Will the Filipino try its best to go beyond the dictates of Beijing and Wall Street?

Will the Filipino try its best to go beyond the dictates of Beijing and Wall Street? 

(Or “thoughts after dilemma for Filipino Nationalists after EDCA and China”)

Some weeks ago this writer was reading an opinion regarding “dilemma for nationalists”. For in a time the Philippines is facing problems over its sovereignty, it seems that today’s nationalism is again at the backburner with an administration, assuming to be “patriotic” in its promises, has renew its unequal agreements with the United States (US) through an updated “Enhance Defence Cooperation Agreement” (EDCA). And from that 2022 agreement, originally made since 2014 has includes plans to allow US armed forces to add five more locations chosen by the US to construct its military facilities within existing or to be constructed military camps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: two in Cagayan province, and one each in Isabela, Zambales and Palawan. 

And such accords are consistent with the Pentagon's goal of encircling China and prepositioning its forces within the so-called first-island chain, in which the US maintains military bases and ruling governments that are subordinate to US interests in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. The construction of these military facilities in the Philippines form part of the heightening war provocations against China which include increased presence of American naval forces in the western and eastern Philippine seas, in the eastern Japanese seaboard and in the Taiwanese strait. 

Territory, nation, and state are the three major components of nationalism. For all three dimensions, Filipino nationalism has been marked by ambiguity. In terms of state-building, the government has struggled to impose effective national sovereignty despite achieved de facto independence from the US after the war and in early 1990s after Subic and Clark handover. Filipinos are also divided as a political community ("nation") along ethno-linguistic lines, not to mention political families ruling and squabbling over regions as fiefdoms. And in terms of geography, the Philippines is a sprawling archipelago rather than a single landmass, which has become a highly charged political issue with its Chinese neighbour in light of the Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands dispute in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

But there are times people dismiss Filipino nationalism as idyllic in these modern times, as people think that Filipino nationalism has been anti-American ever since. Be it because of its history from 1898 to that of current events after 1946 and 1992, of unequal agreements to cases of sexual harassments, this anti-American nature has continue to resonate even in this current situation where the enemy is about an expanding China. Of course, there are people who despite trying to maintain its patriotism but this time “begging to differ” by claiming that this anti-American rhetoric is to be at the backburner regardless of these existing truths, with China that has forcefully and illegally deprived the Philippines of some of its territories. 

Indeed, with an expansionist China would say that the country that usually takes its pride on its artists as a source of nationalism suddenly change its tone and instead ran towards its former colonial master in the name of “the free world”. Sounds cold war isn’t it? There are times these people mum as protesters demand justice after cases involving US military servicemen to that of a US Navy boat destroying a coral reef in the West Philippine Sea, yet crying red as protesters also demanding national sovereignty over the contested isles in that same West Philippine Sea! That by letting nationalism, no matter how anti-American it is in the backburner all in favour of wholesale globalisation for years, with unjust agreements signed whether it is American, Chinese, Japanese thinking all these meant development and peace, in exchange for being subservient and its enforced hopelessness. The updated EDCA of 2022 that supplanted its 2014 original and its earlier “Visiting Forces Agreement” reminds of the “Mutual Bases Treaty” of the past; same as that of economic agreements with the Chinese under the past Duterte administration that would lead to debt traps at its worst, worse, it was Chinese money that funded the controversial Kaliwa dam that could flood Dumagat communities and mountains while claiming that is for “national development”! Even the soil used in building China’s artificial islands is itself coming from Filipino mountains, making those artificial isles Filipino than that of Chinese over a Filipino sea.

