IT TRULY is a brave new world for Filipinos each day under the administration of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.
A little past his first 100 days stark shifts in the country’s foreign policy, which President Duterte earlier said would be an independent one under his watch, were laid bare. I will remark on three things that particularly struck me.
First, in his speech at a Beijing investment forum President Duterte announced a split militarily and economically from the United States saying “I have separated from them. So I will be dependent on you for all time.” (Interestingly, a report by Pia in Rappler quoted him instead as saying “So I will be dependent on you for a long time.”).
He also indicated a realignment in ideological flow indicating that “there are three of us against the world—China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.“Earlier in September, Pres. Duterte expressed his hopes that an independent foreign policy would enable the Philippines to be "friends" with everyone.
To be sure, some kind of gains like the commutation of $6 billion soft loans, additional $3 billion in credit, and $15 million support for drug rehabilitation facilities will come from the willingness of the Duterte administration to openly declare alignment with China, and resume dialogue on the South China Sea territorial dispute instead of following through on the Hague ruling. That there would be trade agreements and investments, and possibly improvements in tourism, out of this new deal with China should not be surprising.
Unfortunately, the ramifications of foreign relations will have to be reckoned more comprehensively beyond benefits to the economy. Political, security, environmental, technological and geographic considerations and their effects beyond a politician’s term of office are among them.
How a for-all-time dependence and three-of-us-against-the-worldcan be spun into an independent policy is anybody’s guess at this point, although Mindanawon development consultant Eric Libre commented that a lifetime of dependence can skew one’s notion of independence.
Second, other Philippine officials were apparently not aware of this particular hardening of foreign relations and commitments. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana admitted before Senate on the issue of the termination of the joint military exercises with the Americans that the President had been issuing statements without consulting the Cabinet. DFA officials in likelihood are not prepared for the shift.
Soon after the President’s speech, economic officials released a joint statement saying “we will maintain relations with the West but we desire stronger integration with our neighbors“.
One wonders whether the statement by Finance Secretary Sonny Dominguez and Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia which framed the President’s articulations as simply a long overdue move at regional economic integration was more of an effort at damage control.
Even former President Fidel V. Ramos tried to mollify the US last October 19 through outgoing US Ambassador Philip Goldberg by saying “friendship should never change“.
Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Assistant Secretary Banaag also cautioned the public against interpreting the statements and to instead wait for guidelines.
The lack of comprehensive guidance that explains and operationalizes the independent foreign policy is its main source of weakness, feeding perceptions that it has been fueled more by the offense taken by the President on criticisms directed at his anti-drug war policy than on a comprehensive reckoning of the objective conditions, the desired directions and the overarching vision.
For instance, have there been adequate studies of China’s track record in its dealings with other countries with which it has special relations?
Writer-activist Nash Tysmans pointed to the need to review for instance Sino-African relations and the effects of “chequebook diplomacy“ that “left a few African nations in debt and reliant on Chinese aid while their land was also pillaged because the Chinese government could not control the greed of their own businessmen“.
And how about China’s status as one of the top emitters in 2011 of carbon dioxide along with the United States, European Union, India, Russian Federation, Japan, and Canada according to the US Environmental Protection Agency?
Third, the appointed ambassador to Brunei Darussalam businessman-lawyer James Lao could not answer basic questions relevant to his posting, and would likely be bypassed by the Commission of Appointments (CA).
Despite the briefings and papers provided to nominees, Lao said “I do not know“ to questions about the jobs that Filipinos held in Brunei and their work concerns, and even the agreements signed in the recent state visit of President Duterte to the Sultan of Brunei.
Lao is one of the President’s political appointees who would be taking over the posts of career diplomats who have tours of duty that are not yet finished by the time of replacement. It would be a great shame if our Filipinos in Brunei and the rest of the world would not be adequately represented and protected because of political pay-offs.
We have to remember that the May 2016 elections significantly triggered the interest of Filipinos abroad. Of 1.37 million registered voters overseas, a total of 432,706 or 31.65 percent cast their ballots, the highest in 10 years, and with many of them supporting President Duterte.
Estimated in 2015 at 2.4 million, OFWs and their remittances have kept Philippine economy afloat since the 1970s.Their rights and welfare should be among the key considerations of our foreign policy.
At this point you are probably wondering what is funny about the three developments I noted. Come to think of it, I really do not know. May I plead hyperbole? Or that in college I got slighted by a Chinese? Or you could just use your creative imagination.
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com