Friday, September 28, 2012

What game is Aquino playing on China?


By Francisco S. Tatad  
Manila Standard Today
For the first time in the nation’s history, the charge of “treason” was hurled against one senator by another on the floor of the Senate last week for lending his services to the Chinese government at the height of the Philippine-Chinese maritime standoff at Scarborough (or Panatag) Shoal earlier this year.
This has raised serious questions not only about the official conduct of the senator concerned, but above all about President Benigno Aquino III’s own conduct in the whole affair.
For those who take international relations and national security seriously, this has the making of a major government scandal. It is the most serious national security problem to confront the Aquino administration, in any case.
In a verbal clash that threatened to overshadow the maritime standoff itself, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile branded the neophyte senator Antonio Trillanes IV a “fifth columnist” and a “fraud.”
His crime? He has traveled to China 15 or 16 times without the knowledge or consent of the Senate, and told officials of the Chinese government at the height of the standoff that no one in the Philippines cares very much about the shoal.
A “fifth columnist” is an infiltrator. The term “fifth column” originated from the news reporting of the Spanish civil war when in 1936 the nationalist General Emilio Mola said he would attack Madrid in four columns, but that once inside they would be joined by a “fifth column” that had already infiltrated the ranks of the enemy within the city.
Enrile did not accuse Trillanes of infiltrating the Chinese government to serve his country’s interests. To the contrary, he accused Trillanes of allowing the Chinese to use him against his country’s interests.
In Trillanes’s defense, Aquino said Trillanes was indeed his “backroom negotiator” with the Chinese government, and that he used him after the senator had called him from China to tell him that his Chinese contacts had asked him to act as a “back channel” to help ease the tension in the disputed area.
That admission, instead of being helpful, may have complicated matters not only for Trillanes but even for Aquino himself.
Trillanes needs to answer now not only the questions Enrile had asked him on the floor but also other questions outside parties have been asking since. Likewise, the President needs to answer the more serious questions his defense of Trillanes has provoked.
Exactly how many times has Trillanes gone to China? What was the exact nature of his travels? Since he was presumably traveling officially as senator, who authorized those travels? Who paid for them?
Those questions have not been answered since they were asked on the Floor. Trillanes walked out on Enrile, instead of simply refusing to answer any of his questions.
Under the rules of parliamentary procedure, a senator may not be compelled to answer any question he or she may not wish to answer. But to walk out while being asked a question constitutes grossly disorderly behavior, for which one may be disciplined by one’s peers.
Since then outside parties have raised other questions, including one which alleges Trillanes’s involvement in a proposed $70-billion Chinese business deal in the Philippines.
Some have suggested that the former navy captain, who was elected senator in 2007 while facing charges for his role in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny against then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, wanted his prospective business partners to see that he had become such a force in the Senate that no one could possibly interfere with his reputed “deal-making”.
Trillanes was reportedly hoping to force a vote against Enrile when he accused the latter of being a “lackey” of now Rep. Arroyo, and of trying to “railroad” the passage of a local bill from the House of Representatives splitting Camarines Sur into two provinces, purportedly to allow one of Arroyo’s two sons to run for congressman in the district that would be created by that legislation.
Trillanes appears to have forgotten that as a rule, all bills of local interest emanate from the House, and are generally passed by the Senate nearly always without debate. The Senate normally assigns one day of the week to pass all such bills. A senator does not have to explain when voting for a local bill, but he or she may have to explain if and when he or she chooses to oppose or block the passage of such a bill.
This practice is based on the presumption that the House knows the interests of its members best, just as the congressman representing his or her district is presumed to know the needs of his or her district better than any of his or her House colleagues.
In any case, even if the Camarines Sur bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by the President, it cannot be implemented unless and until it is ratified by the people of Camarines Sur in a plebiscite.
It appears that Trillanes, a freshman legislator, missed some of those basic points, and was determined to use the bill as a jump-off point for his attempt to oust Enrile, who had been instrumental in freeing him from detention and enabling him to occupy his place among his peers in the Senate.
It turned out, however, that Enrile was fully prepared for Trillanes. Quoting from notes taken by the Philippine Ambassador to China Sonia Cataumber Brady during Trillanes’s talks with Chinese officials, Enrile said that while the Department of Foreign Affairs was trying its best to assert Philippine sovereignty over the disputed area, Trillanes was telling the Chinese that no one in the Philippines cared much for Panatag.
