Questioning the President’s Loyalty to China

 

THE PRESS IS all ears anytime the country’s chief executive opens his mouth. Journalists have recorded or reported the most outrageous statements that President Rodrigo Duterte has uttered, including those which were offensive and those that didn’t make sense. In the early stages of the presidency, Palace officials would try to provide an interpretation of the president’s meaning. Former Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella even asked journalists not to take what the president says seriously or literally. Coverage of the president has therefore been somewhat of a farce, as journalists, unable to figure out or interpret the meaning of each presidential statement, are reduced to simply repeating his words, as though these made sense.

It took a while for the press to recognize the problem, and now, some candidly point out the president’s serious gaffes as well as his problematic statements on foreign policy. It is only lately that the press seems willing to recognize that the president hardly makes sense.

What is the obligation of the press when the president speaks as though he had sold out the country’s sovereignty, under the guise of retaining China’s friendship or seeking a solution that will not trigger a war that the county cannot fight?

This time around, media dutifully chronicled what Duterte casually said in a speech that China will not let the Philippines down, that China will protect him from being ousted. The press briefing was aired live on the occasion on May 15, the first anniversary of the renaming of Benham Rise as Philippine Rise.

Later that day, newscasts reported that on the same occasion, Bong Go, Special Assistant to the President and Sebastian Duterte, the president’s son, rode jet skis in Casiguran Bay, Aurora, recalling the president’s campaign promise that he would jet ski to the Spratly Islands to plant the Philippine flag. The jet ski pair took part in a publicity stunt that the media was quick to call out (See: “Palace Much Ado About Nothing: Media Sets the Record Straight”).

“We will not allow you to be taken out of your office, and we will not allow the Philippines to go to the dogs,” the president said, supposedly quoting Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The two points combined reflects the president’s state of mind when it comes to China. He depends on China wholly and entirely for the security of the country, notwithstanding the long history of Philippine leaders who had built a web of international agreements based on security and other mutual interests, significantly with the US, with Japan and Australia – all of longer standing than Duterte’s friendship with Xi Jinping. The country has received no threats from any country, except for the incursion of China, which has transformed the Philippine territory in the Spratlys into its military base.

China’s build-up on the West Philippine Sea is a violation of our territorial sovereignty. Its militarization of an area already declared as part of PH exclusive economic zone by no less than the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal based on international law (UNCLOS) – can only be interpreted in one way, that China does not recognize the Philippines as a sovereign state.

And yet the president turns to China for our protection and for his personal official defense? His statement indicates that there is nothing wrong about his reliance on China for his personal security, for China to protect him against his own people?

Duterte’s statements were stunningly offensive, if not treasonous; and yet most media reports merely repeated what the president said.

CMFR cheers the several pieces that were exceptions. These added value to the mere recording of the statement or seeking an opposing view, helping the public understand how the president’s statements reduced the country to a vassal of China.

In its May 15 report, online news site PhilStar.com didn’t mince words, observing that the president expressed distrust of the United States, a treaty ally, but “Ironically, Beijing has been deploying weapons and military aircraft on its three outposts in the Spratly Islands in the West Philippine Sea.” The report noted that “It is unclear whether Xi really said China would interfere in Philippine politics but the president has made statements in the past based on supposed confidential conversations” (“Duterte: China has assured me it will not allow Philippines to be destroyed”).

InterAksyon published a piece on May 18 which listed the times when rumors swirled with allegations of destabilization plots against the president; pointing out that these were debunked by the military. The report also recalled what Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said regarding criticisms and destabilization: “On alleged destabilization, we don’t have that information in the Armed Forces, that’s zero actually. Now sometimes there are violent reactions, criticisms to the president. Criticism to the president is not destabilization. In the military, intelligence community there is none” (“The many times Duterte floated ouster plots against him”).

In his May 21 column in Manila Bulletin, Leandro DD Coronel asked directly: “Why would Xi suddenly blurt out that China will not allow Duterte to go down? There doesn’t seem to be any immediate reason to reassure Duterte that he has nothing to worry about” (“He said, Xi said”).

Lorenzana’s clear unequivocal assessment of threat to the president’s tenure effectively breaks the president’s false narrative and untangles the thread of propaganda knitted by comments of the president’s social media warriors, trolls and susceptible believers. Nothing more is needed to debunk the claims that opposition groups plotting to remove the president from office.

How should the media have reported the president’s statement of questionable reliance on China?

These are all entwined in a massive challenge to foreign policy that should involve the perspectives of the military and security agencies. Such should not rely only on reporters assigned to the Palace. Those covering from related beats, the Department of National Defense and the National Security Council should have done their own interviews with experts in those agencies.

So too with those assigned to the Department of Foreign Affairs who should be seeking their “deep throats” on PH-China relationship, the ASEAN and the views of ASEAN plus countries.

Merely repeating what Duterte says without analysis is a media cop-out. Unfortunately this kind of reporting is as absurd and questionable as the president’s words. Which raises very serious questions about the agenda of the press when covering Duterte.