Today, the situation in East Asia due to the territorial contradictions between China and Japan, China and the ASEAN states that came to the surface in 2012 is one of the resonant and complex regional nodes of world politics. In terms of countering Chinese claims to control the South China Sea, Manila is the most active participant in the territorial dispute, leading, with the tacit support of the United States, a long-standing struggle to condemn China's unilateral actions and internationalize the problem of the South China Sea.

The escalation of US-China rivalry in the region encourages US efforts to build an anti-Chinese coalition at the expense of strategic partners and friendly countries (Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Vietnam, India), who are afraid of China's growing military power there. In this geopolitical scenario, Washington assigns the Philippines an important place as its time-tested ally.

The Republic of the Philippines remains a strong link in Washington's system of allied relations with East Asian States. The United States has exerted and continues to exert a significant influence on the political process in this country. US-Philippine relations, in fact, form the core of the development of the Philippines, both in the recent past and in the present, on which historical facts are strung and based on which trends are formed that determine the prospects for national development.

This topic is widely reflected in the recently published monograph " History of the Philippines. XX century"*, prepared by the orientalist scientist-

* Levtonova Y. O. Istoriya Filippin [History of the Philippines]. XX century. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2011. 496 p.

The house of Yu. O. Levtonova. The monograph is published in the framework of the series "History of the Countries of the East. XX century". Summing up research on the Philippines over the past century, the paper makes a significant contribution to deepening our knowledge of the objective development processes of Southeast Asian countries. The experience of the Philippines ' development from 1899 to 2000 is summarized in a concrete historical framework.

Yu. O. Levtonova naturally paid the main attention to the problems of the country's development during the years of American colonialism (1901-1946), showing the specifics of decolonization and independence. The article analyzes three models of development in the postcolonial period : the Philippine version of pro-Western liberal democracy in the first 20 years after independence (1946-1965), features of the Philippine authoritarian system (1972-1986), political and social processes in the late 20th century after the fall of authoritarianism (1986-2000). events, processes and problems of the colonial and independent Philippines, without which an objective perception and insight into the essence of the modern history of the country is hardly possible (westernism, nationalism, anti-Americanism). One of the most pressing Moro issues today is separatism and extremism in the Philippine south, where the majority of the population professes Islam, while the majority of Filipinos are Catholics.

From a civilizational point of view, the author draws our attention to the fact that the Philippines is the only Christian country located in the Buddhist - Confucian-Muslim confessional and cultural space. The well - known phrase mentioned in the work that the Philippines lived in a Spanish monastery for 350 years and in Hollywood for 50 years is a figurative assessment of the history of the Philippines over the past more than 400 years, thus highlighting the profound change that Philippine society has experienced on its way.

The main vector of the country's development under American colonialism is identified as the Americanization and modernization of colonial society. The first Governor-General of the Philippines, W. Taft (1901-1904), formulated the task as follows: to turn a "religiously medieval society", relatively speaking, into a "society of modern politicians and lawyers". In politics, the" guardianship " of the United States was reduced to two points-Americanization and Filipinization. The first direction meant introducing Filipinos to the system of American social, cultural and spiritual values. The second - focused on attracting them to the created work.

the American system of public administration. A new and rather bold step for the colonial Asian countries was the introduction by the American authorities of the practice of elections, the institution of political parties and the principle of separation of powers in the archipelago.

These measures prepared for granting the Philippines an autonomous regime with an elected autonomous government, although preserving U.S. sovereignty. Autonomy provided for the granting of independence to the Philippines after a ten-year transition period (1935-1945) and was one of the first measures of the "new deal" of US President F. Trump. Roosevelt. The Tydings-McDuffie Autonomy Act was passed in 1934 and unanimously approved by the Philippine Congress. Adopted in 1935, the Philippine Constitution essentially copied the U.S. Constitution: an executive branch headed by a president, a strong Congress,and an independent judiciary. However, defense and foreign policy remained under the control of the Americans. The first president of the autonomous Philippines was the leader of the Nationalist Party, Manuel Quezon. In Philippine history, according to Yu. O. Levtonova, he is remembered as a leader who paved the way for authoritarian tendencies in politics, which were most fully realized already during the authoritarianism of President F. Marcos (1972-1986).