***

And in speaking of being anti-American in the face of growing Chinese threat, does it follow that Filipino nationalists protesting in front of the US Embassy as "pro-China" given the talk about how anti-American they are? No matter how these “beg to differ” kind of “patriots” yet limited in their perspective, reading Mao Zedong does not automatically make someone pro-Chinese, so in that case, does worshipping Jesus Christ and reading the Bible automatically make someone pro-Israel as well? As far as a concerned knows is that those who protest against unjust agreements with the United States are also against China too- not just because of struggle for sovereignty over Scarborough and the Spratlys, but also for the fishermen and its right to fish over the West Philippine Sea, and also against the unequal economic agreements that meant chances of debt traps as what happened in Africa and in Sri Lanka! Again they do read Mao Zedong or even Sun Tzu, but does reading from these men makes them pro-Chinese as reading Alexander Hamilton would make one pro-American? 

Anyhow, from their perspective, a worried patriot asks: If Filipinos want to defend themselves as a nation, then when will they give up their forced hopelessness? Should Filipino nationalism be confined to cultural identitarianism, as demonstrated by promoting national attire and carrying out local activities to appreciate tourists? Or going beyond and start rolling sleeves and build modern and stronger foundations an independent nation should have ever since? It had the chance to seriously consider industrialisation during Garcia's administration in order to support his "Filipino first" policy, but detractors instead accuse the idea of industrialisation as supporting the oligarchy while remaining silent about the unfair agreements his foreign overlords from Wall Street imposed on the nation. Nowadays it’s not about Wall Street, but also from Beijing who can dictate those from Malabon! It's absurd, isn't it? In addition, even Americans themselves are prepared to renounce their role as global policemen in favour of prioritising their own national interests, specifically the protection of their jobs and businesses and the maintenance of their own homeland security, as opposed to interfering in the issues of others, whether it be China or the Ukraine! Even Taiwan, in trying to be the “legitimate China” is trying its “best” to stand on its own despite minimal US military aid- including that of making its own plane and tank, while its southern neighbor treats its own local manufacturers (such as Steelcraft or those from Danao) a showcase of their “self reliance” while depending on outside aid.

Perhaps, faced with an ever growing Chinese expansionism, and that of unequal agreements brought by the Americans, this note expect those people rather willing to put nationalism at the backburner thinking that is impractical to be a patriot, and instead choosing “the lesser evil” such as that of representing “the free world”. But will a true patriot just accept it that way? Even Koreans and Japanese have enough of being seen as Yankee stooges and instead trying to prove themselves in the face of growing Chinese threat. From their examples would say that far as concerned patriot knows is that better to give up that enforced hopelessness brought by the very order and start rolling sleeves, forge, plough, and build this still developing nation as what supposed to be since 1898 or 1946. Yes, the country has enjoyed the fruits of modern life from cellphones to skyscrapers thanks to those foreigners, but doesn’t mean problems as old as the carabao-driven plough has long forgone, what more its desire to stand on its own and having its place in the sun. 

The question is, will the Filipino try its best to go beyond the dictates of Beijing and Wall Street? 

“God defend our homeland”

“God defend our homeland”

Words: P. S.

Melody: J. J. Woods

God of nations restless being 

Hear our plea and our hopes bring 

Grant our prayers and give us grace 

And defend our land and race 

Guard Orient’s majestic pearl 

From the strife and of peril 

May heavens respond thy appeal: 

God defend our homeland. 

Folks of different colour and creed 

All sworn as one to fulfill our deed 

In this home chosen and loved 

Paid by mind sinew and blood 

O Lord bless this cherished place 

Amidst trials we folks must face 

Keep us free like our sun, stars raised: 

God defend our homeland 

Keep our home in beauty and truth 

And in virtues instill in our youth 

Like our heroes and martyrs past 

We will keep thy lessons last 

To the sun, stars hope we aspire 

In this nation forged in fire 

Accept this plea o Lord to we admire: 

God defend our homeland

“When his words were pointing against the messenger himself”

“When his words were pointing against the messenger himself”

It is not surprising if the “Revolution” in EDSA was also itself a product of Marcos’s own words. Be it the desire for Political Liberation, Economic Emancipation, and of Social Concord, his words were rather pointing against himself as the people themselves were trying their best to shift from the politics of personality towards politics of principle. 

