Liu Xiaobo

President Aquino’s brigade of spokespersons — principally Carandang and Lacierda — insists on belittling our people’s intelligence.

A few days ago, international reports listed the Philippines as among a handful of Beijing lapdogs participating in a boycott of the Nobel Peace Prize awarding ceremonies in Oslo. The recipient of this year’s prestigious Peace Prize is Chinese pro-democracy activist Liu Xiaobo who is in jail for espousing freedom.

Liu Xiaobo heads no party nor faction nor movement with any semblance of organization. He is an artist and writer, unswerving in his faith in freedom and unflinching against repression. He personifies the courage and the spirit of the millions who dream of a China where human rights are respected and where the dignity of ordinary citizens upheld.

Because of that, Beijing fears Liu Xiaobo. His wife has been thrown in jail as well. Other known dissidents were prevented from traveling abroad the past few weeks because the Chinese authorities fear they might make their way to Oslo and amplify the message the Nobel committee delivers by awarding this one conscientious objector with the Peace Prize.

Beijing mounted a campaign among its friends to boycott the awarding ceremonies, calling the Nobel Peace Prize committee a bunch of “clowns.” In its anxiousness to undermine the significance of the award, Beijing did some clowning of its own: a parallel “peace prize” ceremony was organized in China, awarding Rmb 100,000 in cash to a number of personalities including former Taiwanese vice-president Lien Chan. None of the awardees turned up for the Beijing-orchestrated carnival and Lien, in particular, soundly rejected the recognition.

Never mind the other tin-can regimes ruled by tyrants who chose to participate in the Beijing-instigated boycott. The Philippines stands out in that list because, in word if not in deed, we support the democratic struggles of peoples everywhere. It is in the words of our Constitution and in our articulated foreign policy.

There is more than just a discrepancy in the appearance of the Philippines in the list of regimes boycotting the Oslo ceremonies. This is an anomaly. This is a gross international embarrassment. This is a diplomatic faux pas.

This is an odd signal that the government in Manila, perhaps, succumbed to the temptations of allowing expediency precedence over principle.

We are, no doubt, vulnerable to such temptations. After the bloody hostage incident last August, which Aquino first tried to dismiss as a “minor matter”, Malacanang overlooked diplomatic protocol by unilaterally announcing the dispatch of a high-level delegation to Hong Kong and Beijing.

Both Beijing and Hong Kong rejected the delegation, insisting that a full-fledged investigation of the incident first be conducted. The Chinese ambassador to Manila then made himself scarce in a string of diplomatic functions.

Stung by the unmistakable diplomatic snub, the Palace hastily convened an incident investigation and review committee to comply with Beijing’s demand. The de Lima committee did its job with candor and efficiency. The report of that committee, otherwise acceptable to Beijing, was re-submitted to another Palace review committee. The final Palace report watered down the original recommendations. No one was criminally charged save for the hostage-taker’s own brother.

The Palace’s treatment of the IIRC recommendations obviously disappointed Beijing. To this day, the high-level delegation that is supposed to go to Beijing is still grounded. The Chinese have given no indication this delegation will be received at all.

 Understandably, after all the blunders and bloopers committed by the President and his men, Malacanang is anxious to appease Beijing in whatever way possible. It is easy to speculate that there is expectation in the Palace that if we heed China’s call for a boycott of the Nobel ceremonies, our hapless delegation might finally be received in Beijing.

That might be unfair speculation, as the brigade of Aquino spokespersons will be first to say. It could be that our foreign service is just being routinely sloppy — which seems to be the order of the day under this dispensation.

But the brigade of Palace mouthpieces should not insult citizens by coyly saying that our apparent boycott of the Oslo ceremonies is a minor matter considering attendance is “optional.”

Good grief, of course attendance is optional! We all know the difference between an invitation and a subpoena. This is not the point.

The point is all about walking the talk. If we were true to our loud professions of support for democracy and human rights, we might have opted to send a higher profile group to the awards. After all, this is about democracy and human rights in our part of the world.

We have designated ourselves regional exponent of democracy and human rights. When we seek to reinforce that role, we badger Burma — mainly because this isolated country is of no consequence to our economic concerns. However, we are reluctant to do the same with China, whose scale of human rights violations puts Burma to shame — probably because China looms large in our economic future.

The Peace Prize ceremony at Oslo is a sacred ritual of affirmation for all countries who devoutly believe all of humanity is destined to be free. This is our civil religion too. How could we so casually miss the High Mass?

The gang of Palace spokespersons is trying to lull us away from the critical play of significances. They are trying to convince us by some trite talk that, by some accident, our ambassador to Norway will be elsewhere in that snowy region at the time the ceremonies happen.

They are pulling our legs. At this level of diplomacy, nothing is accidental. We all know from our recent experience with the displeased Chinese ambassador to Manila that diplomats, when they have to deliver a snub, will arrange to be conveniently out of town during a crucial event.