer to China and asserting Philippine sovereignty in ways that unsettled Washington. His vocal criticisms of the U.S., particularly his move to reduce American military influence in the country, made him a liability to the long-standing U.S. agenda in the region.

Bongbong Marcos Jr., in contrast, has been the ideal leader for Washington’s interests. Unlike Duterte, who was unpredictable and resistant to foreign control, Marcos Jr. has eagerly welcomed the return of American military presence. Under his administration, the Philippines has granted the U.S. expanded access to military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), deepening American strategic influence in the region. Why would the U.S. risk destabilizing this arrangement by advocating for Duterte’s release? Simply put, there is no advantage to doing so.

A Convenient Fall Guy

Duterte’s arrest serves another purpose—it absolves the Marcos administration of its own sins while projecting an image of “accountability.” By allowing the ICC to go after Duterte, Marcos Jr. positions himself as a leader who upholds international law, distracting from his family's long history of corruption and human rights abuses. The U.S. benefits from this as well; it can pretend to support “justice” in the Philippines while maintaining its alliance with Marcos Jr., whose government is far more compliant with Washington’s demands.

The irony here is blatant: while the U.S. remains silent on the abuses of its favored allies—whether in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or its own military interventions abroad—it allows the ICC to target Duterte, a leader who dared to challenge its influence. This is not about justice; it is about control.

Marcos Jr.: A Puppet for U.S. Interests

For the U.S., Marcos Jr. represents an opportunity to reassert control over the Philippines after Duterte’s independent streak. The return of expanded military agreements, increased cooperation on regional security, and Marcos Jr.'s willingness to align with American interests on China have solidified his role as a compliant partner. While Duterte had the political will to push back against foreign interference, Marcos Jr. lacks both the strength and the inclination to do so. He is, in many ways, the perfect leader for Washington—one who will not resist, one who will not question, and one who will sacrifice national sovereignty if it means staying in power.

The Lesson of Duterte’s Fate

Duterte’s arrest should serve as a warning: leaders who defy Western interests will be discarded the moment they are no longer useful. While his administration was far from perfect, he was at least willing to assert Philippine independence in a way that few leaders before him had. Now, with him out of the picture, Marcos Jr. has ensured that the Philippines remains firmly under American influence.

Those who think the U.S. will intervene to free Duterte are mistaken. They have no reason to. Their interests are already being served by the government in power, and Duterte’s fate only reinforces the message: defy the U.S., and you will be abandoned. The real betrayal here is not just against Duterte—it is against the Filipino people, whose sovereignty has once again been sold to foreign powers.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Decline of Malacañang’s Messaging Under Claire Castro

The role of a presidential spokesperson is not simply to parrot the administration’s talking points—it is to frame the government’s narrative in a way that is coherent, persuasive, and, at the very least, grounded in some form of political strategy. Yet under Claire Castro, the function of the Malacañang spokesperson has been reduced to little more than reactionary deflections and hollow platitudes. A Crisis of Competence Where previous spokespersons—whether one agreed with them or not—displayed at least some level of rhetorical skill and grasp of governance, Castro appears to lack even the most basic ability to articulate policy positions. The likes of Harry Roque, Salvador Panelo, or even the more pragmatic Edwin Lacierda could defend their administrations with calculated arguments, strategic misdirections, or even legal gymnastics. Castro, in contrast, has managed to devolve the role into something almost unrecognizable—where responses to critical issues sound more like barroom re...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rodrigo Duterte’s "Build, Build, Build" and the Struggle for National Development

Throughout history, infrastructure has served as both the foundation of economic prosperity and the battleground of political struggle. It is not simply about roads and bridges—it is about the political will to defy stagnation, the strategic vision to connect fragmented communities, and the challenge of dismantling bureaucratic inefficiencies that have long stifled national progress. In this context, former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s "Build, Build, Build" (BBB) program stands as one of the most ambitious and transformative infrastructure undertakings in Philippine history. While critics sought to reduce Duterte’s presidency to controversies and political rhetoric, the tangible legacy of BBB remains indisputable. The roads, bridges, airports, and railways built under this program are not abstract concepts—they are lived realities, altering the daily experiences of millions of Filipinos. They represent a rare instance in Philippine governance: a promise that was, at least ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Marcos Administration’s Hague Gambit and the Question of Philippine Justice

The abduction and extradition of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the Bongbong Marcos Jr. administration raises troubling questions about sovereignty, political motives, and the credibility of the Philippine justice system. The government justified this unprecedented move by claiming that justice in the Philippines is slow, necessitating Duterte’s trial before a foreign court. But does this argument hold? If the Philippine judiciary were truly incapable of handling high-profile political cases, how do we explain the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the graft conviction of former Pagsanjan Mayor Jeorge “ER” Ejercito Estregan? The court sentenced him to up to eight years in prison and permanently barred him from public office. The ruling demonstrates that the judiciary is indeed capable of prosecuting public officials—contrary to the narrative used to justify Duterte’s removal from the country. More concerning is the use of an Interpol Diffusion notice —an informal, non-bi...
Post a Comment
Read more