Speaker JDV’s advocacy for interfaith dialogue

JDV is known to most Filipinos as Mr. Speaker, having achieved an unprecedented record for being elected to the post for four terms. Abroad, he has also carved a name for himself and is known as the most prominent Filipino advocate for interfaith dialogue. I am told he leaves today for Tel Aviv, Israel on the invitation of Project Interchange, an Institute of the American Jewish Committee for a one week seminar. This column wishes him well, this being the first time that the institution has invited Filipinos to Tel Aviv to celebrate 50 years of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Philippines.

He may be the compleat politician with all the good and bad traits that come with it, but other countries appreciate that because he has put to good use his considerable diplomatic skills to foster interfaith dialogue. Very few local politicians, for example would dare to do some of the things he has advanced by promoting Philippine-Arab diplomacy in the cause for peace in the Middle East and the Christian-Muslim conflict in our own backyard. Through the years he has developed a circle of influential personalities in the Arab world, among them, the mercurial Libyan leader, Muammar Khaddafy. Let us see how he presents himself in Israeli territory.

So when a man like Senator Panfilo Lacson says that JDV is finished and that he pities him, this is more a reflection on his own values rather than the embattled Speaker’s. It is clear what the senator is about. He is pushing Speaker JDV to break off with President GMA, aware that it is their partnership and promotion of program-based politics that has effectively shut off the opposition from power.

I hope that in the coming days, when the Speaker is out of the country and view the conflict between him and President GMA from a distance he will take stock rather than throw in the towel. That stock is no less than the future of our country and its political stability. If I am right about JDV, he is, despite being torn between family and politics, a great survivor. The Speaker is certainly not out and does not need the pity of anyone, least of all Senator Lacson’s. Speaker JDV is a more astute politician than to be carried away by intrigues and gossip.

At the same time, I do not know just how deep the hurt is as far as his son, Joey is concerned. It will not be easy to balance personal and political interests but this he must do. It can be achieved. That has always been the strong point of the Speaker and how he has been able to manage the more than 200 vested interests in Congress to get vital legislation for the country passed. But then we have a Senate whose members think that the only way to go is to oppose, mangle, and destroy initiatives.

I hope both the Speaker and President GMA will find themselves to rise above their personal hurts, retrace their steps and recover the political partnership that enabled them to further program-oriented politics for the sake of the country.

*  *  *

A few days ago, I was invited to a television program to discuss Myanmar. (By the way, even the name of the country is disputed. Should it be Burma, the name the British gave it or Myanmar from Myanmarese themselves). In the program which I turned down, I would be asked why I seem not to agree with Western media’s reporting of the situation. That would be difficult to answer in a program with a limited format because most Filipinos are hardly informed on what the issues are about. This is not to say that I disagree that the country is ruled by a repressive military government or deny that it quickly moved to put down a nascent rebellion with unacceptable violence. This has been the situation for almost four decades now.

Although I agree the country could be more democratic, I am not sure that outsiders and their strategy of isolating the country through sanctions would achieve the open society for democracy to flourish.

I am not cheering when President George W. Bush announces more U.S. sanctions against Myanmar “to punish the military-run government and its backers for the recent violent crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.” Unfazed by mistakes of the Iraq debacle, Bush has ordered to tighten controls on U.S. exports to Myanmar and urged China and India to do more to pressure the Burmese government to ‘democratize.’ The democratic Bush administration also prohibited any U.S. citizens from doing business with the military rulers.

This all sounds fine but what do the people of Myanmar think or say? The protesting monks are not the only people of Myanmar although it is conceded they are well regarded in this devoutly Buddhist country. Among groups whose views hardly find space in Western media reports is the Free Burma Coalition.  Since its inception as a Burmese-led activist initiative at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1995, the Free Burma Coalition has been pushing for democratic change in Burma. But after many years, it has come to the conclusion that “an open society can not be built in and through isolation”. The international coalition’ now promotes all forms of interactions and engagement with Burma primarily its people. This runs contrary to Western media and official Western policy which is bent on isolating the country.

Free Burma Coalition was founded by Zarni, a research fellow (2006-2009) who studied democratic transition at the University of Oxford. These Burmese exiles have had discussions among themselves on how best to bring about a democratic and open society. Too few are being told on how the group came around to drop sanctions in favor of engagement. Zarni himself has gone around talking to compatriots while editing “Active Citizens under Political Wraps: Experiences from Myanmar/Burma and Vietnam (2006).” They discuss the issue of how outsiders should respond to conditions in their country. Should they promote isolation or engagement? Which of these two paths will deprive the junta of needed support and help spark democratization?

Their message is simple. It is engagement, not sanctions, which will expose the country to liberalization and slowly, if step by step, undermine the regime. They want Burmese opposition to be more creative instead of succumbing to political extremes fomented by outsiders usually for their own benefit rather than the Burmese themselves. How is that to be discussed in an atmosphere of recrimination fostered by Western media reporting?

*  *  *

E-mail “From a Distance” at [email protected]