Thus, a system of post-colonial State institutions was created and tested. In preparing the Philippines for independence, the messianic nature of the American empire that was emerging at the beginning of the 20th century, which is now implanting the principles of American statehood in developing countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Georgia) by various methods through the use of electoral technologies, "color revolutions", and fire and sword, was revealed in Washington's global policy. In this context, it is interesting that the author interprets the Philippine model of liberal democracy, the only one in the states of Southeast Asia, as an unsuccessful attempt by the Americans to instill Western values on the local soil, a very specific symbiosis of elements of Western and traditional political culture.

The Philippines gained independence after the end of World War II. American-style decolonization provided for the creation of a system of "special relations", and in essence a scheme of patron - client interaction. The foundation of these relations was laid in two dimensions: first, a contractual and legal framework for economic, political and military cooperation was created, which allowed the United States to legally gain great advantages in the country's economy. Secondly, a massive indoctrination of the Philippine population was undertaken in order to control the political situation in the country and make its foreign policy dependent. Special relations were guaranteed by the signing (1946-1951) of four key agreements: on the basis of mutual relations; on trade (equal rights to the exploitation of natural resources and ownership of property); on military bases (the right to own 23 sites on the archipelago of 200 thousand hectares for 99 years and the right of ex-territoriality for American personnel); on military assistance (in fact, it caused US control over the Philippine armed forces through American advisers).

From an economic point of view, in the first 20 years after the war, the Philippines practiced an import-substituting model of development, which helped strengthen the position of the national bourgeoisie and strengthen its political role. Yu.O. Levtonova reasonably emphasizes that the national bourgeoisie became exactly the social environment that initiated the rise of Philippine nationalism, which acquired an anti-American orientation in the specific conditions of the country.

In the mid-1960s, the parish, together with the new President, F. The rise of authoritarianism in the Philippines was due to the limited opportunities for progressive development in the economy and the exhaustion of the import substitution model. In politics, the contradiction between the discrepancy between the Philippine system of liberal democracy and the needs of modern social development has become more acute. The consequence of the political crisis was the deepening of the conflict within the ruling class between the bourgeois-landlord elite and the large national industrial bourgeoisie. The foreign policy that was pro-American and anti-communist until 1972 clearly contrasted with the new trends in international relations (the turn to dialogue between states of different socio-political systems).

Relying on the army, F. Marcos introduced a state of emergency in 1972, breaking the resistance of the opposing part of the ruling class, and proclaimed a course for building a "new society". His reform program was aimed at removing both economic and socio-political barriers to the intensification of the capitalist economy. The core of the economic transformation was industrialization and agrarian reform, designed to transform the country into a capitalist Philippine village. In foreign policy, a previously unthinkable turn was made towards greater independence and multi-vector approach (establishing diplomatic relations with socialist countries, rapprochement with non-aligned and Middle Eastern states). There was even a move to review the special relationship with the United States. Here the nationalist ideology was transformed into authoritarianism, finding in it a convenient form, immanently inherent in Eastern society.

Further events showed that this was still the first and not quite successful experience of this kind. If at the initial stage of the reforms, the authoritarian model was a powerful incentive for development, then later the positive impulse was constantly extinguished by monopolism in the economy of the united States. Marcos ' new oligarchs from among his friends and relatives. The lawlessness of the military and the regime of personal power of the president by the early 1980s led to the formation of a broad, albeit heterogeneous opposition (the middle and large bourgeoisie, trade unions, the Catholic Church, communist rebels, part of the army, Muslim separatists).

The essence of the political changes that followed the February 1986 events (the bloodless revolution) was that as a result of mass anti-government protests, a group of the ruling class, which had been suspended in the past and had been in opposition for many years, came to power, closely connected with the foreign capital of large entrepreneurs and landowners.-

left owners. The symbiosis of liberalism and traditionalism this time worked in favor of the Western model of statehood.

In contrast to authoritarianism, the model of post-authoritarian governance of President Corazon Aquino (1986-1992), Y. O. Levtonova concludes, was called "new democracy" and symbolized the involvement of the Philippines in global processes of democratization. The government has set new priorities in the economic sphere: the role of the state in implementing reforms has decreased and the role of the market component of the economic functioning mechanism has increased.

