A multipolar and interconneacted world

President Duterte’s pronouncement to pursue an “independent foreign policy” makes a lot of sense in today’s world. Unfortunately, it seems to have come more by accident than by design. The world is indeed “multipolar” so we need to have as many friends as possible. But it is also interconnected to the point that nothing is local or domestic anymore.

“Non-interference” is no longer possible. The international community’s criticism of the government’s take-no-prisoner drug war — principally the West — has provoked a reaction from the President that has led to the potential realigning of the decades old geopolitical equation in our region.  

In a previous column I wrote: “The world has evolved from having “bipolar” powers during the Cold War and then a “unipolar” superpower (the US) by the late 20th century, to now “multipolar” spheres of power and influence where no country or alliance of countries has the necessary weight to meet all the challenges facing the planet. This multitude of players has increased the unpredictability and volatility associated with international affairs.”

“Nowhere has this been more manifested than in the rise of China and with it that nation’s ambition to match its economic power with global political influence. And so almost overnight, a strategic body of water on our doorstep, dotted by islets, rocks and shoals to which everyone had equal access to before, has now become a potential flashpoint with not only major regional, but also global consequences.”

The recent release of the ruling of the UN Arbitration Tribunal on the Philippine case, if anything, has strengthened our hand in the search for a resolution and gives us some leverage if a bilateral negotiation with China is chosen as the desired approach — as it appears to be.  But complicating the path to resolution is the need to take into account the interest of our  traditional allies and economic partners - Japan, the US, Australia, ASEAN and even the EU — which our continued friendship is as much in our national interest as good relations with China. A bilateral approach to the dispute, which may seem sensible, is not that simple anymore.

So an “independent foreign policy” that balances all interests needs to be well thought out. It should be as inclusive as possible. Unfortunately, it seems that so far that policy has been shaped more by the President’s reaction — often couched in colorful language — to criticism about the “drug war,” more specifically from the US The President’s statement about voiding EDCA and ending joint exercises (without which the Mutual Defense Treaty becomes just a piece of paper) — if he means it (and this is part of the problem also) — would result in a seismic shift in the current geopolitical equation in the region which would reverberate to Taiwan and Japan to the north and ASEAN and Australia to the south.

Not a zero-sum game 

Former secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario recently described our current foreign policy as “off track.” “I think this foreign policy of equating US vis-a-vis China should not be a zero-sum game,” he said. “In foreign affairs, you try to get as many friends as possible. You don’t get one friend at the expense of another friend. Playing a zero-sum game is illogical and we should get away from this,” Del Rosario said.

Community of interest

I would suggest to the President’s team the need to urgently understand the nuances of foreign relations and the conduct of diplomacy in this day and age before events unwittingly lead us to a foreign affairs disaster.

Firstly, they should recognize that there is now, a growing “community of interest” among nations — such as concerns about the environment, freedom of navigation or ahem… human rights. Many issues can no longer be treated as strictly bilateral or even, domestic. They should therefore expect that there would be criticism from governments and other institutions about universal or common values like human rights, which to them do not constitute interference. 

Secondly, public opinion now has a profound influence on diplomacy compared to the past, and this is why public diplomacy has become as important as traditional gray suit diplomacy held behind closed doors.

Finally, this has been exacerbated by the communications revolution, including the social media, in which nothing remains local including public utterances to a small audience of local media in the wee hours of the morning. Presidential public utterances instantly become global and so they will have to be measured and with a clear objective in mind. As it is, in barely three months since he took office, the President has managed to offend the Pope, President Obama, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Israel as well as the influential and powerful Jewish lobby, Germany and Australia among others.

It is an indisputable fact that the President is the architect of our foreign affairs policy as is true in most countries. The source of our discomfort is that it appears that this policy is being set in motion following the President’s utterances, oftentimes in unguarded moments or in a fit of Presidential pique. Then we have the spectacle of the President’s men scrambling to play catch-up by parsing his statement to make them more palatable in a futile attempt to assuage ruffled feelings and assure diplomatic partners that long standing commitments remain in place.

Preserving Phl credibility

Some say the President is just playing one interest against another to get the best deal possible. If this is so, it is understandable that we should play both “ends against the middle” for our advantage, but we don’t have to be “bastos” in doing so. However, others say this is the product of his deep seated conviction and ideology. And with the US in particular, some say, driven by his personal animosity arising from past grievances. Regardless of what is in the President’s mind and that is his prerogative having been elected to office with a large plurality, all these have introduced uncertainty in our policy directions. So far, our friends and allies have taken the long view and see the President’s diatribes as being consistent with his persona but not necessarily contrary to the nation’s long-standing positions — or at least our partners are made to believe by the Foreign Secretary and the President’s spokespersons. That apparent dichotomy between words and action cannot, however, be sustained for much longer. It engenders a perception of unpredictability, which in foreign affairs and indeed even from a business stand point is never a good thing.

FVR can and should do more

I gather the President is wont to go his own way and disdains advice. It is the consensus of many that no one in the Cabinet has the intestinal fortitude to contradict Digong!  Felicitously, former president Fidel V. Ramos is there to provide the mentorship in diplomacy and statesmanship — provided President Duterte asks for his advice. He has been wisely chosen to take the lead in dealing with China at a time when bilateral relations can best be described as frosty. Clearly, the President respects him and will listen and accept his advice. But FVR can do more than that in the overall challenge of international relations. Many of us believe FVR should be invited to be President Duterte’s personal foreign affairs and international communications consultant to instill in particular “message discipline.” Messrs. Abella and Andanar need also to be schooled in the nuances of dealing with foreign governments and international media given their relative inexperience.

As I said earlier, there is a “community of interests” out there that transcends national boundaries and that unite people to a common cause. They cannot easily be dismissed. I must admit that there are few options for rationally explaining away the grisly consequences of the drug war. The taking away of human life no matter the circumstances is never something to be taken for granted. At the end of the day, the administration will either have to properly address what is at the heart of the criticism coming from this “community” or turn a deaf ear because they will not easily go away. But that is another story.

The President will have several opportunities to articulate his foreign policy directions in a clear and rational manner in the next several weeks. I hope he does so from an objective standpoint and not from his personal feeling and with the benefit of wise counsel.