Learning Task/Activity 2.

Name: Caryl Anne D. Cagara Instructor: Merry Jean Caparas

Offering No: M298 Date: 04/05/23

In 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte threatened to pull out from the United Nations because of
the UN’s criticism on his controversial “war on drugs”. Duterte did not care about the criticism
and instead lambasted the UN for failing to solve many social problems in Africa and the Middle
East. If you were on the shoes of President Duterte, what kind of reaction would you have if
some UN Personalities would criticize your domestic policies?

Different countries come with different perspectives, ideologies, and methods of what
seemed to be ideal for their countries. In these differences, disparities arose and challenges to
global governance surfaced specific to militarization, either to dominate other countries or avoid
getting dominated. Terrorism is one of the precursors of militarization and was addressed
through military actions that only seemed to add more to the problem itself. With all of these
combined, a better way to govern the world must step into action by addressing human security,
equality, sustainable development, and peace appropriately.

If I were in the shoes of former President Duterte, I would have considered the criticism
of the UN personalities and weighed their statements and judgments to draw conclusions from it
if they have a point to be considered. As a public figure, any of my statements, political
decisions, and ideologies would be subjected to criticism as I am the leader of the country,
which means the welfare of the country is in my hands. I would also criticize their judgments and
ask myself. What is the common ground of their statements? What are the conflicting interests
and values? With that, I will have a run down on my domestic policies and weigh their benefits
and risks. Do the benefits outweigh the risks, or is it the other way around? My decisions would
majorly impact the country. I must accept that innumerable eyes would observe my principles
and capabilities of what kind of president I would be. Moreover, international law and global
governance were for a reason: to serve as the “foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in
the world" and "to contribute to peace and security by cultivating cooperation among
nations through education, science, and culture to further universal respect for justice,
the rule of law and the basic freedoms and civil rights upheld for the world's peoples,
without distinction of race, sex, language or religion" as mentioned in the learning material.

To wrap it up, I would be acceptable to any criticism as it will always automatically be

part of an influential figure who holds much power. To reflect and weigh on their judgments, but
never heavily rely on their criticism to develop domestic policies and decisions for the country.
After all, being a president means being aware of the significant problems, being concerned
about the well-being of the country, and being open-minded to diverse ideologies and mindsets.