THEY call it a “reciprocal tariff trade agreement.” I call it an uneven and lopsided trade deal. But look closely. It’s déjà vu. A century-old script is playing out all over again. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the playbook of American colonial rule. A blueprint of economic extraction, market control and military entrenchment that has haunted the Philippine Republic for over a century.
This isn’t just a flawed trade deal. It’s a mirror of a colonial past we never truly escaped. Let’s call it what it is: neocolonialism wrapped in neoliberal language, glossed with the usual claims of “mutual benefit,” and “strategic and ironclad alliance” with the United States.
A colonial echo, a familiar trap
During the American colonization of the Philippines (1898-1946), the archipelago was treated as a source of raw materials (such as sugar, hemp, coconuts and minerals), a dumping ground for American surplus goods and a ready-made market for processed US products. The logic was simple: extract, export, manufacture in the US and sell back.
Though granted nominal independence in 1946, the Philippines never truly escaped America’s grip. Economically, militarily and politically, we were restructured into a semi-colonial. In 1946, just months after the US granted the Philippines nominal independence, the Bell Trade Act locked our economy into dependency. It tied the peso to the dollar, gave US citizens parity rights to exploit Philippine natural resources, ensured continued preferential trade terms for the US and guaranteed the US unrestricted access to our markets.
In 1955, the Laurel-Langley Agreement perpetuated the same economic imbalance, guaranteeing US economic dominance and market access, reinforcing the Philippines as a consumer base for US goods while maintaining its status as a source of raw materials, including sugar, minerals and coconut oil. These were exported, processed abroad and shipped back to be sold to the very people who produced them. Does it sound familiar?
Fast-forward to today: under this so-called reciprocal trade framework, the same pattern unfolds. The Philippines, under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s government, is once again granting the US duty-free, zero-tariff access to the Philippine market, thereby opening the market to US agricultural giants and multinational manufacturers, while local farmers, manufacturers and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) remain unprotected, exposed and outcompeted. Instead of enabling industrialization, the trade deal reinforces dependency — a modern-day replication of free trade imperialism and neo-extractivism.
Indeed, the said trade deal may be wrapped in the language of “partnership,” but its substance echoes old colonial structures. Zero tariffs for US goods mean unfiltered access to our domestic market, while we lose the strategic leverage of our MFN (most favored nation) status.
Truth be told, if the Bell Trade Act was the economic shackle of the post-war years, the current trade agreement is its neoliberal reincarnation. A capitulation sold under the guise of “alliance and partnership.”
Economic sovereignty for sale?
In this regard, Marcos, along with his trade officials “concerned,” owe the Filipino people honest and transparent answers to the following questions, rather than rehearsed press conferences or sugar-coated statements.
1. What exact goods will be entering the Philippines under this so-called zero-tariff regime? Is this a blanket liberalization, as hinted by US President Donald Trump, or are specific sectors being targeted for domination?
2. Are critical US exports — beef, wheat, soy, hardwoods, pharma, tech, others — on the list? If so, what impact will this have on our local agriculture and manufacturing sectors? Have we prepared our MSMEs for this onslaught?
3. Are we removing not just tariffs, but also import quotas? Because if that’s the case, we’re not just liberalizing trade, we’re disarming our country’s basic tools of economic protection.
4. Where is the reciprocity? What new access did we secure to the US market, and at what regulatory cost? What did we gain that actually offsets the risks?
5. Were non-tariff barriers addressed or merely glossed over? Did the US agree to relax its SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) requirements, or are Filipino products still boxed out while their goods flood our shelves?
6. How was trade in services negotiated? Did we agree to open up financial, digital and professional sectors without any reciprocal labor mobility for Filipino workers in the US?
7. Did we accept any conditions that limit our ability to trade with other countries or diversify our markets? If so, this isn’t free trade, it’s containment.
8. What exactly does President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration mean by “reciprocal”? Because, from where we sit, it looks uneven and more like we surrendered our sovereignty under the guise of a “strategic partnership.”
Military concessions: The other side of the deal
Moreover, let’s not pretend this is just about trade. The Philippines remains the longest-standing US military outpost in the Asia-Pacific region, dating back to the early 1900s. Even after the US bases were booted out in 1991, they never really left. Instead, the Visiting Forces Agreement (1999), the Enhanced Defense Agreement (2014) and its recent expansions, reinforcing the Mutual Defense Treaty, have rebranded the American presence as “rotational access.”
Now, with this new trade deal, we’re also seeing talks of a US-backed ammunition plant on Philippine soil, increased joint patrols in strategic waters like the Bashi Channel, reports of quiet interoperability with Taiwanese forces and skirmishes in the disputed waters of the South China Sea between Philippine and Chinese vessels. And possible future military purchases dictated not by national interests, but simply fulfilling another set of “allied obligations.” At what cost, and for whose security interests, ours or theirs?
With all these developments, the Philippines has once again been transformed into a forward base, a logistical hub and a launchpad for conflict rather than peace. Clearly, as economic dependency increases, so does military subordination. This demonstrates how economic concessions are linked to geopolitical subjugation.
Thus, it is imperative to ask: Was this tariff or trade deal negotiation conducted in the service of the Filipino people, or to curry favor with Washington? Were our farmers, exporters and industries consulted, or merely sacrificed? Are we trading away our sovereignty? Are we preparing to buy more US weapons to fulfill their strategic pivot to Asia, while we foot the bill?
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, the trade/tariff deal is not reciprocal at all. It isn’t progress. It is a rebranded colonial contract, a neocolonial script, just with newer buzzwords and better PR (public relations). It’s proof that US colonialism over the Philippines never really left. It simply evolved.
From the early 20th-century “free trade” schemes to today’s “reciprocal” deals, the logic has never changed: extract wealth, ensure dependence, project power and maintain control. It reestablishes the same unequal patterns of the past: We provide the raw materials and resources, and they take the profit/revenue. We open our markets, they protect theirs. We host the military bases, and their boots on our soil; they call the shots.
Unless we break the cycle, the Philippines will remain what it has been for over a century: a market for foreign goods, not a producer of its own, a resource base for others, not a steward of national development, and a military outpost, not a sovereign actor.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/07/26/opinion/columns/history-repeats-a-trade-deal-that-echoes-colonial-chains/2156327
