AHC: Keep the Philippines as ASEAN's top dog

Following ASEAN's formation in the 60s, the Philippines had the regions strongest military, and an economy nearly as large as the the four next ASEAN countries combined.

What would be the required steps to make this the status quo in the regiom for the next 50 years? Would it require smarter use of initial US aid and better restructuring of Manila after World War 2?

What about preventing a dictatorship/corruption of Ferdinand Marcos?
 
No Marcos (maybe assassination) and if they go the dictator route, have one that is highly into the development of the country's infrastructure, education and services in general.

Otherwise, standard democratic government would suffice.
 

apollo11

Banned
No Marcos (maybe assassination) and if they go the dictator route, have one that is highly into the development of the country's infrastructure, education and services in general.

Otherwise, standard democratic government would suffice.
I largely agree but even if we assume they have a GDP per person on par with Japan their smaller population would mean a smaller economy. So they would be a regional power on the same level of Japan at best but with a much larger military.
 
I largely agree but even if we assume they have a GDP per person on par with Japan their smaller population would mean a smaller economy. So they would be a regional power on the same level of Japan at best but with a much larger military.

yeah i'd imagine the Phils would put a much higher emphasis on its military (can't see that one falling below 3% expenditure).
 

apollo11

Banned
yeah i'd imagine the Phils would put a much higher emphasis on its military (can't see that one falling below 3% expenditure).
I suppose if you could somehow nerf Japan's economy while boosting the Philippines this would be an easier task though.
 
The thing is that Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia form the geostrategic core of ASEAN - any form of ASEAN that's recognisable to OTL has to take that into account, and by virtue of that their security concerns will tend to dominate. This doesn't have to mean they co-operate (they only do so now to a limited extent), but they do need to find a way to co-exist. I don't see how the Philippines can stay so thoroughly on top of the association that this just gets ignored. Or at least, no way that maintains the principles of 'amity and cooperation' that the association was founded on.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
No Marcos (maybe assassination) and if they go the dictator route, have one that is highly into the development of the country's infrastructure, education and services in general.
Actually, a positive dictatorship like Park Chung Hee or the KMT in Taiwan was better than a democracy for less-developed countries, where the public usually had lower education and could have been easily swayed by the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Also, a positive dictator would be able to impose reforms in a manner that a democracy would have never managed to do. For example, a bunch of businessmen decided to gamble their money in asset speculation instead of investing in manufacturing. A dictator like General Park would simply put them into the jail or even put them in front of gunpoint to make them think otherwise (this actually happened in South Korea), but a democracy would not have sufficient political will and power to do the same. Likewise, a thug like Al Caponne might wreak havoc in a region. A dictator can simply send in the troops to have the thug and his family gunned down, but under a democracy, officials must carry a proper investigation and must find sufficient evidence before arresting him.

Finally, in a democracy, an industrial policy can be easily jeopardized if a bunch of Adam Smith free-market fanboys win the election.
 
Following ASEAN's formation in the 60s, the Philippines had the regions strongest military, and an economy nearly as large as the the four next ASEAN countries combined.

What would be the required steps to make this the status quo in the regiom for the next 50 years? Would it require smarter use of initial US aid and better restructuring of Manila after World War 2?

What about preventing a dictatorship/corruption of Ferdinand Marcos?

The Filipino military in 1967 (the year ASEAN was formed) was already surpassed by the Indonesian military since 1963 (thanks to its build up during the Papua/New Guinea campagin) and its GDP is still smaller than the combination of the Thai and Malaysian economy (no data about the Indonesian/South Vietnamese one).

I don't know where does this myth comes from.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The Filipino military in 1967 (the year ASEAN was formed) was already surpassed by the Indonesian military since 1963 (thanks to its build up during the Papua/New Guinea campagin) and its GDP is still smaller than the combination of the Thai and Malaysian economy (no data about the Indonesian/South Vietnamese one).

I don't know where does this myth comes from.
Because the size of your military isn't always the best indicator of your combat power. The Philippine Military at that time was basically a smaller version of the United States military minus Nukes.
 
Actually, a positive dictatorship like Park Chung Hee or the KMT in Taiwan was better than a democracy for less-developed countries, where the public usually had lower education and could have been easily swayed by the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Also, a positive dictator would be able to impose reforms in a manner that a democracy would have never managed to do. For example, a bunch of businessmen decided to gamble their money in asset speculation instead of investing in manufacturing. A dictator like General Park would simply put them into the jail or even put them in front of gunpoint to make them think otherwise (this actually happened in South Korea), but a democracy would not have sufficient political will and power to do the same. Likewise, a thug like Al Caponne might wreak havoc in a region. A dictator can simply send in the troops to have the thug and his family gunned down, but under a democracy, officials must carry a proper investigation and must find sufficient evidence before arresting him.

Finally, in a democracy, an industrial policy can be easily jeopardized if a bunch of Adam Smith free-market fanboys win the election.

yeah i have to agree in terms of development, if they had a positive dictatorship, it probably would have been better, at least long term for the country. Especially if he was incorruptible.
 
Top