Research

In 2016, the President of the Philippines announced that US troops would have to leave a military base on the Philippine Islands. In the five years that followed, President Duterte waffled back and forth, sometimes reinforcing his desire to kick the US out, other times extending an olive branch. This back and forth usually included the explicit or implicit invocation of China as a possible ally for the Philippines, yet China was making territorial claims on the Philippines and occasionally threatening them, making this a dubious realignment option. While, puzzling, this behavior is not exceptional: small states in asymmetric relationships occasionally make similar threats to their patrons.

Crucially, however, these signals often result in a flurry of negotiation and communication. In 2022, the Solomon Islands announced an agreement with China which had unclear provisions. This announcement led to a visit from a U.S. delegation within days and a flurry of diplomatic activity between the U.S. and the Solomon Islands, including official statements and warnings. Why do leaders shake up longstanding relationships with more powerful patrons when doing so threatens an existing beneficial situation?

I suggest that understanding this requires considering domestic politics. Leaders sometimes do this, so doing so must sometimes be rewarded by their supporters. Opportunistic renegotiation is more likely to be pursued than loyal consistency in the following situations:

• When the people assess that doing so is strategically valuable for the country.

• When people care about their nation’s zero-sum advantages over other nations.

• When people are more risk-acceptant.

I suggest that threatening to shake up existing alliances with more powerful states is a signal of competence, and study this proposition. I am currently working on a series of surveys to examine this question, utilizing hypothetical survey situations.