National interest

I also get my share of feedback regarding this column. When they come, I'm always humbled to realize there are more ways of viewing the issues I dwell on than what my ordinary mind can fathom. The education they give me broadens my perspective. Then there are, of course, some comments more amusing than challenging.

Before I received feedback on my article last Thursday - "Are we getting isolated", President Rodrigo Duterte, appeared on television angrily reacting to statements by some European parliamentarians. He was stung by what he perceived as interference in our internal affairs.

He could be right. Running the government is a domestic matter and policies are determined by demands of citizens, never by ideals of people of other nationalities. Likewise, steering the administration in accordance with national interest is an internal matter. Any attempt by any state or international personality to influence our national leadership is interference that is frowned upon by international law. So, if in the mind of Duterte, he was interfered with by European parliamentarians, he had all the reasons to be indignant.

Protocols, however, are established in the situation Duterte was in. Diplomatic practices in international relations provide channels where leaders of states wronged by interference can find relief. Especially if declarations issued by some concerned states do not carry state authority, it would have been easier for him to obtain global remedy against that kind of transnational disrespect and malign he received.

We acknowledge he is a maverick. More often than not, he does things departing from traditional norms. He laces his language with cuss words like p .... g ina as if he cannot make simple and courteous sentences. Despite the constitutional halo given to the family, he demonstrates to the youth that a man who lives with a woman other than his wife is the new norm and socially acceptable. So I expected him to shout expletives against the parliamentarians

Duterte must have been incensed beyond his breaking point. In his rage, he forgot diplomatic protocols. As head of state, he could have summoned the concerned ambassadors to Malacañang to demand an apology. That standard diplomatic practice was, to him, too staid and therefore unnecessary. Speaking in public, he gave the diplomats representing the states where the parliamentarians came from 24 hours to leave the Philippines.

While I listened to him in my living room I felt goosebumps. His words were unlike those we hear from street toughies displaying machismo. Unfortunately, Duterte is no ordinary "bugoy" and he is not addressing a fellow "tambay". He is our head of state whose office has the burdens of statesmanship. If Duterte is unable to balance his tough guy temperament with the rigors of his high office, we are doomed. With what he did, I surmise something worse. He seemed unaware of the consequences of breaking diplomatic ties with other states. The late senator Jovito Salonga, to me, the best president we never had, must be squirming in his tomb for Duterte must not have learned that, in the words of the distinguished legal scholar, "no state can afford to be isolated from other states".

Do I think Duterte can rectify his error? For our national interest, I so hope.