Duterte: The Strongman Becomes the Strawman

News cycles covering the Philippines in typical fashion report a uniform narrative, which is a nation under siege by their recently elected madman Rodrigo Duterte. Mainstream media's (MSM) coverage of his fighting drug cartels implies Duterte's invoking a false pretext to conduct violent operations. Did the MSM report such critical doubts on the veracity of Thaksin Shinawatra's war on drug dealers in 2003? More important do the U.S. establishment institutions react differently to both leaders' respective wars on drugs? This question is worthwhile because the differences in the MSM's coverage and the reactions of U.S. establishment institutions could offer insight into how geopolitical factors inspire selective interpretations of similar events in different nations.

Duterte showed no need to court a media honeymoon phase that U.S. Presidents experience from election day to inauguration day. Instead he immediately took actions on his campaign pledge to wage war on drug dealers. Furthermore, Duterte spends no energy on shaping and massaging his message to make it more palatable to the press and the public. Damage control is not part of his modus operandi. And, contrary to U.S. Presidents' speeches filled with references to Abe Lincoln and metaphors like  "A shining city on a hill," or rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace, Duterte soon after his election in June appealed to his filipino citizens' sense of vigilante justice:

If (a criminal) fights, and he fights to the death, you can kill him." He went on to say, "Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun ... you have my support. [1]

From Duterte's first official day as President that began on June 30 through August 01, the number of drug-related killings totals 465. [2]. Even more recent reports indicate the toll is roughly 1,900. The most accurate number will vary depending on the source, but the trend speaks for itself. Duterte is acting on his campaign pledge.

Of course, what else should we civilized and enlightened persons living atop that shining city on a hill expect from a candidate known infamously by many as the "Punisher?" But, before we take comfort in concurring with such self-righteousness should we ask if Duterte's predecessors are appeasers of evil? That's a fair question given other violent dynamics that occur in the Philippines yet the MSM neglects to splash them in news headlines.

Consider the Philippine government's (army and paramilitary) killing of filipinos in mining-concentrated areas. Did this result in a change of U.S. policy toward Manila? Did we hear any UN chants "Aquino or Arroyo must go?" Was Manila worthy of being another stage whereon the U.S. demonstrates its commitment to its "values, like Syria, Libya, or Iraq?" Not that the latter nations have benefited from being laboratories of U.S. values, but the U.S. shows its hypocrisy by remaining indifferent to the suffering of filipinos in Mindanao.

Speaking of values the history in the Philippines in the last 20+ years shows multinational mining corporations are subjecting filipinos, particularly in Mindanao to the U.S. most sacred value: Neo-liberalism. The Philippine Congress facilitated this Neo-liberal trend by enacting the The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 that further enabled foreign corporations to exploit this nation's natural resources. Moreover, this Act also created political and some legal cover for corporations to render the indigenous peoples in the effected region as more expendable.

Their simply living within a region that possesses valuable natural resources or commodities qualifies them as prime candidates to receive an education in the raw reality of Neo-liberalism. Or, it is also called the resource curse.

The Philippines resource curse in particular consists of the following:

In a recent report*, Philippine people’s network Kalikasan PNE write that, based on data from the Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue, between 1997 to 2013 less than 10% of mining revenues generated in the Philippines stayed in the country’s economy. According to their research, mining contributes only 0.7 percent to Philippine GDP and provides just 0.7% of employment. [3]

These statistics show a nation still existing as a colonial possession of U.S. corporations, contradicting the empowering inference of the economic "miracle" of 6.9% GDP growth in the 1st quarter 2016 celebrated in the mainstream media and also by Duterte's predecessor. While the establishment cites GDP growth, the poor in Mindanao still suffer from living on land cursed with valuable resources.

Their resenting and resisting this resource curse that further impoverishes them so far has not encouraged the state to help improve conditions for those suffering. Instead, the state has militarized the area to suppress the indigenous' resistance to their lands being seized by mining companies.

The state's militarization included its creating paramilitary groups comprised of different groups within the indigenous peoples. In effect the state uses a divide and conquer strategy recruiting from the ranks of the indigenous to silence dissent among the other indigenous. This strategy spawned a vicious cycle of resistance violently repressed by the local paramilitary groups. Meanwhile the western media mostly ignores this systematic enforcement, opting instead to focus on the Enforcer. The harm inflicted upon the peoples of Mindanao preceded and will continue post-Duterte's presidency.