This course is after six years of weak and inefficient management. Aquino was succeeded in 1994 by the "three modernizations" strategy adopted by President F. Ramos ' economic, social and political strategy was based on the liberalization of economic policy, strengthening free competition, increasing export potential in every possible way, privatization, and finding a niche in the international division of labor. In a concentrated form, the concept of the development of f. Ramos formulated the policy of his administration - "security through international economic interdependence and a strong national economy." Under his leadership, a breakthrough was made from many years of economic ruin and stagnation to economic stabilization.

The presidential program "Philippines 2000" adopted in the early 1990s set the goal of the Philippines ' transition to the category of NIS (new industrial countries), such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea, at the turn of the new century.

F. Ramos managed to achieve success in many areas: to ensure political stability, overcome opposition from an influential group of officers in the army (the army reform movement), and rally the fragmented ruling class around an economic program. A new foreign policy concept was developed that took into account major changes in the international arena in the early 1990s. In the context of" strategic uncertainty " in the post-conflict period, the Philippine leadership saw ensuring national security in uniting all ten Southeast Asian countries on the basis of ASEAN to counter interference and pressure from the great Powers and develop relations with them, focusing on the potential of all the countries of the Association. Based on this, it is the Asean direction that has received the greatest development in Manila's politics. In an effort to provide political reinforcement to Philippine businesses in Southeast Asia, it has chosen an offensive tactic, combined with the promotion of its own initiatives (a proposal to accelerate the creation of an ASEAN free trade zone), an attempt was made to adjust the schedule of the "ten" movement to an integrated economic community in its interests.

Let us agree with the researcher that F. Ramos continued the small list of "strong Philippine presidents" (M. Quezon, R. Magsaysay, F. Marcos).

J. Estrada, the last leader of the Philippines in the XX century (1998-2001), made a bet on continuing socio-economic transformations based on a pro-Western liberal concept, integrating the country into the world economy and international economic institutions. In foreign policy, although he stated

on the possibility of changing course, in practice, in the absence of his own vision in international affairs, he was forced to maintain continuity, relying on the main provisions of the generally justified foreign policy strategy of former President F. Putin. Ramos.

The main problem of the reign of George. Estrada's domestic policy was a utopian effort to " balance populism with market imperatives." With the continuation of liberal economic reforms and the simultaneous adaptation of the Philippines to the process of globalization of the world economy, which in the short term clearly did not contribute to solving social problems, the proclaimed populist goals were clearly doomed to failure. This desire to combine the incompatible ultimately led the president to lose power in the middle of his term as a result of impeachment proceedings launched by his opponents in parliament, supported by thousands of opposition street protests.

Today, at the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century, the Philippines, like the rest of the world, is at a crossroads, continuing the painful search for its own path. The reproach that could be presented to the monograph is probably excessive pessimism. On the other hand, this is the Philippine reality.

The search for a new model of development, as some Filipino political scientists see it, should be based on unity and integrity. Only a combination of focusing on fundamental issues and simultaneously ensuring that changes are comprehensive and integral can give social development a sustained character.

However, we will join the author and a large number of Filipino experts who believe that today neither the ruling elite nor the opposition can see major leaders with popular and well-developed programs that can ensure the Philippines ' turn to political and economic modernization, the systemic integrity of the interconnected development of the economic, social, political, spiritual, moral and everyday spheres. life. Hence, we can hardly expect any major changes in the socio-economic development of the Philippines in the near future, overcoming the unpredictability and chaotic nature of the country's political process.

As for the American factor, relations with the United States are still a key area of foreign policy. At the same time, American influence on it has definitely declined, and it does not, as it did in the past, wear the guise of outright diktat. International experts on both sides of the Pacific rightly refer to this relationship as a "marriage of convenience."

The accessibility of the presentation and extensive historical material make the monograph on such a topical topic useful for researchers, practitioners, undergraduates and postgraduates, and interesting for a wide range of readers.

Key words: colonialism, modernization, authoritarianism, autonomy regime, Americanization.

Permanent link to this publication: