The Asia-Europe nexus

Just as the big ASEAN summit was opening in Cebu, I received an email from the Singapore-based Asia-Europe Foundation reminding me of my contribution to a commemorative book to celebrate its 10th anniversary this year. The idea of a dialogue between the two continents was already percolating when my husband was assigned as Philippine ambassador to the EU in 1992. Asia-Europe Foundation itself was launched five years later, in February 1997 to promote better understanding between the peoples of Asia and Europe.

Because I had known and heard in diplomatic circles of the difficulties for such a huge undertaking I was exceptionally pleased when the project became a reality. By then we had returned to the Philippines after a 20 year exile in Europe so an Asia-Europe nexus was a natural to me. I was invited and participated in the "East Asia & Europe: Experimenting with Region Building" conference in France (2003) and the 3rd ASEF Journalists’ Colloquium: " Building Interfaith Harmony Through the Media" in Indonesia (2005). As Bernard Fort and Chin Hock Seng of ASEF put it in their invitation, "you have seen ASEF evolve over the years. Hence, we feel that you would be one of the few of our "alumni" in a position to make this personal narrative to the commemorative publication.

It was a Frenchman, Jean Monnet who inspired the forming of the European union in 1950 as a way to stop endless wars between his country and Germany. Robert Schuman pursued the idea that eventually led to integrating the coal and steel industries of Western Europe. The intent was simple: the economic and political connection between the two European giants would secure the peace. From that germ of an idea of a European Coal and Steel Community, the rest followed as other countries joined and expanded to what has now become the European Union. The power to take decisions about the coal and steel industry was entrusted to an independent, supranational body called the "High Authority" which in time evolved into a political construct akin to a federation of states. Jean Monnet was its first president. The ECSC was such a success that, within a few years, these same six countries decided to go further and integrate other sectors of their economies.

But while the impulse for a united Europe came from the problems of war, its ASEAN counterpart can be said to come essentially from the problems of peace: how the smaller countries in the region can meet the challenge of competing with the booming economies of China and India. That is the task before the leaders of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and the Philippines when they meet in Cebu: how to band together and lower trade barriers to attract foreign investment.

Ong Keng Yong, Asean’s secretary general, said it aptly "The nightmare for our leaders is that we become a backwater. We wouldn’t get enough jobs, we won’t be able to generate enough wealth, and more ominously nobody would care what happens here.’’

There is much to learn from the European Union, but none more important than patience – such an undertaking for unity will take time. ASEAN was organized nearly 40 years ago but it is only now that there is a move to make it a legal entity. Filipinos should be proud to host the historic event and whatever can be said about President GMA, she has had the will to see it through regardless of the roadblocks both coming from manmade or natural causes. We hope when the ASEAN leaders meet with the leaders from China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India they will speak with one voice for the sake of the region’s more than half a billion people.

Excerpts from readers’ letters express an underlying bitterness that such a vital issue as Rizal’s alleged retraction has never been fully and officially addressed. Victor Murillo of 658 Maharlika Street, Plainview 1550, Mandaluyong City writes:

"During the years that I studied in two Catholic schools, I cannot recall any announcement that holy mass was to be celebrated for our national hero, Jose Rizal, either on June 19th, his birth date, or December 30th, date of his unjust execution. These events are obviously insignificant and meaningless as far as the church is concerned. In school, Rizal’s name was hardly mentioned. His NOLI and FILI were never spoken of, much less discussed. Evidently, the church does not deem Rizal as a hero but as persona non grata, a free thinker and therefore, a heretic.

Subsequently, more than a century after his death, ecclesiastics are still performing a demolition job on Rizal, brazenly claiming that he retracted. They refused to turn over the body to his family for proper burial. Instead, they hurriedly carted away his cadaver and buried him in coffin-less in an unmarked unconsecrated ground. It was desecration, a mockery of their Christian precepts – an expression of their vile contempt. Rizal’s character was steel tempered – he never retracted." Murillo cites his sources as R. Palma, A. Coates and F. Laubach.

There may be thousands more out there of Filipinos who nurture the hurt from allegations that our national hero, Jose Rizal never meant what he said in his patriotic writings but have not had the chance to be heard. Here is another from Atty John M. Ibanez who dictated his reaction to the article to his daughter, Deborah. He is 84 years old; sick of leukemia but he still gardens and reads the STAR to keep him busy. He wrote 2 books when he was already in his 80’s: An autobiography, All The Days Of My Life and Not By Bread Alone. The latter compiled his columns in The California News Tribune, later the PHIL-USA News Tribune in Los Angeles, California and some articles contributed to the California Mirror and Weekend Balita during his last five years stay in the United States (1991-1995).

"We have been following-up your column especially your series on the CBCP’s efforts to block Charter change in our country. Like you, we have come to appreciate Rizal’s explanation on how and why we have become what we are as a people. In my book, Not By Bread Alone, I pointed out that Rizal believed in the supremacy of private judgment and abhorred submission of one’s reason to the authority of another who claimed to be the infallible interpreter of God’s will. This was how his troubles began and led to his untimely death.

His debate with Jesuit father Pastells opened when the latter sent a message stating, "Tell him (Rizal) to stop being silly, wanting to look at his affairs with the prism of his own judgment and self love…." In his reply, Rizal says, in part: "Looking at one’s affairs with prism of his own judgment does not seem to merit reproof" because ‘God must have given us them for something…. Looking with other’s prisms would not only be impractical since there would be as many prisms as there are individuals but also he would not know which one to choose among so many and choosing we would have to use our own judgment."

We have become what we are because, unlike Senators Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel who sponsored the Noli-Fili Bill in Congress in the 1950s, we ignored Rizal’s aspirations for us when he said, "I want the Filipino to appear before the world self-respecting, noble and honest, for a people that make themselves contemptible by their cowardice, or vices, expose themselves to abuses and imposition."

Rizal chided the Jesuit father, "A question occurs to me: who is more foolishly proud – he who is content to follow his own judgment or he who proposes to impose not even what his own reason declares but only what seems to him to be the truth? The reasonable has never seemed foolish to me and pride has always shown itself in the idea of imposition."

Rizal was a modern man in a medieval community whose religious beliefs were different from those of the majority. He was also a non-conformist in a society were church and state were united and where consequently, religious skepticism was ‘unpatriotic and political dissent irreligious’ writes Rizal biographer Leon Ma. Guerrero.

My email is [email protected]