Rattle sabers

There is good advice for leaders in the great, unwritten book on realpolitik: If your people begin to tire of you, start a war. That never fails to rally a population behind its leader.

Recall how the British people staunchly stood by Winston Churchill and his call for “blood, sweat and tears” during the Great War. As soon as the war ended, British voters promptly kicked the drunkard out.

Recall how witless Americans thought George W. Bush was as he assumed office. His election was contested, to say the least — and that threatened a deeply divided political landscape. After 9-11, however, Americans rallied behind their leader and accepted his most doubtful decisions such as going to war against Iraq.

This week, we saw some very rare courage in the utterances coming out of the Palace regarding the Spratlys. We filed a diplomatic protest against Beijing, issued tough talk about Chinese armed forces encroaching on our territory. We called on the Asean community to stand as one against China’s bullying and took our complaints to the UN.

The quick series of initiatives taken this week is well and good. It was also uncharacteristic.

For weeks and months, our government endured humiliation and demonstrated only indecision. In a score of instances, in quick succession, our air force planes were buzzed, our research vessels were chased away from reefs well within our archipelagic boundaries and our fishermen were shooed away by superior force. The Chinese Navy continued erecting all sorts of buildings on islets they occupied with our badly armed military simply looking on dispiritedly given the lack of clear direction from the Commander-in-Chief.

Each time there was public uproar, all the Palace said was that the incidents are being inquired into. It was as if our government was reluctant to even talk about the problem for fear of ruffling Beijing’s feathers.

This week, by contrast, some political gears at the Palace appear to have been shifted. We called the Chinese ambassador to the carpet. We invoked the Asean resolution that specifies proper behavior among the claimant countries. We officially brought our concerns about China’s behavior to international bodies and now we contemplate filing suit at the International Court of Justice.

The shifting of political gears at the Palace prompted the Chinese ambassador to go on television, restating Beijing’s position about the contested islands being theirs by some “historic right” having appeared on the maps of their emperors centuries ago. In modern international law, however, “historic rights” hold no water. Actual occupation and control is what matters, and that is the reason why all the engineering is happening on the Chinese-occupied islands.

The shifting of gears at the Palace happened only after Vietnamese citizens, in a rare protest, marched in Hanoi protesting Chinese aggression in the disputed territories. Maybe the President also found encouragement in his meetings at Brunei, also a claimant country to the Spratlys even as they have less force on the contested waters than we have.

It might be, too, that the new posture adopted by the Aquino presidency is a function of dropping popularity rates, enlightened by wise advice about realpolitik. But that should not diminish the correctness of the new posture. We should not allow ourselves to be bullied around endlessly.

Unfortunately, the new posture towards China is not reinforced by the new choice of Philippine ambassador to Beijing whose only qualification for this extremely sensitive job was that he used to be barkada to the late Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. The DFA had other nominees to the post, although their qualifications did not seem overwhelming enough to overcome family ties.

Independence

Like the choice of our ambassador to Beijing, the selection of the next Ombudsman will likely be determined on the basis of political considerations. Everyone seems resigned to the inevitability of President Aquino’s choice getting the post, regardless of issues of advanced age and demonstrated independence. All the interviews going on are mere formalities.

That is not good news for Acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro, himself a nominee to fill the vital constitutional post.

In his first 20 days in office, Casimiro tried very hard to show his mettle. In under three weeks, he caused the resolution of 3,000 pending cases. Several high-profile cases were submitted to the Sandiganbayan.

Even as career anti-graft official chances for winning permanent appointment might be extremely slim by now, he should not slow down the impressive pace of work his office has been doing. Nor should he compromise on the independence his post so critically requires.

There is one case which, if advanced to the Sandiganbayan, will clearly set the tone of independence for anyone who might fill the key anti-graft post.

On March 4, the DOJ recommended the dismissal from the service of LTO chief Virginia Torres for her bizarre involvement in an intra-corporate dispute involving the agency’s main IT provider. In April Stradcom Corporation filed corruption and disobedience cases before the Office of the Ombudsman against Torres. Involved in this case is Torres’ refusal to pay Stradcom the over P1 billion due the company from service fees collected by the LTO.

Torres, this week, appears to have been absolved by President Aquino who announced her return to the post, having “served” the penalties due her. The Chief Executive stepped into the role of the justice system and defied the DOJ dismissal recommendation.

While he is hurrying up all the thousands of cases lodged at his office, Casimiro might as well act on the complaint filed against Torres. That will be a clear demonstration of the independence the post requires.