Exiled former Thailand Presdient Thaksin Shinawatra by contrast is embraced by western elites in spite of his war on drugs. MSM's acting as daily stenographer of the body count in the Philippines motivates my asking about their lack of interest in covering another southeastern Asian leader conducting a "war on drugs". Thaksin Shinawatra former president of Thailand certainly showed no restraint in waging his war on drugs. Thailand's government conducted a research into these killings to determine to what degree the victims were actually involved in the drug trade. They concluded:

In August 2007, the military-installed government of General Surayud Chulanont appointed a special committee chaired by former Attorney General Khanit na Nakhon to investigate the extrajudicial killings that took place in 2003 as part of Thaksin’s “war on drugs,” but no action has ensued. After five months of inquiries, the committee only gave to the government statistical details about the number and nature of the murders. Its report – which has never been made public – said 2,819 people were killed in 2,559 murder cases between February and April in 2003. Of those killed, 1,370 were related to drug dealing, while 878 of them were not. Another 571 people were killed without apparent reason. [4]

Such a leader's actions should exile him from the ranks and respect of the world community. Should have but didn't. Rather, his "war on drugs" has not discouraged some well placed elite insiders from serving as his official lobbyists in that shining city on a hill. Moreover, elites from the MSM and the U.S. Government hosted Mr. Thaksin in their forum in New York City earlier this year:

With this backdrop, in March 2016, Shinawatra would find himself in New York City at the center of a media event sponsored by the World Policy Institute – a policy think tank backed by the US State government and the Fortune 500. Among its sponsors includes the Heinrich Böll Foundation which also funds a myriad of fronts in Thailand propping up the remnants of Shinawatra’s political influence. It also includes New America – a policy think tank funded over a million dollars a year by the US State Department alone, as well as by big-finance, and big-defense. [5]

Hypocrisy is a privilege of empires. Reality is distorted to present Mr. Thaksin as an esteemed figure. Will Duterte appear as a special guest as such elite forums in the future?

Regardless how much his image suffers due to his "drug war," Duterte's course of diplomatic relations with China will determine his standing with the U.S. elites. Given the history of U.S. foreign policy that involves colluding and cooperating with drug cartels and the 20+year trend of both mining companies and the state's dehumanization of Mindanao, it takes much naivete to believe that the U.S. concern with Dutuerte's administration is motivated by any factor other than maintaining its hegemony in the region.

Duterte's seemingly lack of unconditional deference to U.S. interests is their main concern. If the Punisher acted upon his feared independent impulses, that could jeopardize the thrust of the U.S. Asia Pivot. Hillary Rodham Clinton who will likely win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election declared five years ago in Foreign Policy that the 21st century will be America's Pacific Century. And, recently on August 31, 2016 she expressed her dogmatic belief in American Exceptionalism, promoting the humble yet glorious image of the U.S. as the shining city on a hill in her speech to the American Legion:

The United States is an exceptional nation. I believe we are still Lincoln’s last, best hope of Earth. We’re still Reagan’s shining city on a hill. We’re still Robert Kennedy’s great, unselfish, compassionate country. [6]

Another perk of speaking on behalf of an empire is that you can recycle to dull excess such tired rhetoric. The U.S. claims the power to determine every other nations' amount of influence in this region. Therefore, it is important watch the course of Duterte's foreign policy, especially with China.

Duterte's rhetoric so far toward China shows conflicting signals of combativeness and cooperativeness:

While Duterte is unpredictable — one day calling China “generous” and the next threatening a “bloody” war if Beijing attacks — his behavior has undermined U.S. efforts to rally nations from Japan to Vietnam to Australia to stand up to China’s military assertiveness.

In doing so, he risks shifting from the 1951 Philippine-U.S. defense treaty, which has been a bedrock of American influence in the region. While Duterte has said he will respect the alliance, he has repeatedly stressed the need for an “independent foreign policy” and questioned America’s willingness to intervene if China seizes any territory in the South China Sea. [7]

His claiming the right to an "independent foreign policy" aggravates a U.S. establishment that sees the Philippines as its subject colony. In other words their diplomatic relations established in 1898 should continue.

The Editorial board of the Washington Post immediately following Duterte's election warned us of the dangerous direction he might take in his diplomatic relations with China. This dangerous direction entails Duterte's hinting that he may not continue his predecessor's preference to seek both the U.S. and the UN assistance in contentions matter with China. Instead, Duterte may opt to negotiate directly with them:

Notwithstanding his bluster about flag-planting, Mr. Duterte could also undermine U.S. efforts to deter China’s attempts to enforce its far-reaching territorial claims. Mr. Aquino rightly refused to negotiate bilaterally with Beijing over the Scarborough Shoal, instead bringing a case before a U.N. tribunal while concluding a pact that will allow the United States to use five Philippine bases. The two countries recently began conducting joint sea and air patrols.

