My sources at the Department of Foreign Affairs wished President Noynoy could just have kept quiet. Our ambassador to Oslo could not attend the Nobel awards ceremony because of a previous engagement – period. That would have been polite and acceptable. After all, no one should dictate what party we go to whether the host is Chinese or American.
President Noynoy would have spared himself unwanted criticism if he left it at diplomatic level, but he went on to say that the Philippines was ‘boycotting’ the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for the sake of five Filipinos in the death row. The five were accused as drug mules and in China that is punishable by death.
In the first place, China had already made it clear that they were not boycotting the ceremonial awards. They just did not agree with the award to Lin Xiaobo citing Alfred Nobel’s own criteria for the peace award. That was conveyed to the selection committee after the decision to give the Chinese agitator the peace award two months ago.
Of the other countries that did not come to the awards we can only guess why but none made any statements or gave any reasons. As a Chinese friend said to me, how could China pressure Russia to “boycott” the ceremony or Saudi Arabia or Egypt? For whatever reason it is understandable for Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran to skip the event.
Maybe he was trying to do an “Arroyo” by saying the Philippines boycotted the awards for the sake of five Filipinos in the death row accused of being drug mules in Beijing. Remember that the former president was vilified in the Western press for standing by Angelo de la Cruz but he was a hostage, not a drug mule.
The Philippine president was not being asked to give a reason. I doubt very much if the Philippine absence in the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo could help the Filipinos sentenced to death. The government should have just given them a lawyer to show their concern in what is obviously a violation of Chinese rules whether offenders were natives or foreigners.
What showed up yet again was the immaturity of Filipino leaders who think political one-upmanship in local politics can be played equally in geopolitics. Unfortunately, it requires skills and the mind to interpret nuances, none of which was present in handling the Nobel issue.
* * *
We had better get it right with a graver issue already on top of us – the South China sea problem. Diplomats or advisers to President Noynoy should prepare themselves to know the issue thoroughly and how the Philippines can maneuver between the competing powers for hegemony in the region.
The integrity of Philippine sovereignty and the ability to assert it must not be sacrificed.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fired the opening salvo at a recent ASEAN regional meeting. “Resolving disputes over the South China Sea was “pivotal” to regional stability and suggested an international mechanism to solve the issue.
The United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea,” Clinton said at the meeting. In short the US wants a role in what happens to the resolution of the problem. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has replied to the Clinton remarks in a recent article.
He warned some countries (meaning the US and other countries) not to “internationalize” the territorial dispute over the South China Sea that Beijing faces with its neighbors.
He does not think that “internationalizing” the problem is the way to go. “It will only make matters worse and the resolution more difficult,” Yang said.
In his view “International practices show that the best way to resolve such disputes is for countries concerned to have direct bilateral negotiations.” The two views are on collision course.
China has disputes with a few Asean member countries including the Philippines. But these disputes do not come in the way of navigational freedom. Obviously, these are differing positions that will need utmost tact and diplomacy to resolve. Are we ready for it?
“Trade has been growing rapidly in this region and China has become the number one trading partner of many countries in the region,” Yang said. “In my bilateral discussions with both Asean colleagues and others, they all say that there is no threat to regional peace and stability.”
Perhaps, of all the Asean countries, the Philippines has the biggest dilemma. If the US forces its hand and asks the Philippines to draw the line on the dispute, there will be risks. It cannot be approached recklessly by making provocative statements or taking sides. Yang does not believe Asean is the appropriate forum to resolve the issue.
“China and some Asean nations have territorial and maritime rights disputes because we are neighbors. And those disputes shouldn’t be viewed as between China and Asean as a whole just because the countries involved are Asean members,” he said.
The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was signed by China and Asean member countries in 2002. It was intended to contain regional conflicts and prepare for high-level meetings when it becomes necessary.
In the declaration, the countries pledged to “exercise restraint, and not to make it an international issue or multilateral issue.”
* * *
MISCELLANY: My friend Butch Juinio sent me through email his column in the new magazine Opin yon his take on Imelda’s remarks to the press about the return of Olot to the Marcoses.
Richard Gordon, “the candidate referred to by many as their candidate but did not vote for because he could not win” was on Sentro ng Katotohanan, DWBL on 1242 kph (every Tuesday and Thursday at 8:30 for those who want to tune in.) It was a wide-ranging, no holds barred exchange.
Manoling Morato also came last week to tell its listeners what was happening in the PCSO that wouldn’t see print or be covered by oligarch owned television. More will be invited in the coming days to the radio program that has become an alternative medium. The program works closely with adherents of constitutional reform and widely followed in the social networks.