Picking up Du30 diplomatic litter

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte may need a full-blown Bureau of Corrections – no, not to hold and rehabilitate convicts, but to correct, explain, interpret, amplify, translate, tweak, rationalize, etc., his statements that tend to scare instead of reassure, to confuse rather than clarify.

At the moment, the presidential communication office seems inadequate in performing this tough job, so an array of executive officials invariably has to jump in to do some damage control.

Pending clarification, an earthshaking statement of Duterte must be given a reasonable period to sort of settle before its true meaning and full intent can be presumed or accepted. Taking his remarks instantly at face value would be risky.

That his audience has to grope first for the correct context erodes the credibility of the President, especially in his role as the country’s sole spokesman in foreign affairs.

It is not funny when a White House talking head, reacting to Duterte din, likens him to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump thus: “Elections do say a lot about what kind of person is going to represent your country on the international stage.”

Duterte’s displaying at the ASEAN summit last Sept. 7 of photographs of US atrocity in its Sulu “pacification” campaign in 1906, followed by his Sept. 12 demand that US forces pull out of Mindanao, has raised concern that the new administration was turning anti-American.

To nip the misimpression, Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay, himself a neophyte, reassured all concerned that bilateral relations were unshakable and that the Philippines will honor its agreements with the US and other allies.

Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella chimed in to explain that Duterte’s saying Americans must leave Mindanao was not yet policy. He said the President was merely “warning” about the risks Americans face in Mindanao. (Is he aware that even his “not yet policy” is unnerving?)

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana jumped in, too. He said the President merely wanted the Americans out of harm’s way, claiming that Muslims who are still bitter about the massacre of their ancestors by US soldiers in the early 1900s might harm GIs in Mindanao.

Such scattered explanations and attempts at damage control would have been unnecessary had the President’s tirades on that one subject, from Vientiane to Jakarta to Manila, been carefully thought out, packaged and delivered according to a communication plan.

A plan, coupled with a script if possible, is needed, because the principal actor is obviously not seasoned enough to ad lib his way through a major diplomatic show.

• Filipina drug mule left to her fate?

ANOTHER unfortunate communication disaster was the long-pending case of convicted Filipino drug mule Mary Jane Veloso. It was a sad story that did not pop up from nowhere.

Veloso, 32, was convicted in 2010 in Jakarta, but her execution was held in abeyance because of Manila’s claim she would be used to pin down the narcotics syndicate that had tricked her.

Everybody knew, or presumed, that President Duterte was going to talk to his Indonesian counterpart Joko Widodo in Vientiane and/or Jakarta. The possible scenarios were cut and dried.

In fact, the Palace boys raised expectations – as they did in the ASEAN seating faux pas – by conjuring up images of the two leaders being buddy-buddy, and of Widodo even wanting daw to copy Duterte’s style.

When Duterte emerged from their one-on-one and announced nothing about Veloso, and then returned to Manila still without mentioning her case – it was hint enough that he failed to save her.

Whatever be the score, nobody planned for a sad/happy resolution?

Now the President’s men are running up and down Main Street denying or clarifying or explaining press reports from Jakarta, the epicenter of the news tremor, that Duterte had told Widodo to “Go ahead!” with the execution.

Duterte said he did not tell Widodo to go ahead, but simply to follow the law. A debate is now raging over what he actually told Widodo and what Widodo said to the media. Everybody is again foisting the excuse of something having been “lost in translation.”

(We think Duterte is right on this one. He has to be consistent. While he rationalizes the execution of SUSPECTED drug pushers/users, he cannot plead for the life of a CONVICTED drug mule.)

• How to terminate a Phl-US agreement

REPORTS of Duterte’s threatened scrapping of Philippine defense agreements with the US are comical, though tragic. Even as President, he cannot decide by himself to abrogate formal agreements with an ally whose officials had crossed him.

To spare the Palace the bother of researching, we share below the text of the provisions of three defense agreements with the US saying how the parties can terminate the contract:

> The 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty: “This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other party.” (Btw, the MDT that has weathered 65 years of bumpy Philippine-American relations is just 630 words, shorter than this 970-word column.)

> The 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement: “This agreement shall remain in force until the expiration of 180 days from the date on which either party gives the other party notice in writing that it desires to terminate the agreement.”

> The 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement: “This Agreement shall have an initial term of ten years, and thereafter, it shall continue in force automatically unless terminated by either Party by giving one year’s written notice through diplomatic channels of its intention to terminate this Agreement.”

This calls to mind the showdown question: Which is easier to terminate: the tenure of a sitting president or a treaty/agreement with the US?

* * *

ADVISORY: To access Postscript archives, go to www.manilamail.com (if necessary, copy/paste the url on your browser’s address bar). Follow us on Twitter as @FDPascual. Email feedback to [email protected]