Welcome to the new American Ambassador

Welcome to the Philippines, Ambassador Harry Thomas. This column was inspired by two things: one, by a statement attributed to you calling for free and peaceful elections and progress on corruption and human rights concerns, and the other from your predecessor, Ambassador Kristine Kenney who advised you to be cautious about commenting on Philippine politics.

It is my view that if we are to improve Philippine-American relations, it ought not to be limited to the 2010 presidential elections. It should apply to the wider meaning of politics as almost anything that pertains to government or the governing of a nation.

There are some of us who believe that despite the granting of independence in 1946 American influence prevails in administering and controlling our country’s internal and external affairs. That belief is growing even if it is hardly reported in media.

I am afraid you must do more than that just follow former Ambassador Kenney’s warning against “taking sides in the 2010 presidential contest”. You have a tough job ahead of representing the United States in the Philippines as Filipinos politically mature. Americans and Filipinos need to work harder on their bilateral relations and special friendship.

It will not be easy because whether we like it or not the colonial past is very much present. Your country still dominates the Philippines coupled with the fact that some Filipinos are unable to see the logic of unfolding events in Asia. The Philippines is bound to play a greater role but not in the way America wants it too.

Indeed it would be helpful to review how the 2010 elections came to be and the role your predecessor played in it. There were those who felt that a restructuring of the body politic was necessary before another wasteful presidential election. That was the ongoing debate. The presidential system imposed on us by your country has not worked for us and this has been confirmed by almost all presidents of the Philippines.

As the debate raged, former US Ambassador Kenney spoke in print and broadcast for clean and honest elections. Nothing wrong with that.

But if it was timed to preempt any further debate on the matter then it was direct intervention and violates all principles of diplomacy.

It smacked of arrogance and lack of sensitivity about Philippine-American post colonial relations. It is unfortunate that Ambassador Kenney did not see anything wrong with ending the debate on Charter change by appearing in an advertorial on print and television that the Philippines should have honest elections full stop.

This was an obfuscation of a deliberate intent to intervene in how Filipinos must run their country. These days, presidential candidates include in their campaigns assurances that there will be no Charter change if they are elected. What better proof that the 2010 elections was used to block Charter change, needed and wanted by most Filipinos but unwelcome to an American ambassador representing her government? Those of us who understand the game plan can say as well that we will not vote for any presidential candidate unwilling to continue the national debate on Charter change and who would not allow a referendum so the Filipino people can decide whether they are for or against it. It will be a good test of the nationalism of our future leaders.

*      *      *

No ambassador of any other country did what Kenney dared to do even if they, too, believed in honest and free elections. They observed the unwritten rules expected from ambassadors when it comes to the internal affairs of a country. It is unfortunate that your predecessor did not understand this despite her long career as a diplomat. It leads us to suspect that she was not acting on her own but on American policy. Or was she?

This is not to say that she was not well-liked by Filipinos especially those who are favored by the status quo. This was widely reported in oligarch-owned media. Indeed, accolades were heaped on her for her friendliness and presence in myriad affairs. For this she has merited the highest award from our government — the Order of Sikatuna.

But this is not the full story. The other half is about Filipinos who cannot shake off their colonial past and think this is all that an American ambassador must be — to be socially likeable.

*      *      *

I believe we can have both. An ambassador can be both sociable and likeable at the same time that he or she makes an effort to study colonial and postcolonial relations between the two countries and how it has affected both. These have been largely to the disadvantage of Filipinos. Not to take that history seriously and be more sensitive about it would in time make it difficult to justify the special friendship. Outright interference as it was done to the Charter change debate insults Filipinos.

As the new ambassador and Barack Obama’s appointee, I hope you will take time and effort to ponder on the role your country played in that debate. That precedes any lecture on what kind of elections we must have, transparent, honest or otherwise.

There are Filipinos who can see through American admonitions of how elections must be. To say that the election is the key to help the Philippines keep their leadership role in the region is adding salt to the wound. Indeed we are the laughing stock of our neighbors as America’s patsy.

More than going around the islands and talking to everyone, I would advise the new American ambassador to sit down and read the history of US-Philippines relations. A number of American writers have said that America’s imperialist adventure in the Philippines was the exemplar of the Iraq invasion. But today no effort has been made by both Filipinos and Americans on how we might learn from that past.

I hope you will not condescend in expressing the need for dialogue. It is not politic to say that “sometimes Filipinos have good ideas, sometimes they are right, sometimes there are things we should be doing differently, or issues we should look at in a fresh perspective, and sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.” When the US uses its power and dominance on a former colony like the Philippines, there can be no dialogue. America is always right.