Saying no to aid

No government of a sovereign state likes being told what to do by foreign devils, aid donors or not.

President Duterte is not unique in this regard. Leaders of the United States, the most criticized country thanks to its unique standing in the world order, have delivered every imaginable permutation of “mind your own business” to friend and foe alike.

The difference is whether a country can afford telling the world to stuff it.

Some countries are in a better position to do this. Unfortunately for the pride of the Duterte administration, the Philippines is not only dependent on the international community for too many vital aspects of national life, its President is also fighting with donor countries that are among the biggest hosts of Filipino workers.

Never mind Iceland, although there are also Filipinos working mostly in hotels and restaurants all over the capital Reykjavik. Australia, Italy and the United Kingdom alone employ nearly a tenth of the 10 million overseas Filipino workers – and they are among the best-paid OFWs.

The four countries are among the 18 behind a resolution calling on the United Nations to review the way the Duterte administration is carrying out the war on illegal drugs.

Even if the Iceland-sponsored resolution does not involve an investigation (this is up to the International Criminal Court, which is still at the preliminary examination stage), Duterte has reacted with fury.

The war on drugs has always been a sensitive issue for Duterte. The guy won the presidency by a landslide on a platform of killing criminals – specifically drug personalities – and it seems he believes he’s just fulfilling his campaign promise. His mandate was won in a free vote and no one is challenging his victory. Duterte probably thinks it’s democracy in action, so what business is it of western democracies to tell him how to wage his war? And now the latest survey shows his anti-drug campaign has over 80 percent public support.

Such arguments can drive human rights advocates up the wall. But these are among the reasons for Duterte’s open dislike for anything that smacks of foreign governments telling him how to run his country.

He gets particularly infuriated with governments grappling with their own human rights issues – whether in history or in current events – for example, in matters such as dealing with migration and terrorism.

These governments, of course, have not killed over 6,000 (critics say the number is over 20,000) drug suspects in just three years. The 6,000+ cases surpass the total number of summary executions attributed to the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

*      *      *

Should the world shut up about the drug killings? What particularly galls Duterte, it seems, is when the criticism is aired in public, and when it looks like he’s being scolded – or is about to be scolded – by a fellow head of government or, worse, by a lower ranking official such as an ambassador.

In the case of Uncle Sam, Duterte’s ties with the Obama administration soured after a US State Department official reportedly said that then president Barack Obama would not pull his punches in discussing the human rights situation in the Philippines with Duterte at a 2016 regional gathering.

Obama did not get to throw a punch, Duterte proceeded with his pivot to China, and he has continued insulting Obama long after the guy’s retirement as US president.

Duterte is a firm believer in the equality of all states – and their leaders – in the community of nations. He wants respect from fellow heads of government. He doesn’t tell them how to run their countries, so why should they tell him how to run the Philippines?

*      *      *

Washington under the embattled Donald Trump has learned how to zip one’s month, at least in public, when it comes to dealing with Duterte’s war on drugs and human rights issues. Instead the US has tried to find ways of supporting the Philippine campaign against drug trafficking without encouraging law enforcement shortcuts.

So far, the Philippine defense / military establishment as well as law enforcement agencies have maintained close cooperation with the country’s treaty ally the US, refusing to go along with the China pivot of the commander-in-chief.

The US, often criticized for undertaking unilateral actions around the world, did not back the Iceland-led resolution. The US is also not a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which founded the ICC.

The Philippines, however, has become a battleground in the projection of soft power by rival states, notably in the provision of official development assistance (ODA).

For a long time, best practices in international lending and the provision of grants have included certain good governance conditions that must be met by prospective beneficiaries.

As China attained economic prosperity, however, it learned the usefulness of using foreign aid to win friends and influence governments. And with Beijing’s aversion to being told what to do by other countries, it has also offered aid with no good governance or human rights conditionalities attached. Among the earliest to accept Chinese aid were despotic and corrupt regimes.

In the past years during my talks with officials of certain multilateral lenders and major ODA sources, I have heard concerns about this trend.

The only string attached to Chinese loans and grants, as we are seeing in the Philippines, is the involvement of Chinese companies in China-funded infrastructure and other development projects. It’s a win-win situation… for China.

The availability of Chinese loans without pesky human rights conditionalities has to be a major reason for Duterte’s readiness to stop negotiations for new loans and grants with the 18 countries behind the Iceland resolution.

As the Department of National Defense has noted, this could put the country at a disadvantage in certain aspects.

The administration can stick to its method of fighting the drug menace without undermining ODA-funded development programs.

*      *      *

JUUL Labs wrote to clarify two points I raised in my column on Sept. 23 titled “Here comes CITIRA.”

First, on the federal probe of JUUL’s links to seven deaths in the US: “While there are ongoing investigations in the United States into fatalities purportedly caused by vaping, we wish to clarify that JUUL Labs has not been directly identified as the cause of these incidents.”

Second, on the flavors of JUULpods in Strawberry, Lemonade, Cappuccino and Watermelon: “In the Philippines, JUUL Labs only sell and market JUULpods in the following flavors, namely, Virginia Tobacco, Mint, Mango and Crème.”

I cannot remind our readers enough that smoking and nicotine are hazardous to health.