Emotional

I do not completely understand the amount of passion being invested by a small circle of groups protesting the transfer of Cpl. Daniel Smith back to American custody. The protestors have been spewing a lot of reckless insinuations and stirring up useless emotions in the process.

I do understand that the issue is important for propaganda purposes for the militant groups. Smith has been conveniently portrayed as the personification of the Ugly American to enable the militant groups to continue beating on "US imperialism", the demon of all the ages as far as they are concerned.

The militants used the trial as the focal point for reviving public interest in combating "US imperialism". So enthused were they in reviving the view that the Americans are the oppressors and we are the oppressed that they threatened the credibility of due process in this country.

I watched, frightened over the future of rule of law in this country, that video clip of demagogues from Gabriela during the trial suggesting that it was wholly unpatriotic to even consider that the man might be innocent. The alleged victim was Filipina. Furthermore, she was a woman. The alleged transgressor was American: white and male. The whole galaxy of victimhood images was summoned to, I dare say, cloud our understanding of the facts and appreciation of the evidence.

It was simply politically incorrect to presume the possibility of innocence.

And it has been easy for most commentators to subscribe to the politically correct view that the white man was guilty even before the trial commenced. That is the easier view to subscribe to. One does not get venom from the militants by choosing the convenient, politically correct view.

One does not get burned in effigy for agreeing with the dangerous views of those who have made a state of permanent anger a lifestyle choice.

Except that the militants have not found a way to deal with the venerable Fr. James Reuter, who thinks Smith might be innocent. It is a thought with dangerous implications: that a miscarriage of justice might just have been caused because of the pressure of professional political agitators on our courts.

Fr. Reuter is about the holiest personage we have. Despite the color of skin, he is more Filipino than most of us. He has certainly lived in this country longer than the vast majority of our population and has been an enduring inspiration for generations.

Reuter’s view is shared by quite a number of Filipinos, among them a steadfast band of women who have kept vigil outside the Makati jail to lend moral support to the US Marine. But in our society today, it has become unhealthy to dissent from what the militants define to be the politically correct view of things. You expose yourself to slander, to being tarred and feathered as an unwitting agent of "US imperialism", to being pelted with raw eggs or even put in mortal danger.

In the same manner, it is not convenient to agree with government’s view of the transfer, which argues basically that there are national interests more important than the perverse joy of watching this white man languish in a stinking Filipino jail while his case is on appeal. The angry mobs of shallow nationalism will not love you for that.

The US government’s intense concern over the custody of Smith is driven by large considerations. The superpower has visiting forces agreements with scores of nations around the world. In all of them, the provisions are nearly uniform – including that provision covering the custody of American servicemen pending the completion of all judicial proceedings.

All these agreements are executive agreements and involve the trust and faith of governments in each other that their provisions will be enforced. A murky situation such as that involving the Smith case, where the executive branch, for a moment, tended to yield its responsibilities under the agreement to the quirks of lower court judges could create a precedent for all the other visiting forces agreements in existence.

For the Americans, that is an intolerable situation. It would put the reliability of the agreements in jeopardy. It will have tremendous impact on the morale of US servicemen asked to perform missions overseas.

From the US government’s point of view, the possibility of reversing on appeal the ruling of a lower court means that the judicial process is not yet complete. Therefore, the provision on the custody of the US serviceman ought to apply.

The more convenient – and cowardly – course for the Philippine government to take is to leave the matter entirely to the courts. But that would be, clearly, an abdication of the executive branch’s responsibilities under the existing executive agreement.

Washington made very clear its anxiousness over the Philippine government’s tendency to yield to the more convenient course. It cancelled the annual Balikatan military exercises. The US troops doing invaluable relief and rehabilitation work in typhoon-devastated Bicol quietly disappeared from the scene. Our bilateral relations – already damaged when the Philippines unilaterally withdrew, under populist domestic pressure, our tiny contribution to the coalition forces in Iraq – seemed headed to slide down further.

It is easy for much of Philippine media to pander to the conventional paradigm of shallow nationalism and describe US actions as "bullying." That is, after all, the politically correct view of things – although it smacks of jingoism.

It is not easy for the Philippine media – marinated in controversy-driven coverage, sensationalism, emotionalism and personality-centered issues – to deliver to its audience a proportional view of our universe of concerns. For media outlets that look down on their audiences and treat them with disrespect, doing so involves becoming "too abstract."

But governance is driven, as it ought to be, by a logic different from that which animates much of the media. It must keep its eye on the larger picture, the broader horizon and the longer road. It must exert effort, even if it occasionally means courting unpopularity, to deal with diverse and often contradictory concerns with a keen sense of proportion and an unwavering adherence to the national interest. It must risk becoming "too abstract."

This might sound blasphemous to the philistine peddlers of jingoism and the self-righteous guardians of political correctness: government’s action on the Smith custody case adheres to the positive balance of our national interests. In doing so, it courts some political costs. But it maintains our nation’s credibility when we go out and conclude agreements and sign treaties with other nations.