A speech delivered by Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto G. Romulo at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Leadership Forum in Washington D.C. last year, traced the nature of the relationship between the Philippines and the United States — from “the bitterness of defeat - and the triumphalism of empire” giving way to “grudging collaboration then evolving into mutual trust and respect.” It then said Filipinos won America’s admiration “for their patriotism, love of country, and their steadfast and unwavering resolve to be free.” It also said that “through dialogue and consensus-building Southeast Asia and the United States have much to learn from each other — from deeper engagement to cooperation broader than in the past.”
Secretary Romulo’s speech came to my mind during a briefing for selected columnists organized the other day by Rebeca Thompson, US Embassy press attache. The meeting preceded the two-day Bilateral Strategic Dialogue between the Philippines and United States senior policy and defense officials which starts today.
At the first-ever meeting of its kind, the officials are discussing global and regional issues of mutual concern, as well as issues that impact on bilateral relations. The dialogue, says Secretary Romulo in a press statement, “affirms the strength of Philippine-US alliance and the dynamic partnership for peace, prosperity, security and stability.”
The statement of US Ambassador Harry K. Thomas Jr. describes Philippine-US relations as having been “nurtured by a shared history and adherence to common values, especially a commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights, good governance and free enterprise.” The dialogue, he continues, “is a clear manifestation of both countries’ commitment to further enhance the relations through open and free-ranging discussion on important issues of the day, such as the evolving regional architecture, nuclear non-proliferation, humanitarian assistance, disaster response, climate change, non-traditional security concerns, combating terrorism, and trade and economic cooperation.”
The dialogue is co-chaired by Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Erlinda Basilio and Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino for the Philippine side, and State Department Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and Defense Acting Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Derek Mitchell on the US side.
Previous meetings have been held between the two countries, but in the current bilateral dialogue, representatives from various Philippine government departments will exchange insights into issues concerning trade and the economy, agriculture, the environment, overseas employment, among others.
Patricia Paez of the DFA said at the columnists’ briefing that with a new Aquino administration, there will be “a realigning of priorities and areas where we can interface.” For example, the Obama administration’s main thrust is promoting the economy and creating jobs — which are concerns of the Philippine government too.
At the meeting it was mentioned that Ambassador Thomas’ major concern is anti-human trafficking. This is a riveting topic for the Philippine participants, the country being an “exporter” of human resources that in many countries, are being exploited.
This columnist noticed that both the DFA and US embassy officials who briefed the media appeared low-key, and were direct to the point in their presentations — a move aimed and designed perhaps to achieve transparency, avoid hyping public expectations, and prevent any pre-emption about the opinions and views of participants in the actual dialogue. Indeed, it would be interesting to watch the outcome on how the participants will prioritize the subjects lined up for discussion, the eventual action recommendations that the participants will agree upon and submit to appropriate authorities for possible implementation, and the action of the decision-makers on the recommendations. I’m particularly interested in the discussion on the investment climate, and the Mindanao peace process.
The media brief presenters, including Joy Yamamoto of the US Embassy and DFA media officer J. Eduardo Malaya, pointed to the need to address regional cooperation, in light of globalization, geo-political competition, territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and the apparent clamor for ownership of land by foreigners. It will be interesting to watch the US position on these matters. Hopefully the results of the dialogue will provide the answers.
* * *
From another front, four days ago, on January 23, at about 3:15 p.m., five persons were ambushed by suspected communist rebels in Barangay Illuru Sur, Rizal, Cagayan. Reports said communist terrorists used landmine and sporadic bursts of gunfire in the ambush which resulted in the death of PINSP Antonio A. Rueco, chief of police of Rizal, Cagayan PPO and his wife, SPO2 Mary Jane B Rueco; PO2 Herminio Rueco; PO1 Joven Jimenez; and PO2 Jose Baquiran; and the wounding of PO1 Valiant Bustamante. One PNP personnel, SPO4 Edison Lagua, is still missing.
The news was printed in the inside pages of the dailies and reported in some radio programs. Five men in uniform and a woman civilian were killed — and not a peep of protest is heard.
A close friend who is very upset by the wave of killings that has swept into urban and rural areas over the past few days, asked me, in emotional tones, why there is a lack of sympathy for military victims of atrocious acts. “As the war of words and insinuations is waged on the PNP, there is no time for a sympathetic cry of protest or outrage at the impunity by which they attacked and killed these public servants. Why is that, why is there no outcry at the murder of men who lost their lives in the line of duty. Is it because there is no gain to be made from the sympathetic stance? Or is it because portraying the dangerous, heroic side of police service is not ‘sexy?’
“With the outpouring of criticisms and brickbats about police performance in the last few weeks, this murder should put back the sobriety into the discussion. The killing of five police officers should show that the work of the PNP covers not only carnapping or anti-kidnapping or patrolling the streets. In short, the PNP is called on at every instance where there is public disorder or crime or a threat to national security.
“While there is no attempt to gloss over the weaknesses and shortcomings of the PNP, let it be said that two high-profile incidents involving carnapping does not make the PNP a lame duck law enforcement agency.”
* * *
My email: dominimt2000@yahoo.com