Inarticulate

Diplomacy is a discipline. This is why it has evolved its own language to ensure precision in use. Words such as détente or rapproachment are not translated to retain their precise meanings.

There is danger when diplomacy is conducted with imprecise language. Imprecision produces confusion or, in the case of our President, utter exasperation.

Rodrigo Duterte loves to talk. He does so passionately, extemporaneously and, very often inaccurately. This propensity to over-talk, to make sweeping declarations without consultations, accounts for most of the problems now besetting our external relations and eventually affecting our domestic economy.

Duterte says he was elected president, not statesman. But in our system, that is one and the same thing. The head of government is also head of state. Until we finally shift to a parliamentary system that enables us to choose leaders who do not require adult supervision, that is how it is.

True, the President is chief architect of our foreign policy. That does not mean, however, that he is free to disregard standing treaties or say things not previously cleared with the foreign affairs establishment.

Although he says he was not elected statesman, Duterte has single-handedly (and recklessly) overwhelmed our standing foreign policy. Even as he does that, he has not bothered to educate himself on the language of diplomacy.

He may love to talk, but Duterte’s lack of sophistication in foreign affairs and lack of education in the language of diplomacy makes of him a seriously inarticulate statesman. Left at that, there will be more problems down the road. We could succeed only in becoming the world’s laughing stock.

During his visit to Beijing, the international media trailed Duterte closely, expecting yet another weird outburst. The Filipino president did not disappoint them.

He announced his country’s “separation” from the US. The wording completely baffled the policy wonks in Washington.  Duterte’s battalion of official interpreters did not seem to know what to make of it either.

To compound things, Duterte announced a new axis: the Philippines, China and Russia “against the world.” Neither Moscow nor Beijing seemed very interested in the idea. The two are busy reaching out to the rest of the world, trying to make friends and influence people.

The announcements were not preceded by careful policy preparation and extensive consultation. It was not preceded by quiet diplomacy among all those Duterte imagines would form a new alliance. This is yet another instance of declaring policy on the fly.

Our trade secretary, our finance secretary and our economic planning secretary have since been busy trying to modify that surprising announcement of our “separation” from the US. Like a Greek chorus, they repeated the line that our trade and investment relations with the US stand unscathed. That can only mean that the “separation” includes only the military cooperation agreements between the US and the Philippines.

There is a problem there, however: we are bound by a mutual defense treaty. We cannot “separate” without first abrogating that treaty. Otherwise, the President’s announcement will be the diplomatic equivalent of an extra-judicial killing.

In the language of diplomacy, “separation” is synonymous with “secession.” Separatists are the same as secessionists. Having accomplished legal independence, the Philippines could not possibly secede from the United States of America. We lost that right many decades ago.

Cocaine

Shabu is the poor man’s drug. Cocaine, being more costly, is the rich man’s pleasure.

It is strange that so much cocaine appears to be passing through our borders. They could not possibly be entirely for local consumption. Otherwise, all the tycoons and rich kids ought to be subjected to drug tests immediately.

Just last Monday, the BOC-NAIA Interagency Drug Interdiction Group (IADG) intercepted a 22-year-old Venezuelan woman carrying 4.3 kg of cocaine. Strangely, the Venezuelan woman, Genesis Lorena Pineda Salazar, came in from Dubai on the same Emirates flight as the other intercepted previously.

Before this, Customs agents intercepted on Oct. 15 Brazilian Yasin Silva who was found carrying 6.2 kg of cocaine with an estimated street value of P30 million. Last Oct. 5, IADG arrested two Chinese nationals and a Russian for trying to smuggle 27.9 kg of cocaine with a street value of P130 million. Just days earlier, on Oct. 2, Customs authorities intercepted 22 year-old Jon-Jon Villamin, arriving on the same Emirates flight from Dubai carrying 4.8 kg of cocaine with street value of P25 million.

Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez commended Customs Commissioner Nic Faeldon for these interceptions, praising the agency for being “highly vigilant against attempts to smuggle illegal drugs into the country.”

The intermittence of these drug mules trying to enter the country through our main airport raises many questions. Before the latest spate of interceptions, did the cocaine syndicates routinely pass the dangerous drug through our airports? The brazenness of the mules suggests that. If they did, who aided and abetted the drug trade?

If the frequent entry of cocaine mules is a fairly recent development, are the deliveries intended for transshipment or for local consumption? Are the cocaine shipments a response of the drug cartels to high local demand for dangerous drugs due to the crackdown on the shabu networks?

Is the community of Filipino drug dependents shifting from crystal meth to cocaine? Or are the Latin American cocaine cartels breaking into the local market to grab share from the shabu syndicates?

We hope authorities will give us some explanation for this phenomenon rather than simply report interceptions.