What kind of independence the present administration is talking about? Is there really such thing? What kind of independence? What kind of relations? What kind of foreign policy?

Nature first of all could teach us. We see that each component in nature even the smallest cell or atom is not really absolutely Independent. Its life is somehow related to others. We look without the microscope; the bird is related to the air, the tree to the earth, and the fish to the water. Absolute independence is therefore out of the question. No man is an island – the community of nations is realizing this more and more. Globalization as far as economics is concerned, if guided well could have good effects; and economics is always linked, perhaps more than the other aspects of life to politics. Perhaps what the government means is a close door policy which was espoused before by Japan. It seems that as of the present, this is not feasible in modern times. Even the device which you are holding is technologically dependent outside our country.

So what kind of independence? If we recall countries who decided to be politically independent, like Iraq, which in one way or another wanted to become independent from other countries, politically and in the decision-making, though was wrong in attacking the small country of Kuwait, was later on attacked by the Allied forces because of its natural resources. This is also true to Tibet which untill now could not be independent from China. Nobody is independent unless other countries respect that independence.

My point is: independence does not only depend on us, but also on the other countries with whom we would like to have foreign relations with. It is about the country who would decide to respect that independence. Like nature, nations always – whether we like it or not – are interdependent from one another. Who would believe now that we are absolutely independent from the US? Even our soap operas and music depends many times on other countries, so also our way of dressing, cooking, education, etc. I hope you got my point.

So, if it is not politically and economically feasible now not to be absolutely independent -and it should not be used as a political tool for a hidden agenda (like that of mutual exploration hinted by the president during the election campaign period), – what is proposed here is the real concept of mutual interdependence based on respectful, trustful, and dignified relationship among nations.

Inter-national dependence or relationships is not something given. It is acquired through diplomatic art and foreign policy. It starts not from a relationship of inequality as of who is more powerful or weak, but on the national sovereigty  and is based on respect and dignity of any nation. It should be based also on the inherint dignity of its citizens and respect for life even of the citizens of those not its own. Did Iraq respect the lives of those from Kuwait? Did the US respect the lives or violated the lives of the Iraqis, and so on. The sensitivity of these values like mutual respect, dignity and equality are attained through experiences in foreign policy. Did China respect the sovreignty of our country for example as far as Spratleys is concerned? Would our president as promised, be the first one to Jet Ski and place the Philippine Flag to give a message to China about our right to sovereignty of these natural resources?

These for me have to be clarified. Could we give and receive trust from the countries we wanted to be independent of or be related with? If  independence is not absolute, interdependence should be based not on fear of the powerful but of respect. This is attained, as I said though diplomatic art and sensitivity, otherwise we will just be like a pawn in the global power play where those who have more guns and economic power to influence our government decisions play their own kind of game without any rules except theirs. 

Independent foreign policy, it seems to me as being proposed by the present government policy is an intellectual ploy and trap. Government policy has to be more transparent regarding this, for independence foreign policy does not absolutely depend on our government alone, but on the relationships of trust and friendship it has with the other country, powerful or not. The main question therefore would be who is that “other”. Will it be China? Russia? USA?  An honest answer from this increasingly dishonest government is the door to get out of the trap.

(As an appendix and inspiration, the independence of the three divine persons of the Christian God is never absolute. Each person is unique and is not absorbed in the other but is equal to one another in dignity. Each however has its own identity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But they are related in love, so much so that they are also one in nature though distinct and “independent” as persons. Could this not be a good matrix for any good foreign policy? But I stop here, with due respect to atheists. What is far more beautiful it would be if the community of nations has this kind of matrix?)