Why Not Forever Peace?

In my recent interview with Herman Tiu Laurel—better known as Ka Mentong—on Walang Atrasan over DWAR Abante Radyo, the veteran broadcaster and geopolitical analyst offered a sobering view of the Philippines’ place in today’s turbulent world. His insights cut to the heart of our national dilemma: are we destined to be a pawn in “forever wars,” or can we chart a path toward “forever peace”?  

Laurel’s warning is direct. By hosting U.S. military bases under agreements such as the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the Philippines becomes a strategic target. He likened these bases to “magnets for retaliation,” exposing the country to risks in conflicts involving the United States and its rivals. For Laurel, this is not only a geopolitical miscalculation but also a constitutional violation, given the ban on foreign bases after 1991.  

His critique of U.S. foreign policy is equally sharp. Laurel described America’s engagements as “forever wars,” driven less by democratic ideals than by the ruling elite’s dependence on conflict to sustain the dominance of the U.S. dollar and control global energy flows. From Ukraine to the Middle East, he sees a consistent pattern: war as the lifeblood of America’s ruling class.  

The implications for Filipinos are immediate. Millions of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) in the Middle East face heightened risks from instability and possible evacuations. Laurel questioned how the Philippines could manage mass repatriation given its P18 trillion debt and limited domestic employment opportunities. Reintegration, he warned, would be a daunting challenge for a country already struggling with economic pressures. 

Laurel also pointed to history for guidance. He recalled the measures taken by then President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. during the 1970s oil crisis, including the Oil Price Stabilization Fund and the establishment of state-owned oil corporations. These policies, he suggested, offer lessons for today’s leaders as the Philippines confronts looming energy disruptions tied to global conflict.  

At the core of his analysis lies a call to action: Filipinos must resist being reduced to “shock absorbers” in America’s global strategy. Instead of acquiescing to “forever war,” Laurel advocates for “forever peace”—a vision that demands independence, foresight, and courage.  

The question, then, is not whether war will continue to dominate the global stage. It is whether the Philippines will continue to play along—or finally ask, why not forever peace?