No silent diplomacy

Joseph Mussomeli left the heat in Manila last Friday and sought sanctuary in Marawi, where he got a warm reception throughout his stay of several hours in the predominantly Muslim city. He had been invited by Marawi officials to grace their 25th founding day.

In his speech, the US embassy’s number two official said basically the same things about the war on terror that he told Australian TV, but minus the references to Afghanistan and Mecca.

What did he tell the Australians again? That the war on terror is still far from being won, that there is a danger that governments — both his and ours — could lose focus on the war particularly in Mindanao.

No, Mussomeli did not change his tune in Marawi. The American deputy chief of mission has not been chastened by the strongly worded note verbale he received last week from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Either someone at the DFA did not do his homework and failed to read the entire transcript of the Australian interview, to put Mussomeli’s message in proper perspective, or else this government is becoming too onion-skinned, as critics including the Asian Wall Street Journal have pointed out in the past days.

The Asian Wall Street ran an editorial last Thursday titled "Asia’s Terrorist Haven" as it defended Mussomeli’s remarks. Truth hurts, the newspaper said. "If Indonesia is the terrorists’ primary battleground in Asia, Mindanao is their safe haven," the editorial said.

Presidential Spokesman Ignacio Bunye told us that the editorial was "making a mountain out of a molehill." But it was the Philippine government that made a mountain out of remarks that didn’t actually say anything new about the situation in Mindanao. Even those references to Afghanistan and Mecca we’ve heard before from terrorism experts and security officials.

Of course those previous statements were not uttered by the second highest US official in Manila, who at the time of the interview was the number one man at the embassy. And in much of the world public statements from American diplomats tend to elicit knee-jerk, even hysterical reactions in their host countries.

Because even their minor utterances can ruin breakfasts at Malacañang and the DFA, should those nasty American diplomats be diplomatic and shut up already? Or should they speak out, as they have always had, when they see a need for reforms or greater attention to certain problems?

By the looks of Mussomeli in Marawi, he has no plans of shutting up, although he may now be more cautious about hyperbole. And by the looks of it, he enjoys the full backing of his government. Silence isn’t always golden in American diplomacy.

US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone has kept himself out of sight since returning to Manila from Washington late Thursday night. He must be enjoying Mussomeli’s turn in the spotlight.

* * *

The problem in this country is that we expect the Americans to speak out and openly intervene in internal affairs when we need them — such as during the administrations of Joseph Estrada and Ferdinand Marcos, and even during the numerous coup attempts against Corazon Aquino — then bristle when they refuse to shut up during calmer times.

Another problem is that we continue to rely heavily on US aid for military operations and economic development. Washington is not parting with American taxpayers’ money without having a say in how that money is spent, especially in a country such as ours that is consistently ranked as one of the world’s most corrupt.

Malaysia can tell the Americans to shut up and mean it, but that’s because the Malaysians are self-reliant and are making sure they will remain that way.

We cannot even deliver a convincing message about non-interference and sovereignty, since there is official Philippine pressure for Myanmar to implement democratic reforms and free Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi if it wants to assume the rotating chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations next year.

Since Myanmar does not rely on Philippine aid, but on aid from China, no one is surprised that Yangon’s response so far to Philippine and ASEAN pressure is, "Make me."

* * *

These recent controversies are raising debates on how much nations can avoid poking their noses into each other’s internal affairs, without diplomats receiving a slew of notes verbales and threats of expulsion.

Can a nation keep the war on terror strictly an internal affair? If Indonesia keeps treating the Jemaah Islamiyah leadership with kid gloves, how long can the Philippines and other neighboring countries affected by the JI threat keep quiet?

The war on terror is a global effort; spreading democracy to police states such as Myanmar is a global effort. Often diplomats are at the forefront of these efforts.

American diplomats are in the unique position of backing their statements with their nation’s military, economic and political clout. And when they are impatient about reforms, they tend to show it.

Mussomeli has said that the Philippine government is "working hard" to fight terrorists. But US security officials have also made no secret of their concerns that Mindanao is turning into an export-processing zone for international terrorists.

That concern has prompted the Americans to pour much of their development aid for the Philippines into Mindanao. The Americans do tend to put their money where their mouth is, and they do tend to be consistent about the values they pursue in their foreign policy. Spreading freedom is not mere White House rhetoric.

Before berating diplomats of whatever nationality for opening their big mouths about security concerns, it may be good for the government to look closer at the situation and find out why those Americans keep yammering away.

Because, in case Malacañang and the DFA have missed it, there are many quarters that agree with Mussomeli’s assessment of the situation in Mindanao.

And the country’s recent past has shown that it can be dangerous for an administration to have to hear the painful truth about the state of the nation from a foreign government.