AFTER more than three years, Francisco S. Tatad’s “First Things First” column returns to The Manila Times, where it will appear every Monday, Wednesday and Friday starting today, November 7.

Then as now, his column will reflect the vast experience gained in his decades-long career in journalism and public service. These include stints at local and international news organizations, as a member of the former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s Cabinet, and as senator.

THIS column has been on holiday since it last appeared in this paper in 2019. The extended pandemic had nothing to do with it, but whatever its cause is now of no moment — the writer is happy to resume his column, three times a week, beginning with this one.

The Marcos administration is facing its most severe test in two primary areas: the national economy and foreign affairs.

In the economy, its effort to cope with skyrocketing prices, basic commodity shortages, severe unemployment, collapsing currency values, astronomical national debt, and other problems associated with the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the political tension in Taiwan, has been compounded by a series of natural calamities that have claimed lives, destroyed communities, crops, property, industry and public infrastructure. All this could delay the transition to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s vision of an upper-income Filipino population in two years.

The government is trying to do all it can despite the odds, but a more vigorous organized private sector response is needed. Economic recovery will not happen without a vibrant and dynamic public-private sector partnership.

Not less troublesome is the global problem in foreign affairs.

In Asia, the United States as well as in Europe, there is a mad clamor for war instead of peace. An utter madness that could end all human existence, but there are not enough political leaders trying to arrest it and reverse the rush to it.

Marcos alone has found the courage to proclaim that his country will be a “friend to all and an enemy to none.” He said this in his State of the Nation Address before Congress, and in his address to the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly. This means that his government will not take sides in any armed conflict between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia, or between the People’s Republic of China and the US over Taiwan.

This is an enormous relief to all Filipinos. For as the 93-yearold Noam Chomsky puts it, “if there’s a nuclear war between the US and China [or alternatively between the US or NATO and Russia], we’re all finished. It would destroy the possibilities of organized life on Earth.”

But Marcos has not shown how his exalted vision of foreign policy will work out in concrete terms. It presupposes a policy of “equidistance” to the competing hegemons; but how can the Philippines be equidistant to these hegemons when it has a Mutual Defense Treaty, a Visiting Forces Agreement, and an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US and an internationally arbitrated territorial and maritime dispute with China?

The Americans are not naive, so they will try to exploit the declared Philippine position, whenever they can, to their utmost advantage. Thus, at a recent joint press conference in Hawaii between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin 3rd and Philippine Senior Defense Undersecretary Jose Faustino Jr., certain US media reports tried to portray the latter as saying the Philippines would stand with the US in a clash with China over Taiwan — even though he never said it.

This problem will not go away. Expect Washington to launch a charm offensive to try and translate Marcos’ “friend to all and enemy to none” political and military stance into a pro-US posture. US Vice President Kamala Harris’ scheduled visit to Manila this month, after participating in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Thailand on November 18 to 19, is expected to call for stronger USPhilippine cooperation through EDCA in light of the global issues facing the Indo-Pacific.

Undoubtedly, the foreign policy/national security environment has become a landmine. Thus, Marcos is genuinely opposed to getting drawn into any conflict between the major powers. But many others seem to believe their superior military technology and the strategic location and enormous land mass of their respective countries could protect them from a nuclear Armageddon. They are not even listening when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says, “We have been extraordinarily lucky so far: we are one mistake, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation.”

These are extremely dangerous times. Filipinos need to sharpen their instincts and skills to survive as a people, and Marcos will have to assume a serious role in creating the political space for as many people as possible to work together in order to arrest the maddening call to war and reverse the rush into it among all sorts of warmongers. In this area, everyday battles must be fought and won, here as nowhere else Marcos cannot afford to fail.

Because of our relations with the US and China, we should consider building a bridge, or becoming that bridge ourselves, between the two competing giants, instead of taking the side of one against the other. Is this at all possible? We cannot know the answer to it until we try and exhaust all our efforts.

In January 1999, at the seventh annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum (APPF) in Lima, Peru, I (as a senator) filed a motion expressing regret over China’s militarization of Mischief Reef, and calling upon Beijing to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law in the settlement of territorial disputes, particularly the 1982 UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, to which most of the APPF members were all signatories. The Chinese delegation, supported by Japan, asked that I forego my motion to avoid acrimonious debate. I declined, saying I would merely express regret over the incident without offending any party involved.

This reassured my oppositors, and I became the first Filipino official on record to publicly discuss the South China Sea question in an international forum at a time when China was completely opposed to it. At the end of my intervention, the Chinese chief delegate said our two countries could benefit from closer dialogue.

This episode leads me to suggest that it is possible for us to maintain constructive and friendly ties with China even as our maritime and territorial dispute remains unsolved. We are not and need not be enemies.

With respect to our historic alliance with the US, it has until now served us in good stead. But a thorough review of how it has worked, and how we want it to work in the future would be good for both parties. I shall discuss this in my next piece.