Why the Philippines Snubbed Liu Xiaobo

By Todd Crowell

TOKYO – Among the dozen or so nations that heeded Beijing’s call to boycott the ceremony awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in Oslo last week was the Philippines.

Wait, the Philippines?

Receive email alerts

[+] More

Is this not the home of the famous “people power” revolution in 1986 which overthrew the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship in 1986? Is the current president, Benigno Aquino III, not the grandson of the martyred democracy icon Benigno Aquino?

What is the Philippines doing in the company of such exemplars of democracy as Cuba, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? Why is it the only Asian country, besides Vietnam and Sri Lanka, to snub the awards ceremony for China’s most famous advocate of multi-party democracy and human rights?

The Philippine Foreign Ministry maintained that the country’s ambassador to Norway, Elizabeth Buescuceso, was out of the country attending to “counselor business” and that her absence from the ceremony did not constitute a deliberate boycott. That answer wasn’t very persuasive, especially to human rights organizations, which heaped criticism on the government.

One person close to the presidential palace said that “We did not want to further annoy China.” What would he mean by that? True, Manila is in the doghouse with the Chinese world because of a botched hostage incident in the capital last August that left eight visitors dead.

A dismissed police officer took over a tour bus filled with more than twenty Hong Kongers, holding them hostage for hours demanding to be reinstated. When the police finally attempted to storm the minibus, the hostage taker let loose, killing eight of the Hong Kong passengers.

Hong Kong went into a frenzy of mourning - flags were lowered to half staff, black borders were placed around newspaper headlines, people protested outside of the Philippine consulate-general, some of the thousands of Filipina maids working in the territory were ostracized. The Hong Kong government temporarily banned further visits and ordered those already in the Philippines to return home.

Beijing, being Hong Kong’s protector in matters relating to foreign affairs, felt compelled to enter the fray. Its foreign minister loudly denounced the Philippines and demanded an investigation. President Aquino ordered the investigation and promised to share the results.

The Chinese were further irritated when at the funeral of the hostage taker, Ronaldo Mendoza, his coffin was draped with the Philippine national flag, as if he were some kind of a hero.

However, the hostage incident probably wasn't the main reason for Manila's decision to skip the Nobel Prize ceremony. It so happened that Gen. Ricardo David, chief of staff of the Philippine Armed Forces, was in Beijing at this time negotiating a major arms deal, the first such deal between the Philippines and China.

The exact type of weapons and the total value of the sale, assuming there was a price tag, were not immediately known, but it was said to be “very substantial.” The Philippine military chief was thus holding talks with his Chinese counterpart at roughly the same time America’s Admiral Mike Mullen was speaking with his South Korean counterpart.

The Philippine armed forces are poorly equipped and overextended, fighting both a longtime communist insurgency on the island of Luzon and a Muslim separatist insurgency on the big southern island of Mindanao. The country is a formal ally of the United States, but military aid had been skimpy, especially since the Americans withdrew from the Subic Bay Naval Station and Clark Air Base in 1991.

“This will start an influx of logistics coming to us from mainland China,” said a Philippine Army spokesman. “The Philippine Armed Forces really lack funds and equipment, and it's ready and willing to accept equipment and much needed resources from any donor country. This includes China.”

The irony of the arms sales were not lost on many in the country since the weapons and logistic supplies provided by Communist China will be used partly to fight the Communist New People’s Army. But then China today is into making money, not making revolution.

It was, of course, just one more example of the quiet struggle between the U.S. and China over influence in Southeast Asia, and shows that even countries like the Philippines, with its close historic ties and formal treaty with Washington, are not immune to Beijing’s “soft power” blandishments.

Todd Crowell covered Tiananmen as Chief of Correspondents for Asiaweek. He is compiling a Dictionary of the Modern Asian Language and comments on Asian affairs at Asia Cable (www.asiacable.blogspot.com).

Todd Crowell covered Tiananmen as Chief of Correspondents for Asiaweek. He comments on Asian affairs at Asia Cable (www.asiacable.blogspot.com).

Sponsored Links
Related Articles
May 17, 2012
U.S.-India: A Soft Power Tie That Binds - Aparna Pande
May 16, 2012
Asia as Global Leader - Not So Fast - Ho Kwon Ping
May 5, 2012
The Erosion of China's Soft Power - Frank Ching
Todd Crowell
Author Archive