Trillanes said his mission had been fully authorized by Aquino, and that it had been a great success. And because of his intervention, Trillanes said 80 to 100 Chinese ships previously deployed at Panatag had been scaled down to only three or four, which now lie in international waters, no longer within Panatag.
Completely unacknowledged by Trillanes or Aquino is the real “back-channeling” job done by the U.S. government at various levels, in Washington, D.C. and in Beijing, which culminated in the recent visits by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to China—all of which were aimed at, and succeeded in, calming down the waters in the South China Sea, based on the evidence.
Until Aquino spoke, Trillanes tried to make the public believe it was Malacañang that had asked him, through Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr. to do the job. Aquino made it clear that it was Trillanes who applied for the job, saying that his Chinese contacts wanted him for the job. This is something which deserves the full attention of the Senate.
As Enrile correctly pointed out, this was without the knowledge or consent of the Senate, which is part of a separate and independent branch of government. While a senator or congressman may form part of an official delegation that includes a member or members of the Executive Department, because of the separation of powers, no member of Congress may undertake an official mission for the President, without leave of the House of which he or she is a member.
Given the stakes and the level of the players involved in this controversy, the propaganda exchange could quickly turn wild. If the text blasts on the cell phones are any indication, it has in fact turned wild. But nothing should distract the nation from the main issues, which involve the nation’s highest security interests.
If Trillanes was indeed Aquino’s “secret negotiator,” and the President has not disowned any of his acts, does the President share Trillanes’s reported statement that no one in the Philippines cares that much about Panatag? What exactly was the report the President got, if any, from Trillanes? Prior to signing him in, did Malacañang ever try to check on Trillanes’s previous dealings with the Chinese government?
Given Trillanes’s rather narrow credentials, how was he able to connect to the Chinese government or to some Chinese businessmen in the first place? Is there any truth to the suggestion that he was sponsored by a powerful Manila- and Beijing-based taipan, who helped bankroll his campaign in the last elections? What special qualification or competence did he bring into this assignment? Is his open socializing with the Chinese ambassador in Manila a part or result of his “back-channeling” job, or is it merely a continuation of a previously existing relationship?
Enrile minced no words in suggesting that Trillanes was working for China rather than for the Philippine government. The President’s defense has not diminished the gravity of that accusation. The charge is so serious that if Trillanes were an impeachable official, he might have been already impeached. Were he still in the Navy and the same charge had been made against him by the third highest official of the land, he might have personally demanded a court martial in order to clear his name.
As of now, it is not only his name but also that of the President that must be cleared. Since the act of the agent is also the act of the principal, the charge against Trillanes could likewise be raised against the President.
Under the Constitution, treason is the first ground for impeachment. While the President’s hold on majority of the congressmen may not allow anyone to think of filing an impeachment complaint against him, nothing prevents him from voluntarily renouncing his office, or any party from demanding that he does.
Because of Trillanes, the President’s entire conduct of the nation’s foreign policy and national security has been compromised. The question the diplomatic community is asking now is, what game is Aquino playing on China? What will be his next move?
Known for its unembarrassed dependence on the U.S., the Aquino administration has stretched the meaning of the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty and Visiting Forces Agreement to allow the nearly permanent stay of visiting U.S. forces, and the unimpeded access of U.S. military vessels and aircraft to the country’s territorial waters and airspace, ports and airports.
Aquino is accused in the foreign press of having committed his government to support unconditionally the so-called U.S. “string-around- China” strategy, which calls for building an active defense wall around China, stretching from Korea through Japan, Southeast Asia and Australia.
And yet Aquino’s use of Trillanes as a backdoor link to China seems to reveal a major demarche in his policy on China. What is Trillanes’s irreplaceable value to Aquino that he is unable to dismiss him from his questionable service, even after his cover has been blown? Even Aquino’s own Liberal Party seems to believe that Trillanes has become such an asset to the administration that he should be rewarded with a berth on its senatorial ticket and a second senatorial term in 2013 despite what Enrile and many others consider a treasonous act.
This is something Aquino needs to explain fully to the Filipinos, and to the country’s allies in Asia and the Pacific.

No comments: