The Americans who used to be revered everywhere they went
because their country was worshiped around the globe, are scratching their
heads now that they are pushed around everywhere they find themselves. And so
they ask: What happened to us?
Those who are serious about that question will find the
answer in an editorial that came under the title: “Manila Turns Anti-American”
and the subtitle: “Duterte seems ready to trade sovereignty for Chinese cash.”
It was published on September 14, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.
What makes this piece noteworthy is that it was written
around the time when a similar editorial could have been written a few days
earlier but never was. The occasion then was the trip that Benjamin Netanyahu
took – first to china and then to Russia – looking to forge with
those nations the same kind of relationship that Philippine's Duterte has been
forging with his neighbors.
When Netanyahu was running to nations that are on the rise
to lean on when America
will have its blood fully sucked out by the likes of the Israelis, the Wall
Street Journal said nothing about those events. It is not that the trips
happened quietly, no they weren't. In fact most pro-Israel pundits wrote about
them, and they were unanimous in absolving both Israel
and Netanyahu for what were in essence, Jewish acts of ingratitude toward America . This
was the country whose effort saved the Jews from being final-solutioned, and
made Israel
possible. This being the case, the Journal preferred to ignore those events
because the choice would have been to absolve Israel or to severely criticize it
– neither being acceptable to the Journal editors.
Why then did those editors write the kind of piece they
wrote about the Philippine when they could have treated that country the way
they did Israel ?
Even more puzzling is the fact that Israel was negotiating to suck new
American blood to the tune of 40 or 50 billion dollars whereas the Philippine
was quietly turning away American aid. We look for an answer to that question
in the editorial.
This is what the Journal editors say Mr. Duterte has said
recently: “We're not cutting our alliances, but we will follow an independent
foreign policy.” And that was enough for the editors to paint a picture of
Duterte they would never paint of Netanyahu or any Jew for that matter.
Here is what they say about the Filipino President: “It's
possible Mr. Duterte is posturing for tough-guy points at home and brownie
points from Beijing ,
which
may extend soft loans for railway construction.” In the paragraph that
follows, they go on to say: “But there is a risk Mr. Duterte is fashioning
himself as an Asian Hugo Chavez, who tells the Yanks to go home and sells China acquiescence to its takeover of the South China Sea .” That is, the editors can only see the
man as engaging in buffoonery or in treachery. They could not bring themselves
to seeing him engaged in the kind of policies he believes are good for his
country – whether or not such policies will eventually rise to the level of his
expectations.
The editors of the Journal formulated that vision of the
Filipino President despite the fact they know a great deal about what he
desires. Here is a passage in which they describe what he thinks and what he
wants: “His priorities are a domestic drug war and peace talks with rebels in
the south, missions for which he prefers Chinese assistance. 'Only China will
help us,' he said after Beijing offered to build drug-rehab centers for
Filipinos last month, 'America just gave you principles of law and nothing
else,'” he went on to say.
Having constructed that false reality about the man in their
heads, what do they recommend America
must do now? Here is what they say in that regard: “The priority is to keep
ties productive with all levels of the Duterte government. Public opinion may
constrain his worst impulses, and Beijing 's
bullying could alienate him as it did [his predecessor.] U.S. access to bases near the South
China Sea is significant. The Philippines remains an important
ally. Its erratic President may eventually come to understand the stakes”.
In other words, they do not see America doing something like
extending soft loans to build roads or airports or any kind of infrastructure
in the Philippine; projects that would compete with China's railway
construction and drug-rehabilitation centers. No, that's no longer what America does.
Even though access to bases near the South China Sea is significant, America can only sit back and hope that the man
at the helm will be constrained by public opinion and that Beijing will bully him enough to alienate
him. What an ingenious strategy!
But really, what is wrong with America today?
Let me put it this way: If the Filipinos were chosen by God
to be His favorite children, they would have earned the label “chosen” or
“exceptional” and the right to be treated like American Jews.