However, despite change of leadership and even changing the constitution this doesn’t make way for the changes people desired, let alone to hear them trying to express in the spirit of having freedom and democracy in the country. Wages remained low, prices continue to increase, Of course these people who marched and demand major social changes in the streets are also engaging in gainful work in order to assure a life worthy of dignity, but reality becomes otherwise as society itself is an arena wherein exploitation and survival as its truths- as seen by today’s subservience to neoliberal capitalism, globalisation, and a government forcing people to pay taxes to pay debts. Marcos and his successors did preach alot of “nationalism” as if to placate the feelings of the people, but will the people get contented in the superficial as promoted by the administration? 

Perhaps society forgot that the people didn’t oust Marcos for the sake of ousting him and his circle; for it was itself a product of an irreversible process that’s sweeping the developing world- whose demands both morally and historically, the mitigation if not the elimination of mass poverty, injustice, want, ignorance and illnesses, which can be accomplished by an empowered populace and in turn transformation of societies into adequate environments for development. Again, Marcos said that just to claim “a new society” takes place in the country, but the situation becomes otherwise as the very administration itself sworn to upheld the social order people detest with. Having one oligarch, despotic landlord or warlord for another, while rephrasing existing reforms and laws if necessary to show that change has undergone. 

That until today remains a “standard operating procedure” regardless of denials. Of course they would say that “no democracy can be authentic if it the captive of an oligarchy whose interests are at cross purposes with those of the majority”, but again becomes otherwise the way Marcos dismantled the old congress to destroy the accumulation of privilege, corruption, and oligarchic captivity- yet his Batasang Pambansa consists of those from the old order itself, happened to be supporting Marcos and Marcos provide them the privileges he himself “sworn to remove it” if not playing one clique after another. And these traits remained even after 1986 until present. 

In one of Marcos’s notes he said about the need for “capitalism with a human face”, but reality shows that capitalism has no conscience let alone pretending to have one. There are those who promote fair trade even under capitalism, but there are also those who simply riding in it and claiming they’re promoting fairness and justice while obviously exploiting, hence corrupting the very nature of fair trade or any idea that tries to give capitalism a semblance of fairness and justice. Marcos would even show that “capitalism with a human face” as better than that of welfare statism or any other alternative idea - no wonder why the budget being spent on edifice complexes as a showcase of “development”, initially eschewing need for mass housing, better healthcare and education, only to be needed as political leverages and in exchange for loyalties. The trade and loan agreements that claiming to be for national development during his time and those of his successors brought short term growth that turned out to be bubbles waiting to be bursted and thus affecting every walk of life as it pays every peso for it. 

For sure loyalists strongly disagree in this note given their strong support towards the past administration and its present day counterpart. The current administration promised to make the country great as that of the past administration with its promise of change. But find it ironic that they themselves adhere to personality based form of politics than seriously adhering to their idol’s so-called desire for a politics of principle. On second thought since they wished for radical changes, the problem is does radical changes limit to that of top to bottom decrees? Of pressing need for constitutional amendments? They hated oligarchs yes, but did they talk about the need to remove the very order that benefited the oligarch? Or just because that oligarch happened to be in an opposition against their idol? 

For sure there are a lot of questions to answer, but to cut this note short the need for a politics of principle is in fact manifested through an empowered populace- and not from self-proclaimed leaders whose intent is to perpetuate power while claiming to be improving the well being of the people. After all, of what is politics of principle if reality shows its otherwise? As far as a concerned person knows was that the call for land reform, national industrialisation, an end to unequal agreements, freeing political prisoners, freedom of press, speech, and expression, and self determination for national minorities is itself the struggles for economic emancipation, political liberation, and social concord- and these doesn’t simply end in EDSA, Mendiola, or even in the mountains of Cordillera. 

For as ever concerned folk are still taking some time to seek truth from facts as the order’s narrative is countered by its inconvenient facts, and if time comes, a time of reckoning against an ever rotting order may occur once again.