All Countries Are Ready for Democracy

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo sat for a 40-minute interview at Malacanang Palace in Manila on Sept 20 with Publisher Bernard Krisher and Editor-in-Chief Matt Reed. She answered questions on the future role of Asean, the global war on terrorism and the challenges and opportunities posed to Southeast Asia by China’s growing economy and recently gained membership in the World Trade Organization.

Bernard Krisher/The Cambodia Daily Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

Arroyo became the 14th president of the Philippines—and the second woman to serve in that office—in January 2001 after her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, was forced from office following a corruption scandal, three months of political upheaval and a suspended impeachment trial.

Arroyo is a 55-year-old economist who studied in the 1960s at Georgetown University in Washington at the same time as former US president Bill Clinton. She is the daughter of Diosdado Macapagal, the president of the Philippines from 1961 to 1965. Arroyo served as undersecretary of trade in the late 1980s and was elected to the Senate in 1992. She served as Estrada’s vice president from 1998 to 2001.

During the interview, Arroyo sat behind her desk in a large, ornate office, surrounded by two aides, a large painting of her father and photographs of herself with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, US President George W Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

Q: What do you think should be the relationship between the richer Asean countries and the poorer Asean countries?

A: Within Asean we have more than two levels of development, even though there is already a special and differential treatment between the six supposed richer countries [Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore] and the four poorer countries [Cambodia, Burma, Laos and Vietnam].

But even within the richer Asean countries, you have Singapore on the one hand, and the Philippines is certainly not on the same level of development. So there should be more refinement of this special and differential treatment for the Asean countries.

Q: How did last year’s Sept 11 terrorist attacks on the United States affect the outlook and agenda of Asean?

A: More and more foreign policy decisions are being made within the context of Asean. There are terrorists all over Southeast Asia, and this threat should move Asean forward from being just an economic group to also being a security group.

Already now, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines—and, I believe Thailand also—we already have a joint operational agreement on how to fight terrorism in our common seas and common borders and how to address arms smuggling among these countries. That is one security arrangement that I think should be moved forward within Asean, because the other security arrangement is only a forum, the Asean Regional Forum.

Q: What do you see is the long range goal of Asean? Do you see it developing into another European Union?

A: I have said that we should look at the EU as a good example for the long term for Asean. If you look at the history of the EU—how it began as a coal and steel union—it is very different now from its original vision. So Asean should move forward with the changing times, as well.

Q: Do you see North Korea entering into free trade agreements with Asean, Japan, China and South Korea at some point?

A: If the sunshine policy between North and South Korea would work, then they could become a part of the greatest trading area in the world. But it really depends on the different Asean countries. China entering the World Trade Organization has been considered both a threat and an opportunity for Southeast Asia.

China can undercut everybody else’s cost structure in Asean. So far, even Singapore—because it is a very export-oriented economy—is quite concerned about its prospects. And it is looking for its niche now that WTO includes China.

For the Philippines, China’s growing economy does pose threats. But at least now, as a WTO member, China must play by the rules of the game. And the Philippines should look at opportunities with China in areas like agriculture and tourism.

China being in a free trade area with Asean will make Asean part of a very big market, and a very big investment area as well. It will attract investors to this part of the world. But initially, and maybe in the longer term, most of those investors will go to China.

Q: What do you expect to come out of the November summit? What would you like to see accomplished?

A: We need to consider whether we should be married to the idea of unbridled free trade. And with the world still not free of conflict, it is very important to talk about energy security. This is especially important because Asean is a great user of energy, and not all of us are energy producing countries.

Q: Should Asean reconsider its policy of non-intervention?

A: I still think we should stand by the policy of non-intervention, because the Asian culture is that you don’t openly intervene with your brother or your sister. Instead, you offer counsel in private.

Q: If you look at recent history, you had Hitler, you had Pol Pot, you had Saddam Hussein, people who were threatening human rights and the security of other countries. People have talked about how there is a right to intervene when someone is killing 2 million people in their own country. Do you just sit by in that case?

A: No, you don’t just sit by. It is what they have called constructive engagement in the past. But you don’t sit by. You do it with back channels rather than with open sanctions.

I’m talking about internal conflicts. Why is the world looking at Saddam Hussein now? It is not because of what he is doing inside his own country to his own people. It is because he is being suspected of building up weapons of mass destruction that can be used to export terrorist technology, so the threat is an international one.

Now, in the process of addressing the threat, we liberate those who have had their human rights violated, then of course the world will hail that.

Just look at Afghanistan. The intervention happened because Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and was believed to have masterminded the international terrorist attack. But in the process of looking for him, the Taliban government, which was considered to be very oppressive, collapsed. The world also hailed that event.

There is a body that addresses human rights violations, and is mandated to do so by all our countries, and that is the United Nations.

Q: Would you have opposed intervention in Cambodia during the Pol Pot regime?

A: First of all, during the Pol Pot regime, there was no international terrorist threat. At that time and now, the final judge of whether there must be intervention should be the United Nations.

Now, there are obviously additional external ramifications of regimes that are oppressive and they seem to be exporting their oppression through the terrorist menace. So, in the case of the Pol Pot regime, I would have followed the United Nations.

Q: But you would have had a vote in the United Nations. Would you have voted for intervention?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you see any role for NGOs in what they can contribute to Asean countries? Are NGOs generally well-organized and effective? Or are they just giving handouts and making people dependent?

A: Well, of course, you have to teach them how to fish. But in the beginning, you must give them some fish so that they can have the strength to learn how to fish.
Civil society, which NGOs are a large part of, is a very important institution. And a concrete, vibrant civil society is vital for a strong republic. In the Philippines, in fact, it was a civil society movement that changed the previous government and got me into the presidency.

Q: Some countries say that they all aspire to democracy, but their people are not yet ready for democracy. Do you think, as the leader of one of the most democratic countries in Asia, that there is validity in that?

A: As a leader of a democratic country, I feel that all countries are ready for democracy. But whether I would interfere and impose my values on another country outside the UN system is another thing.

Asean has different cultures, different political systems, different histories, different religions, different social organizations. And one country cannot impose its system on another.