The meaning of context

I notice that US Ambassador Kenney continues with her advertorial exhorting Filipinos to vote in 2010. The message includes pictures of President Barack Obama’s inauguration with his predecessor, the unpopular former President Bush in the background. Implicitly it asks why can’t Filipinos be like Americans? This message is being broadcast on the Lopez-owned ANC, that is not shy about its media power to influence the direction of our politics.

Advertorials like the US Ambassador’s airs on television on Philippine elections are so brief they do not give any background or explanation. But why should the future of our country be reduced to sound bites? Voting in honest elections may sound good and short but there is a context in which it should be understood. Barack Obama’s victory happened in the context of American politics and contemporary history.

In my opinion, the US ambassador’s advertorial ignores the context of Philippine politics. I have said it once and I will say it again that the message is direct interference and a departure from diplomatic propriety. The context is the ongoing debate on whether we should amend the Constitution first before the 2010 elections. It has its advocates and supporters who know only too well that there will be no Charter change after 2010 when a new president will have been elected. It promises to be yet another democratic farce. The American ambassador has taken sides in a debate among Filipinos.

That may be a concern for Filipinos, but ordinary Americans too might ask if this kind of impropriety is in keeping with President Obama’s reforms to change how it deals with other countries, whether foes or allies. Millions are watching if the promise to pursue America’s better history is sincere. I do not think, regime chance or the forcible overthrow of foreign governments is part of it.

We might be reminded that attempts to oust President GMA have been ongoing since 2004 and the pattern of events are too similar to regime changes in which American government has had a hand.

* * *

Veronica in Myanmar. I texted my daughter, Veronica and was surprised to find out that she was on her way to Myanmar to report for Al-Jazeera International for whom she now works. After a long week, I did not hear from her again until last night. She was very busy traveling back and forth and quite distraught about what she saw in Myanmar. The suffering of so many people had obviously affected her.

 As a journalist, her duty was to report things as they were and these could be unpleasant to the military government. But she was also conscious of the moral dilemma that face all those who struggle with efforts on how best to help Myanmar. It is also an intellectual and strategic dilemma. What is the right thing to do for Myanmar?

Myanmar people themselves are aware of this dilemma and some of them, the most prominent being Thant Myint, a grandson of the late Secretary General U Thant believe sanctions and isolation do not work.

Even the West’s insistence on calling it by its colonial name, Burma has not helped. Most Myanmarese believe that their country has to be helped slowly emerge “out of its hiding.”

Thant has taken the bull by its horns that both outsiders and insiders are at fault: “Burma’s international isolation will only deepen through an unholy alliance between those outside who favor sanctions and inside hardliners who advocate retreat from the global community.”

Veronica had the unique privilege of seeing the situation from the ground and it was not easy to take lightly what she saw. She said the monsoon rains are coming and some of them have only banana leaves for cover. They need help and they must be helped. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visit and the creation of the Tripartite Core Group (TCG) comprising the Myanmar government, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the UN were steps in the right direction.

The Post-Nargis Recovery and Preparedness Plan is a three-year strategic framework set out by the government and the international community. It needs $700 million over that period, but so far very little has been raised.

* * *

All praises to Manny Pacquiao but boo to those egging him into politics. William Pesek of Bloomberg called Pacquiao’s victory over Hatton a “Muhammad Ali moment.” It was a knockout punch that was heard all over the world, he adds.

Pesek brings in a different interpretation of Pacquiao’s victory when he muses that both Norman Mailer and filmmaker Martin Scorsese think of boxing as a metaphor for life.

“The mix of skill, determination, endurance and artistry needed to succeed in the ring also encapsulates what’s required to thrive in the global economy. A moment of reckoning occurs when the bell rings. The fighter is all alone, fueled only by the hours spent in the gym preparing and how much heart they carry with them. There are no time outs or teammates to rely on. Fighters do their thing in front of spotlights and media ready to criticize. He or she stands alone before an opponent, their agility strategy and limitations exposed for the world to see.”

 He goes on to compare Pacquiao to the developing economies in Asia who find themselves with world markets on the ropes. Well, this is not a Bloomberg report for nothing. He makes the most of it and says “Asia is holding its own as bigger economies go weak at the knees.” Whoever branded the fight as East meets West added luster to Pacquiao’s victory.

The Bloomberg writer goes on “Asia is impressing the world, Pacquiao-style, and capital is returning. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index has rallied 38 percent from a five-year low on March 9.

OK, ok. He’s good, incredibly good at boxing but we get our signals wrong when we convert that “good at boxing” to political stature. That would push us back to personal politics when what we should be about in the Philippines is how to create and sustain institutions without needing celebrities to advance the country forward even if he were Pacquiao — the best boxer in the world.