FOOTNOTES ON THE ASEAN SUMMIT

                 The ASEAN Summit the country hosted is finally over and it is time for the postscripts and assessments on both the physical staging and the results that came out of this semi-annual meeting of heads of states in the region.  Those who had a part in the planning and implementation of physical arrangements, capitalizing on some polite praises from foreigners, have preempted all others to proclaim that the Summit here was an unprecedented success.  The usual political experts routinely sought to consume the time of TV talk shows will again exert efforts to give prolonged discourses to embellish and convey their takes on the results of the summit.  That's all part of the show and although I do not belong to any of those groups, I also have my own footnotes.

                Like most Metro-Manilans, with the exception of those who decided to get away and hied to the provinces, I confined myself during the summit period within a radius of not more than five kilometers from my home as I did not want to experience how much more punishing our daily ordeal in traffic gridlocks had become with the part closure of major thoroughfares in the city.  I did wonder and still do why those traffic routes have to be reserved 24 hours for ASEAN use even when the delegates and their staffs are sleeping, being wined and dined, or tied down in meetings and conferences for most part of the day in specified venues and areas, in addition to schools and offices already suspended.  Was it not possible to devise a plan that would have allowed the suffering motorists and commuters the full use of those restricted roadways at those hours of the day?  I think that was possible but putting the details in such a plan and coordinating its implementation might have been too complicated for the planners and it was simpler and practical to just restrict those routes and never mind the public that is already accustomed anyway to daily traffic ordeals.  Perhaps, decisions like this can be avoided in the future if the planning is not entirely left to government but also to involve the private sector where, conceded, there is better supply of mind power and motivation not to be lazy.

                 On the Summit itself, it is my view that nothing substantive and binding came out from the discussions and talks during the conference.  Yes, there were joint declarations, memorandums on this or that, undertakings and pledges.  But most of these are just non-binding promissory notes or formalization of existing practices and arrangements between the countries involved e.g. cultural exchanges, tourism promotions and mutual concessions on immigration which were likely already covered previously by a similar memorandum signed in previous conferences.  Coming up with documents like those are common exercises in international conferences and not much attention is given to them except for press releases.  Some agreements come out of conferences and are touted as accomplishments.  In this Summit, for instance, the agreement between the Asean countries and China to negotiate the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea sometime soon is highlighted as a major breakthrough but the positive outcome of such a negotiation is as doubtful as it is now  considering the uncompromising proprietary stand of China over the entire ocean and the fact that even ASEAN members have not fully agreed among themselves on the final shape of the code of conduct they want to negotiate.  However, in noting the ineffectiveness and flaws of Summits, I do not argue against their use as windows of opportunity for international understanding.

                I think that the value of a gathering like the one held here lies more in its social and cultural aspects, and less in its pretensions of providing solutions to political differences among nations.  On the social side, I view it as a periodic acquaintance party where heads of states and leaders from all over meet in a setting conducive to knowing each other up close and in a more personal way.  That kind of personal connection can grow and be cultivated to become the basis of amicable bilateral or multilateral arrangements between and among leaders.  And because the participating leaders deserve to be entertained as grandly as can be done, the occasion becomes an opportunity for the host country to showcase its arts and culture in its full splendor for the world to enjoy and appreciate.

              The entertainment show the Philippines staged during the Gala Dinner was truly splendid by the account of people we know who witnessed the extravaganza of fashion, music and dance and the guests were left truly impressed and entertained.  This was one area in our hosting that truly deserves commendation and congratulation.       

            One sour note in the Summit that did not escape the sensibilities of local and foreign observers was the new experience the heads of states were made to undergo when they were presented to and received at a protocol-laden formal occasion by the First Woman (or First Mistress as some suggested) of the host country since the President has no legal wife for a First Lady.  Add to that the recorded and widely known vulgarities both in words and behaviors of  Mr, Duterte and the thousands of extra-judicial murders believed to have been committed on his instigation and encouragement and the composite moral model of a leader emerged for all the delegates to remember.  For all its worth, maybe we should let them know that millions of Filipinos are truly saddened and shamed over this.