Growing up, I’ve often heard older relatives—my uncles and titas....reminisce about a time when the Philippines supposedly had a much bigger presence on the global stage. They grew up mainly from the 1950s to the 1980s, and during family gatherings, this topic always comes up.
According to them, the Philippines was once seen as an important player during the Cold War era. They point to examples like the country sending troops to the Korean War and later to Vietnam, as well as being involved in various international efforts aligned with Western powers.
Or the country having a say....in many world events...and that say often gets a lot of attention.
Beyond military contributions, they also talk about how the Philippines was once a regional hub for education and development....students from neighboring Asian countries reportedly came here to study, and the country was seen as advanced in terms of education, infrastructure, and innovation.
They also mention large infrastructure projects in the 70s and 80s that supposedly boosted the country’s international image.
Projects like the San Juanico Bridge, PICC, Cultural Center, Manila Film center and so forth....
One relative even said that back then, hearing “the Philippines” carried a sense of prestige—very different from today’s common global stereotypes.
(Common narrative views like....The Philippines land of Nannies and Domestic Helpers or the Philippines, land of overcrowding, slums and poverty...)
And that made me wonder....
Was this perception actually grounded in reality?
Was the Philippines genuinely influential and respected internationally during that period, or was it more of a short-lived moment amplified by Cold War politics and domestic propaganda?
Or is this just nostalgia reshaping how that era is remembered?
Or maybe Nationalism is just very strong back then?
Curous to hear your thoughts on this.
Thank you for your submission to r/FilipinoHistory.
Please remember to be civil and objective in the comments. We encourage healthy discussion and debate.
Please read the subreddit rules before posting. Remember to flair your post appropriately to avoid it being deleted.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Short-lived. We were an important player in the early Cold War because we were one of the few independent states in East/Southeast Asia in the 50s. By the 60s, the newly independent countries in our neighborhood began attracting more attention from the world powers.
By the 70s, we started getting left out as Marcos and his cronies mismanaged and looted the economy. This also meant we were unable to sustain many long-term projects that could’ve reaped many rewards today. By the 80s, we were economically behind many Asian countries.
Nakahabol naman tayo ng konti sa 90s since tayo lang ang hindi affected ng asian bubble burst. Plus the privatizations ni Ramos gave us a cushion although these privatizations would bite us later.
So that means by the 80s...(1980-1986) The country was no longer relevant?
Probably the all-time low. For one, the economy was in shambles; two, Vietnam already won the war; three, Sino-Soviet split meant the US-China detente; four, our neighbors were willing to be pragmatic with world powers.
It wasn’t until the 90s when our economy began to recover that we began to regain some relevance.
Fully agree but I'd say independent on paper. We were largely constrained by neo-colonial measures the US imposed.
Economic - Bell Act gave US citizens equal access to philippine natural resources, tied PHP to USD, and a free-trade arrangement that favoured US goods.
Military - Military Base Agreement that leased bases to the US for 99 years. Mutual Defense Treaty guarantees territorial security of the Philippines.
Foreign Policy - Due to the US economic and military leverage the US constrained our foreign policy. Seen more when you look at neighboring countries like Indonesia is a leader in the Non Aligned Movement and was unconstrained in their foreign policy. While the Philippines could not establish relations with China until the mid-70s.
Culturally - Post-war reconstruction excluded many historical sites like intramuros. US cultural imperialism redefined modernity itself as American. US culture is embedded so deeply that it becomes invisible, voluntary, and self-sustaining. This can be seen in our education, fashion, music, language, politics etc...
No offense but the biggest mistake was leaving the US without bare minimum a compact of free association.
The US had all the leverage there's no reason for them to take a less favourable deal.
The current state of pH is the reason obviously, going from #2 in Asia to near the bottom. Pretty self evident.
The president of the UN in the 50s was a Filipino, we actually have a unusually strong soft power.
we could add the mass exodus of manufacturing plants in the philippines as well
Pre-WW2 we are seen and an inspiration to those who were colonized.
Post-WW2 we are seen as a stable Democratic Asian nation.
But the Dictatoship happened.
Then EDSA People Power Revolution happened once again we are seen as an inspiration for those who are in oppressive regimes.
Now, kailangan nating muling ibangon ang ating lahi, once again give glory to our people and our beloved country.
This is the answer. Our country actually had a positive global image due to our involvement in the Korean War, and I would say our position in the global community through our policy of International Idealism - where we pushed for the rule of law among nations small or big.
imagine Ph being independent when almost everyone in Southeast Asia to Africa are still colonies.
During BBM’s trip to India he said something that stuck. Its only the Philippines, India and China ang mga Asian countries who sign the foundation of the United Nations.. albeit Ph is still a US territory, India a British colony and China divided by civil war and ongoing war with Japan.