Mr. Duterte, however, has expressed doubts about the alliance with Washington and hinted that he is ready to strike a deal with China. He even said he would set aside the maritime dispute in exchange for Chinese construction of a rail line in Mindanao. No doubt the regime of Xi Jinping would happily agree. [8]

This establishment publication has spoken. Their inference is clear. Duterte's election should not empower him to take actions deemed in his nation's best interest. What if Duterte used China's willingness to negotiate with him as leverage in his relations with the U.S? He could demand the U.S. provide much needed infrastructure to the Philippines in exchange for his ceasing bilateral relations with China. Duterte must know the dangerous risks undertaken when Third World leaders assert any leverage that could reduce U.S. influence in the subject region.

Predictably, a U.S. establishment newspaper like the Washington Post selectively privileges the UN as the appropriate forum to negotiate differences between nations, especially in the case stated above so it can apply international pressure on China. Does the US consistently show such deference to the UN? Ask former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan? Ask the Iraqi people? Many experts state their views on the legality of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. But, I'll leave the myriad word parsing and legal interpretation to lawyers and diplomats. Duterte should see the Iraqi invasion as a dangerous precedent. If the US decides to use force against a foreign nation, two things are certain: The US will proceed even if the international community disagrees with military actions, or plenty of lawyers and propagandists will stretch semantics wide enough to discover a legal rationale for such military actions. Legalisms are only pretensions...the US empire lives by wielding sticks and stones. Forget that obvious and recurring lesson at your own peril.

Will the anti-Duterte demonization add momentum to leading to a color revolution? Michael E. O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has expressed the need for the U.S. to exercise caution and indulge what he believes are Chinese historical analogies used to justify their actions in the South China Sea. Also, O'Hanlon expresses hope that Duterte can "help us along with this process."  I know i am engaging in word parsing here, but O'Hanlon's statement that Duterte can "help us along with this process" reflects a passive aggressive imperial mindset. Why does Does Duterte need to help the U.S.? This pronoun usage implies that Duterte should be serve as a subordinate to the U.S. Of course he should to the extent his help inflicts no harm on his people. But, why shouldn't the U.S. approach this issue from the perspective of considering how they can help Duterte?

The Philippine establishment's willingness to militarize the part of its nation filled with natural resources at the expense of the indigenous and to the behest of foreign corporations begs one critical question? Would it tolerate Duterte exercising any populist impulses if he attempts to restrain the nexus of the Philippine state and foreign corporations' harming the indigenous?  If so, the western media will likely express much panic-packed rhetoric about Duterte. They will depict him as a leader embodying all of their worst fears. The Strongman will become the Strawman to justify attempting regime change in Manila. Yet the plunder will continue.

[1]. Euan McKirkdy. "Dead or alive: Is the Philippines' war on drugs out of control?" CNN. August 04, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/asia/philippines-war-on-drugs/index.html

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Hannibal Rhoades. "Thousands March Against Killings of Indigenous Peoples in Philippine 'Mining Capital'". IC Magazine. Dec 19, 2015. https://intercontinentalcry.org/thousands-march-killings-indigenous-peoples-philippine-mining-capital/

[4]. "Thailand: Prosecute Anti-Drugs Police Identified in Abuses." Human Rights Watch. February 08, 2008. https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/02/07/thailand-prosecute-anti-drugs-police-identified-abuses

[5]. Cartalucci, Tony. "US Invites Thai Fugitive Mass Murderer to NYC." NEO New Eastern Outlook. March 15, 2016. http://journal-neo.org/2016/03/15/us-invites-thai-fugitive-mass-murderer-to-nyc/ 

[6]. Daniel White. "Read Hillary Clinton's Speech Touting 'American Exceptionalism.'" Sepyember 01, 2016. TIME. http://time.com/4474619/read-hillary-clinton-american-legion-speech/?xid=emailshare

[7]. David Tweed and Norman P. Aquino. "Duterte's tilt toward China may upend US pivot to Asia." September 16, 2016. The Japan Times. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/09/16/asia-pacific/dutertes-tilt-toward-china-risks-upending-u-s-pivot-toward-asia/#.V-SA7jMrLnC 

[8]. The Editorial Board. "In the Philippines, a dangerous strongman." May 11, 2016. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-philippines-a-dangerous-strongman/2016/05/11/134c6138-1799-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.b16b59363991