HREE Himalayan coun-tries have been
in the news these days. First Bhutan, a tiny monarchy in the Himalayan foothills
took a first step towards democratic government by electing a parliament shortly
after its god-king decided that it was time to modernize his once hermetical
country. The remarkable thing about the Bhutanese experiment with democracy is
that it was initiated by its monarch with no pressure whatsoever from his own
people or the outside world (other than the king’s western education). If at
all, the people were rather hesitant to accept their mandate for self-rule,
possibly feeling uncertain about how this strange new way known as democracy
could adversely affect their customs and culture.
On the other hand, Nepal, at one time idealized by hippie
culture as the ultimate in idyllic existence, suffered through years of violent
struggle to reach a point where the existing monarchy is likely to be forcibly
removed. The once rebellious Maoists appear on the verge of gaining control of
the country through the ballot rather than the bullet. Western media, though
skeptical about the democratic commitments of the Maoists, have for the most
part accepted the fact that the changes in Nepal will be largely congruent with
the will of the Nepalese people.
And then there is Tibet. These days, no other situation
evokes more confusion with respect to politics, global relationships, and
religion than the events that have recently transpired in that country. The
Dalai Lama, believed by religious Tibetans to be an incarnation of God, heads a
government in exile that has been at odds with the de facto rulers of the
country, the Chinese communist party in Beijing, for more than half a century.
Strangely, many proponents of European and American style democratic government
seem to be ardent supporters of the Buddhist theocracy.
To make matters worse, convinced that God is firmly on their
side, the supporters of the Dalai Lama have chosen to mix up their politics with
an event held sacred by most of the rest of the world – the Olympics. True to
their history of hypocritical behavior, the Western democracies of the United
States, Britain and France have taken a confused range of stands on the issue
depending on how their own vested interests in relation to the Chinese giant
would be affected.
Especially interesting is the position of Britain where there
are many sympathizers of the Tibetan government-in-exile. The former global
empire has pretensions of commitment to human rights but at the same has a huge
financial stake in a successful Beijing Olympics because the next event will be
held in London.
***
During the recent Philippine Development Forum where foreign
development assistance agencies discussed future cooperation with the
Philippines, the administration wasted no opportunity to cite the country’s
positive economic growth rate figures to justify its recent actions. While
diplomatically accepting that the figures (albeit, some with tongue in cheek)
were cause for optimism, most donors pointed to two glaring weaknesses in the
governance policies of Malacañang, namely on the issue of human rights and that
of population management.
On the latter issue, the European Union in its position paper
pointed out: "Continued rapid population growth in the Philippines is draining
health and economic resources and slowing down economic growth. It also
threatens the sustainability of rural livelihoods and is inexorably destroying
the remaining natural forest and marine habitats. The poor are paying the
highest price, both individually and collectively. The European Union therefore
calls for the effective implementation of a comprehensive national family
planning policy, promoting access to family planning methods."
While reproductive health advocates take heart in such
pronouncements by foreign agencies, none of them are holding their breath for
the Arroyo administration to be moved to action on the population front. For
better or for worse, there is no question about this administration’s firm
commitment to the extremists of the Catholic right.
There is no better illustration of this than the appointment
of a Luddite pro-lifer as head of the government agency in charge of the
environment and natural resources. An environmental agency head that denies the
close links between environmental degradation and high population growth rates
cannot be expected to effectively face the gravest challenge that has faced
mankind to date – that of global warming resulting from human activity.
Malacañang’s concern for poor Filipinos, especially women and children, is
limited to lip-service about the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals.
What else can be concluded from the fact that the individual who presided over
the imposition of great suffering on poor Manila residents who needed
reproductive health services is now in charge of protecting the nation’s
environment and natural resources from the depredations of the wealthy few?
