Fiasco

Meanwhile, yet another Filipino national in Beijing’s prisons was convicted of drug trafficking. Given the rising volume of drug trafficking in the region, the population of Filipino convicts awaiting severe penalties under China’s laws is likely to balloon.

If we choose to anchor our foreign policy on pleading for clemency for the criminals we export, we might as well throw our sovereignty to the wind.

Recall that President Benigno Simeon Aquino admitted to participating in the Beijing-instigated boycott of the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies, claiming that doing so will help us plead for the lives of five drug mules due for execution in China. Chinese officials quickly denied they used the prisoners as gambit.

Of the 18 countries that participated in the Beijing-instigated boycott in Oslo — now derisively referred to in the foreign press as the ‘Coalition of the Weak’ — only Aquino expressly admitted to boycotting the Nobel proceedings. The other leaders, even the most tyrannical of them, maintained a discreet silence about the matter.

Before Aquino’s admission, his “communications group” was busy peddling the lie that our ambassador to Oslo simply had a “scheduling problem.” Even in lying, they are clumsy. The life of a Filipino ambassador to Oslo is routinely uneventful. The high point of our ambassador’s duties is attendance in Nobel ceremonies. If the Peace Prize event is the annual high point of the ambassador’s duties, how could a “scheduling problem” happen — except by diplomatic design.

In the previous column, I credited Aquino with being candid. I was probably too kind. “Careless” is probably the more precise description. By needlessly opening his mouth on the matter, Aquino produced a multi-faceted fiasco.

From information leaking out of the Palace, we now have a clearer picture of what happened — and what is being done to contain the damage.

Ambassador Rigoberto Tiglao wrote in his Inquirer column last Thursday that the link between the Oslo boycott and the five imprisoned drug mules originated from a confidential briefing paper supplied Aquino. Confidential background papers like this one are for presidential — not public — consumption. That is why they are confidential. Normally such documents have a blue cover page marked “Secret.”

Aquino surely surprised his aides when he began reciting the contents of that confidential paper before journalists. In doing so, he produced major diplomatic complications.

To be sure, Aquino sealed the sad fate of Filipino drug traffickers in China. Beijing is not about to risk disrepute by showing leniency for the convicts. That will only confirm the implication that this emerging economic superpower uses the lives of prisoners as bargaining chips. Beijing might not be above using such crass tools, but she is sophisticated enough not to make it too obvious.

Aquino’s careless babbling, implying such a trade, embarrasses China. That is why the official denial came quickly and unmistakably. Instead of scoring brownie points with Beijing, we now aggravate China’s ire. Expect the Filipino convicts to be executed with dispatch.

By publicly (and, therefore, officially) admitting to participating in the Oslo boycott, Aquino now courts the ire of our allies in North America and Europe. How could a proudly democratic nation so shamelessly pander to Beijing’s arrogant and undemocratic whim?

Our democratic allies are surely now contemplating sanctions on us. This is the way of international politics: good behavior is rewarded; bad behavior is immediately penalized. There is now some talk of reduction in the official assistance we normally receive. Between friends, the sanctions will be polite but unmistakable nevertheless.

Clearly, because of Aquino’s careless babbling, the Beijing boycott not only failed to fix our relations with China, it damaged our relations with our democratic allies.

Because it is now our foreign policy to hold the lives of drug traffickers to be more important than affirming human rights, the Philippines has lost the moral high ground we once enjoyed in global affairs. We can no longer, for instance, take Burma to task for wanton violation of human rights. We have no standing to speak on behalf of oppressed people elsewhere. We can no longer wave the democratic banner except in shame.

As the dimensions of this diplomatic fiasco become more evident by the day, Aquino’s aides are not doing some damage control — in a manner that will probably trip up more traps and add fuel to the fire.

Tiglao reports in his column that Ricky Carandang, using one of his media assets, is trying the transfer the blame for the unhealthy fallout from our Nobel boycott on Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo. Having been frustrated, by the President’s own reckless utterance, in his earlier effort to mask the boycott with lies about a “scheduling problem”, Carandang might be shifting to Plan B.

It is, to be sure, the duty of the President’s men to sacrifice themselves to protect their principal. Knowing the gentleman that Secretary Romulo is, he should be quite ready to take the flak for the President he now serves.

But Plan B will not cure this fiasco for several reasons.

First, the Foreign Secretary can only recommend. The President is the ultimate source of policy. Thus far, the Foreign Secretary has maintained a studied silence on the matter — which is proper.

Second, it was Aquino who made the public admission of our participation in the boycott. Whoever suggested that we do this assumed we will do it discreetly. Diplomacy is always a delicate thing. But the President was indiscreet — therefore the delicate diplomatic maneuver tripped all over.

Third, it is far too late into this fiasco to transfer blame. This lie, too, will not fly. All it can do is force Romulo to resign his post, which will only enlarge the costs associated with this mistake.