Not the current China, but the Republic of China (Taiwan). China now only became a member by 1970s to replace Chiang Kai Shek’s diplomatic corps (ROC)
yup I know that. they both claim to be “China” so? Philippines I could say is always punching beyond it’s weight.
in times of colonization and empires, Philippines achieving Commonwealth and Independence is not the norm. we are always loud mouthed and have a strong sense of pride.. kaya kahit ngayon daladala natin with our issue with China - PRC.
they somehow can’t wrap around there heads on why a small and relatively poor country like the Philippines would sue them for arbitration and forming alliances to counter them..
they are used to smaller countries becoming overtly vassals like Joseon Korea, Thai, Vietnam etc..
I could also not remiss on how the Ph and Japan both approach China and its Sinocentric view of the region - on how both reject it but both are also fond and accomplices of US lead world order.
The Philippines was a US ally and the only product of US post-colonial administration in Asia following WW2, so we did have a notable global image. The US also tried to push that during the 50s and 60s. Even Aguinaldo was notable enough that he was invited during the founding of the ASEAN in an honorable seat.
But, i wouldn't say "strong" global image. The Third Republic was known even overseas to be corrupt and ineffective in postwar building.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why is Aguinaldo being invited to the ASEAN founding significant?
The ASEAN was mainly an alliance sponsored by the US to stand against communism when the domino theory was prevalent, but it was the first major alliance of Asian countries that sought to foster social, economic, political and cultural sharing among its members. So the original member states considered it a very important and sacred step in the continent, and Aguinaldo was a symbol of Asian strength being the first [elected] president of the Asian country that launched the first revolution for independence in Asia. Basically Southeast Asia recognized the important role of the Philippines as a symbolic and leading force in a Southeast Asia that was developing and joining the modern world.
Maybe you're confused with the short-lived SEATO and not ASEAN. The US only started engaging in partnership with ASEAN in the late 70s. While SEATO was created at the behest of the US to counter communist domino effect in Southeast Asia.
My mistake, you're right about that
During Magsaysay's term, it was.
One man just effed it up for everyone post WW2. And the ramifications are still felt today. Instead of being the most admired and advanced nation at par with Japan or at least close to it, our dear leaders chose to serve and advance themselves with impunity. Our image as a nation just dropped like a discarded toy in a very embarrassing sequence of events.
Yes, albeit short and inconsistent. Because of the Commonwealth prewar, we enjoy this image of a promising postcolonial state who not only adopted but instituted Western-style governance. Something to strive for by the many postcolonial states postwar. Like Jose Rizal was celebrated across the region as an inspiration and hero for a free Malay world.
Eventually, our dependence and staunch support to the US invalidates that ideal. We are seen as a stooge for the US, and this image is further desecrated when Marcos started Martial Law.
Like I would say Indonesia or Vietnam had more clout than we have in this period. Indonesia managed to bridge nations outside the blocs and create the NAM. It enjoyed the support of Afro-Asian states, Eastern bloc and even the US on its bids regarding disputed territories. Vietnam or North Vietnam managed to defeat the French, then South Vietnamese and US forces against all odds and united the two nations. They then destroyed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia which was supported by both the US and China.
In comparison to us, we only had a legacy to cling to. A legacy that was never maintained of which other countries had already moved on.
Marcoses really tainted our government and bastardized the whole system that even of we kicked them out post EDSA, enough roots have already sunk in that they try to do a "Marcos" but on a smaller scale and this gave rise to career politician and dynasties like the Binays, the Villafuertes, PDP Laban etc.. Marcos wasted whatever momentum we had in the 50s and 60s was wiped out by his cronnies and family, and the only thing they had to go on for were costly edifices that aren't even what the people need during those years.
first 20 years oo but by 72 wala na
Overhyped.
Short-lived
to most countries we're still just the source of cheap help and cheap labor. it was like that, and it still pretty much is. it used to be just domestic helpers, now it's mostly nurses and skilled work moving out to other countries.
brain drain is real!
Yes because all our neighbors were destroyed or fighting a civil war
Yes it's just that Japan and Korea just out grew us and they became more important and our corrupt leaders didn't help making us more stagnant
I remember an old Vietname man talking about how he was a agricultural scholar and was sent here to the Philippines to learn because we were once supposedly one of the leading countries in the agricultural sector. But now Vietnam has surpassed us
Not just post war, even before WW2 we were already leading among the countries of south east asia. We had so much crops and products that everyone else around the world needed or wanted.
We are still an Important Player sa International Community. Hindi lang natin ito nabibigyan ng pansin, pero the moment na palaging may US Military Forces dito at ang Retaliation ng China, they see us a major player pagdating sa economy ng mga super powers. China wants to befriend us kasi tayo ang gate papuntang western trade route nila. US wants us naman sa side nila upang mapigilan naman ang pagiging superpower ng China at ang patuloy na influence nito sa Western Countries.
So it's either we become neutral and play a major role in the trade route, negotiation, and mediation between countries, or we take a side and prepare to be an unsinkable warship. Just my POV on the matter btw.
I think that never took place. At best the country sent a few troops to various conflicts. Beyond that, it's been heavily dependent on overseas work since the early 2000s, after it deregulated recruitment.
FWIW, the country was industrializing from the end of WW2 to the mid-1980s, after which it started doing the opposite:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40082/1/MPRA_paper_40082.pdf