Nonetheless, a reaffirmation of keeping interests

Nonetheless, a reaffirmation of keeping interests

Notes after events surrounding the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit

And the people's assertion to break the shackles of interest
And neocolonial dependence

World leaders pose in their respective barongs
Photo courtesy of gmanetwork.com

The system and its apologetics are stared in disbelief, if not trying to counter with their words after walls in the major thoroughfares of the metro has been sprayed with the words urging to junk the Philippines's affiliation with the neoliberal-inclined "Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation" (APEC) if not a call to oppose the system.

And in the throroughfares of Manila and Pasay, riot policemen felt the anger of the majority despite attempts to push them with truncheons and spraying them with water from their water cannons. Like yesterday and the other day, these activists assert the same words as the sprayed walls.

These occasions were coinceded with the recent APEC summit in which the system has taken pride and its apologetics greatly appreciated. But amidst the pretensions of development it failed to appease many with proofs such as slow internet connections, traffic jams, to still failure to readress agrarian and  labor issues: of land and bread despite all its promises. It was the organised masses that took the lead in asserting their call, despite media outlets trying to malign them; and with their combined strength somehow enough to cower the ranks of the policemen no matter they afforded to fire them with water from their cannons and beat them with their sticks and pushing through their truncheons. 

Apologetics may still insist their optimistic stand when it comes to the recent summit and even neoliberalism in the Philippines, if not for the sake of opposing the protests with its blatant anti-left hysteria. But the continuing connivance between U.S. Imperialism and the present system lies exposing latter's pretention as nationalists, if not patriots. 

But regardless of the system's statements, the summit is nonetheless a reaffirmation of keeping interests, if not seeing the system's willingness to accept new agreements regardless of the people's strongerst opposition. Farmers continue to insist land reform while landlords willing to give way to corporate farming, workers call for wage increase while the business sector call for low wages, students urge an end to deregulation and commercialisation while educator-businessmen insisting the relevance of education trying up to those of cheap labor exports, and consumers complaining about rising costs of goods and services while compradore-bureaucrats can't even addressed their problem.

Admittingly speaking, by the time the Philippines has reclaimed its independence in 1946, it remains tied to the interests of the west. Independent as it appears yet its sovereignity remains limited. Like the Soviet Union over Czechoslovakia in the former eastern bloc, and the United States over its so-called "Banana Republics" in America Central, sovereignty is subordinated to the overall needs and interests of international interests such as the first world. Its agreements means reaffirming the country's description as agricultural and less, if not entirely uncapable of being economically independent via those of nationalist industrialisation alongside agrarian reform and scientific-patriotic instruction. The country has been exported its raw materials in exchange to those of processed if not semiprocessed goods, the country has been dependent on its diaspora's remittance and stubbornly insisting its people to join the massed ranks of diaspora all for remittances coming from their seasonal work as labourers, and worse, the country chose to submit to the whims all for pittances and redescribed as aid if not investment by its media outlets.

Sorry for those who speak on behalf of the system as they think they greatly benefited from it, such as modern goods and stuff enough to take pride with as individuals. Good it may be those modern, imported goods but does it require selling souls to the whims of others for the sake of these state-of-the-art stuff? True indeed that these countries are well-developed compared to a country with stunted development, but to keep follow still the neocolonial pattern of exporting every raw or semiprocessed goods for the sake of imported products does not guarantee progress and even independence, and since the system did afford to take pride in having a knowledgable and skilled populace, why not create industries to spend wisely the knowledge and skill as well as the resources the country used to take pride have? For sure even at once some apologetics wanted a semblance of economic independence the way they take pride "Filipino-made" phones and tablets that are actually imported from China and India. 

Again, despite the hypocritical complaints aired to its masters and posturings as "nationalist", the system's rabid obedience in all important orders of its masters is conspicuous as in the past. After all, is the system that made Buencamino or Paterno known for flag-waving yet kissing their master's arses, so is Aquino and his clique who uses the state for their interests that somehow adds criticism to its so-called "beloved subjects."

It may find agreebale some of the statements APEC has been made, but to create sustainable communities a nation has to create solid and stable foundations such as ending the centuries old bondage from the soil through a sound agrarian reform program, building new and strengthening existing industries for  manpower and rural development, of stronger safety nets for laborers and employees, an education and culture that is patriotic, scientific, and mass oriented in character, and others enough to really reclaim a nation's prestige and honour the way its neighbours in Asia had like Korea, the two Chinas, Vietnam, and Malaysia. 

Admittingly speaking, this person knows that nonetheless it is a reaffirmation of leaders involved to keep firm in their interests as members of the ruling class and gentries and to "cooperate" as possible. People may still continue being "optimistic" because of APEC or any other partnership agreements leading to international or transnational organisations, but incorrectly speaking, the world is a social pyramid as in this present society: the developed nations are those from above totally advanced with all its self-proclaimed feats, while the developing societies are most likely near below with few yet moving foundations yet still depending on the developed. And the underdeveloped? Below, having abundant natural resources and manpower yet little or no stronger economic foundations, totally dependent on the "aid" of the developed.

And the Philippines is in the middle between the latter two. Having little yet moving foundations, abundant in natural resources and manpower, yet still relying on the aid of developed countries with agreements "telling to remain as it is" if not "providing piecemeal improvements". Call it "in a transition"  as in any other society around the world, but in the end the Philippines is more likely a proletarian nation willing to lose its chains at having a country to win.

And agreements such as Trans-Pacific Partnership and groups like APEC does not guarantee development, but rather, reaffirming the world's social structure as a pyramid. Imagine the traffic brought by a system that can't even say no to its neighbours out of an illusory pride? Slow internet speed? The policies tailored to suit neoliberal-globalist-neocolonial demands? A system that can't even heed the genuine call of majority such as peace, land, bread, labour, and justice? Why is it these issues deeply affected countries whose citizens demand economic independence and social justice?

source: Anakbayan

Perhaps, Lin Biao may be right to use some of his thought, that the Philippines, as well as other developing and underdeveloped nations and societies, comprises the countryside of the world that is exploited by the developed "cities" of the world. The system may continue benefited from being expolited, that somehow enough to create disgust for past, present, and even future patriots and nationalists yearning for genuine independence, solidarity, and development amongst nations and societies.