Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Foreign relations, diplomacy in particular, is an art of establishing relationships wherein a proper choice of words is deemed necessary to further improving the ties alongside other factors. Ranting and cussing are indeed counter-productive.

Pres. Duterte Apologizes to the Jews. Source: Fox News.
Choices of words is indeed a necessity for a person to strengthen ties further and as part of the so-called "independent foreign policy", it means that a president or his alter-ego foreign affairs secretary will befriend all countries where there are more benefits than doubts, rather than making new alliances at the expense of the old alliances where it only leads to the so-called "paradigm shift" of things that have set in place.

Statements, expressions, euphemisms that are made by the President in all cases shall be clarify by him on his speech or by one of his secretaries in which it has been a norm since his rise to power. We all know that Visayan people interprets his speeches in a contextual way rather than being literal (In which the President really said nothing wrong), but such interpretations are facing difficulties among non-Visayans and foreigners alike. And with that faces a problem. President Duterte does not have only his Visayan audiences, but the rest of the world is also watching for his speech. Hence, the choice of words are necessary.

His speeches taken from the previous periods up to this month, he even exclaims, conceded about the issues regarding his language where he utter his favorite expressions rather than make it simple and thus, verbalizing it for the people to understand. These kind of communication made by his mouth is by mere fact a disadvantageous on his part.

Take this speech for instance, contextual-wise, there is nothing wrong from what he was saying. But then again, it does not dismisses the fact that such discussion, Nazi atrocities in particular, can definitely hurt the Jewish community in which in return he apologizes later on (referring to the photo above). 



The destructive speeches he did receive a barrage of criticisms from several Filipinos and foreigners alike, where his secretaries always do damage control and some PR improvements where they have their own "interpretations" to the speech as it is like a gospel reading from the bible. Not to mention that the president only creates more problems with regards to his talking that is straining relations up where it shouldn't be that way in the first place. Only time will tell as to which the President learns such decision from his ranting where he needs to talk less, act more or rather, let his spokesperson do the talk.

He is the President of the Republic of the Philippines, a leader of the executive branch. He's having this charisma where it boosts morale to the public that the nation needs cleansing for the better Philippines. And that includes deterring criminals and drug-related issues alike. However, let us surmise the fact that such issue is not only the part of work the President shall focus. There is the economy, the foreign policy, the national security, the health services, and the like. And it is at best that all will benefit and diplomacy shall come in full play. However, if he despises the west so much for its "hypocrisy", he shall do it without the ranting at proper channels.

His masculine, mad-man language inflicts a damage not only to the drug lord (in which it is working), but as well to the foreigners especially the west. The U.S, E.U, U.N, name it. These "hypocritical" states, to be honest contributed more to this nation than what the Russians and the Chinese do, especially to the events pertaining to Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda.) 

Speaking of Psychological Operations, psy-ops in short, one can say that ranting is the best of both worlds that it lets criminals off-guard. Agreeable, yes. But not on the international context. That thing, in the worldly spotlight means playing fire with fire. And that means a minor mistake can be the difference of "support or sanction" kind of thing.

Perception-wise, it seems that the President is much familiar to the government jurisprudence than anybody else aside from lawyers and political scientist. However, there is this question --Why does he question Enhanced Defense Co-operations Agreement (EDCA) where it was not signed by the ex-Defense Secretary and aide rather than the ex-President Aquino himself? Isn't it a norm that a secretary serve as an alter-ego of the president and hence, signing it as representing the president and the republic? Only one can judge about the competence with regards to jurisprudence.

Being an imperialist puppet of the United States, the Philippines must distance itself from the US, slowly and gently. What the president did is an abrupt one and the consequences are inevitable. Unless the republic have its weapons, equipment and other defense necessities have obtained, the president must not destroy the alliance of the Philippines to America that dates back to its colonial times.

Let's just say that there are always backdoor conversations without media coverage. Presuming that it is a proper channel, and there are no rhetoric taking place, it is safe to assume that things are alright like say, recent news that the US wanted to ignore his ranting rather than just ride along with it. Or, the EU being silent on the reactions made by the president. It goes both ways, so to speak.

Given the nature of these discussions where the controversy made from public pronouncements, as well as being out of the harm's way, the rational discussions are ought to be settled between the people concerned including the president. And that also means being reminded by his so-called advisers as for being tact in his speeches.

Well there is the good thing, among good things with regards to inter-country relations. First, the relations at all levels of government exists without the mainstream media's spotlight. Second, the six-year term of the president is also a good thing. 

Moreover to these "good things", maturity wise, the PH-US relations are rock-solid. The same applies in EU and other nations. These is despite the rhetoric made by the president. One example is Israel, and there is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli-US relations gone sour but nor broken. However, there are no rants of course. Only dissatisfaction.

If we are for an independent foreign policy, at least be fair. No ranting against the US, and be proactive in Chinese and Russians with regards to relations of all degrees. Defuse the situation if possible through diplomacy. And, of course. Increase military spending from pragmatic business deals benefited from all sides, whether it may be US, China, Russia, Japan, or the EU.

Let this be serve as a knowledge base for the people to comprehend foreign policy with regards to be an independent, as well as having proper relations among nations, enemies and allies alike. There are more surprises this administration for now, but at least the hope is there that the channels are proper where like any other president, a legacy leaves behind.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Sample Text

Now with the first step complete, a new step arises. And it is not only about blogrolls... Click for more info

Follow by Email

Newsletter

Subscribe now on these links:

Time

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Google+ Badge

Visitors from Nations

Flag Counter

Text Widget

Total Pageviews

Live Pageviews

Find us on Facebook