The recent controversies involving Senator Antonio Trillanes IV and former DILG Undersecretary Rico Puno exposed two obvious weaknesses in the administration of President Aquino – the apparent lack of trust in his senior Cabinet officials and the lack of consistent and coherent direction in government policies.
The lack of trust first became evident when Aquino said that Puno was his “eyes and ears” at the DILG. The late DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo had been known to be rendered ineffective by the fact that he was only entrusted by Aquino with the local government part of the Department of Interior and Local Government, while Puno got full authority in handling the interior part, meaning control of the Philippine National Police and two other police-related bureaus.
The lack of consistent policy was obvious from the start, with Robredo vowing to crush jueteng and Aquino saying eliminating jueteng was not his administration’s priority.
If Aquino couldn’t trust Robredo and had to send a shooting buddy as “eyes and ears” to the DILG, why did he appoint Robredo to the post in the first place? In the same manner if he did not agree with Robredo that the elimination of jueteng must be a top priority of the department, why did he let him stay in the department if he was not ready to support him?
These two negative characteristics of the Aquino administration came to the open again when it was revealed that Trillanes acted as back door negotiator with China with full authority from the President, but without the knowledge of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario.
If he trusted Del Rosario, as he insists he does, why did he keep the foreign secretary in the dark in Trillanes’ back-channeling mission? While back-channeling is an accepted action in the pursuit of foreign policy, it must be done in coordination with the Department of Foreign Affairs and in accordance with long-term foreign policy strategy of the government.
In the case of Trillanes, he obviously conducted his back-channeling in complete disregard of the official actions of Del Rosario as evident in the harsh exchange of words between the two.
“I think that while back-channeling has its purpose, in our case it’s doing more harm than good. It is important that we speak with one voice on this matter,” Del Rosario said in a recent interview.
Trillanes snapped back: “If Secretary Del Rosario was only close to being effective as a foreign secretary, then there wouldn’t be any need for a back channel in the first place.”
Trillanes added that Del Rosario is unfit to represent the Philippines on the negotiating table with China because of his allegedly rabid opposition to any peaceful settlement with Beijing and his purported desire to bring the United States into the confrontation.
Trillanes called Del Rosario a “war freak” in an interview and was said to have described the DFA chief as having committed “treason” in diplomatic notes written by Philippine Ambassador to China Sonia Brady.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, angered by Trillanes’ walkout while he was interpellating the neophyte senator, called him a “fifth columnist” (an infiltrator) and a “fraud,” not to mention calling him a “coward” while Trillanes was walking away from the Senate floor.
Responding to Trillanes’ statement, Del Rosario said: “Many of us know for a fact that the good senator is staying very close to the West Philippine Sea issue. He fully knows what is factual and what can be established as a matter of record. The factual record would reflect otherwise. The DFA has remained faithful to the President’s mandate to defend what is ours and to pursue a peaceful resolution on the West Philippine Sea issue, in accordance with the international law.”
And there lies the problem. While Aquino has been showing a courageous and firm posture against China in his public statements, stressing that the country stands ready to defend its sovereignty, it would now appear that he was in reality very worried that the Scarborough Shoal standoff would lead to armed confrontation, and had to rely on a neophyte senator, who has absolutely no experience in foreign policy, to prevent the situation from escalating into a military clash.
In the meantime, the people are left hanging on what really transpired in the 16 times that Trillanes met with the Chinese officials. Should Trillanes really be credited for the supposed pullout of some 30 vessels? What did he offer the Chinese that they agreed to pull out the vessels? Was Aquino fully informed and updated on the status of the back door negotiations? Why did the Chinese want to negotiate with Trillanes instead of Del Rosario? Who financed Trillanes’ expenses in his China trips? Who among the Chinese officials did he talk to? What was the original nature of his trips to China? Did Trillanes submit a written report of his dealings with the Chinese?
These and many other questions are begging for answers.
Aquino and his spokesmen have not provided any clue as to the truth behind the matter. In fact, the recent statements of the President, his spokesmen and Trillanes have been conflicting and have only served to further confuse the situation. While Aquino admits that he had authorized Trillanes to be his back door negotiator with China, he later said that it was Trillanes who asked for his authority. Neither would Aquino confirm, deny or clarify Trillanes’ claim that it was the government that financed his trips.
The confusion that has attended the Trillanes caper has exposed Aquino to another ugly case of a cover-up, just as he had obviously succeeded in doing in the case of Puno. Worse, it has shown that the Philippine government does not have a consistent policy with regards to its relations with China vis-à-vis the disputed islands, which will surely be seen by the country’s giant neighbor as a clear sign of weakness on the part of the Philippines.
Worse still, the Puno and Trillanes incidents revealed the discordant voices among the administration officials, the visible lack of trust in his Cabinet, the existence of factions in Aquino’s circle, and as suggested by the opposition, the existence of “dark knights” and a “shadow Cabinet” in Malacanang’s ranks.
(valabelgas@aol.com)