It's quid pro quo and we're not stupid

THE United States, a "New York Times" Dec. 15 report said, has deferred its economic aid to the Philippines because of concerns about violation of the rule of law in the campaign on illegal drugs. Last year's subsidy was US $434 million spent on infrastructure and social projects.

Preferential status given by European Union may also be suspended on 6,800 products such as tuna, textiles, dried fruits and footwear. Meaning big tariffs will be slapped on those products, taking them out of the market competition and diverting thousands of dollars to other countries instead.

Why the backlash from EU, which parallels the U.S. reprisal? EU grant of special status requires the Philippines to comply with "good governance, respect for labor rights and non-violation of human rights." And this year, our human rights record, as the global community rates it, tanks.

Our leaders must know that it's a case of quid pro quo: foreign nations give us aid, we give them something in return.

We are not forced to submit to the conditions, of course. As a sovereign nation, the Philippines is free to charter its own course. It can choose its aid-givers, as the country has lately done: a pivot to Russia and China, from old friends America and Europe.

But it would be silly to think that help from Russia and China wouldn't have conditions too. The strings may not be seen, their leaders may not publicly "lecture" our president on the killing spree here but undoubtedly there would be price to pay.

The cost

What was the cost again of U.S. and E.U. aid? Was it a shred of our precious sovereignty?

We only have to follow the Constitution -- ours and not any foreign country's -- that guarantees rule of law and human rights. The price tag is not something that violates our precepts. On the contrary, our Constitution compels it.

It's not unreasonable "quid" for their substantial "quo." And we're not stupid, we must not be.