Where is President Rodrigo Duterte taking the country in terms of foreign relations? This is the question asked by many considering the developments during his official visit to China.
To be fair, Duterte has, from the first days of his presidency, repeatedly said that he is breaking away from the United States of America. His disdain against America is public knowledge as he has criticized, even badmouthed the US from the get go. It is also no secret that he is soft to China saying that he will pursue a better relationship with it, and until recently, Russia as well.
However, he also said that the Philippines will pursue an independent foreign policy, one that is not subservient to any other nation. Perhaps, this is what everybody has been hoping for. Independence, after all, is every patriotic Filipino heart’s desire.
So while people criticized Duterte’s crass words against the US and its last ambassador, and there were those who took the position that being independent does not necessarily mean turning one’s back to longtime allies, there has been no strong opposition to the concept of pursuing an independent foreign policy.
Also, whenever the president would threaten breaking away from the US, his men would rush to “clarify” to soften the blow of his statements. This push-and-pull game has left people confused. However, just before leaving for China, the President stopped the US-Philippines joint patrols in the disputed West Philippine Sea as if to a signal what would come in the following days.
We have seen the tough, rouge, combative Duterte turn respectful, almost dignified in front of Chinese officials. He can forego his usual roughness when he wants to, and we should remember this. Then he announces that he is breaking up with the US in both military and economic fields, and added that he will be dependent on China, and even Russia for many years.
This is very DIFFERENT from the usual gangster talk he does during his midnight-to-morning press conferences within the Philippines. He made the public statement in China, the country that insistently claims parts of OUR territory, in front of its highest officials, during an official visit. He was representing the Philippines. The pronouncement cannot be perceived as anything but official.
The news about this presidential statement exploded, particularly in social media. Not a few netizens expressed sadness, frustration, even outright anger and depression over what Duterte said. Even some senators expressed doubts about the wisdom of cutting ties with the US. Senator Richard Gordon said outright that the President is wrong on this.
As expected, the Duterte’s men, particularly Trade and Industry Secretary Ramon Lopez and National Economic and Development Authority Director General Ernesto Pernia, quickly issued a statement in an attempt to “interpret” Duterte and minimize negative reactions. They emphasized that the Philippines is not cutting trade relations with the US, and that Duterte’s words were meant to strengthen Asean integration. The only problem here is, the President’s words were clear and he did NOT say these.
There are many important questions needing answers on the implications of Duterte’s statement.
What will happen to the West Philippine Sea issue? How is the Philippine government going to protect our sovereignty and territorial integrity against China now? The Chinese already said that they MAY allow our fisherfolk to use the contested waters. Why do Filipinos need permission from China to be in our territory? Has the President forgotten the groundbreaking Hague ruling saying that China is wrong in its claims? This gave us the means to negotiate from a position of strength.
Government proudly announced that China is providing us $9 billion in soft loans. How can one negotiate as an equal if one owes the other party? What is the collateral? What are the conditions to these loans? Besides, the money will be paid for by the Filipino people. It is our right to know the fine prints in this deal. Remember that China has NEVER been a strong partner of the Philippines.
What about trade and employment? Cannot we trade with both US and China? Why choose one at the expense of the other? What will happen to the estimated 1.2 million workers in the BPO industry that heavily serve US markets? What will happen to the almost 6 million Filipinos presently in the US?
Data from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) indicate that the US is our third biggest trading partner. As of mid-2016, trading between the two countries reached almost $16.5 billion favoring the Philippines. Are we losing this in favor of China?
Perhaps the biggest question on the issue is, did Filipinos who voted for Duterte sign up for the split with the US? Do the people support the President on this? It should be noted that breaking of US ties was not a big part of Duterte’s campaign spiel. He started talking about this more when he was already elected into office.
It is also interesting that even his Cabinet officials are often caught unaware by his controversial statements. There have been times when spokespersons and secretaries issued explanations that were in conflict with their boss’ pronouncements. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana’s statement that Duterte does not consult his Cabinet before saying things sheds some light into how the latter works. Therefore, one wonders how much Cabinet support Duterte has on the cutting of ties with the US.
Social media reaction is mostly critical of Duterte. More than the netizens however, the results of the September 2016 Social Weather Stations survey is quite instructive. The US got the best rating among seven countries in terms of public trust, +66, while China received the worst rating of -33. It is unquestionable that Filipinos trust the US much, much better than we do China. This despite Duterte’s repeated anti-US and pro-China pitch.
Is the split with the US a decision that Duterte alone took without considering his Cabinet’s expert opinions, and more importantly, what Filipinos want?
Even the usually quiet but respected former DFA Secretary Albert del Rosario has spoken about this. He said, “What is unfolding before us must be considered a national tragedy.” These are very strong words from a man like Del Rosario, and this is alarming.
Now, how do we address this tragedy?
@bethangsioco on Twitter
Elizabeth Angsioco on Facebook
