"When fighting for sovereignty demands unity, and in unity demands principles"

"When fighting for sovereignty demands unity, 

and in unity demands principles"

(Or: "Thoughts after national sovereignty in the face of Sino-American hostility")

As time passes, Filipinos face risks to their national sovereignty and security as territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea escalate, with China acting increasingly aggressively and hostilely. 

This threat from the mainland demonstrates the former's complete disregard for the International Arbitral Tribunal's 2-16 ruling in favor of the Philippines in claiming the disputed West Philippine Sea, including the Kalayaan group and the Panatag shoal, further forcing the country to allow the United States and its armed forces to use the country as a springboard for war provocations and preparations against China.

For sure it is a common perception that Filipinos would chose to be sided with its former colonizer, being its "benefactor" for decades, providing the country with their interpretation of "democracy" and "freedom"- and thus willing to disregard the atrocities of the past in favour of being a little brown brother that's obedient to his white elder.

However, such inconvenient realities diminishes the idyllic view of the Filipino. The United States government and military, as well as the Chinese showed utter contempt for Philippines' sovereignty and security as both showcase its power. Again, the Filipino keeps on running on its benefactor Uncle Sam for support as large scale war exercises conducted on Philippine land and territorial waters compliments the saber rattling of the Chinese especially in the disputed West Philippine Sea. 

But is the United States really on the side of the Filipinos as most think of with all the idyllic "making the world safe for democracy"? Or having the same old transactional setting with policymakers imposing unjust schemes to its vassal? Not surprising that most Filipinos can't get away from the Cold War as the possible war with China means a "battle for freedom and democracy" even it isn't- what more it doesn't matter when the military exercises becomes a license for disrupting the livelihood of tens of thousands of people to that of a total disregard for the environment with rockets being fired, bombs being exploded and US warships dumping its toxic waste on Philippine waters. Even the scheming Chinese does the same thing, trying to appear friendly to Filipinos with promises of "development" that in turn leads to debt traps. Yet these same Chinese has aggrieved the Filipino people by denying Filipino fishermen access from their traditional and shared fishing grounds in Panatag Shoal. It has also water-bombed Philippine Coast Guard and civilian vessels, claiming their “supply missions” were violating its “gentleman’s agreement” with the Duterte and Marcos regimes. And Cold War hysterics would even babble again the same old anticommunist tirade despite seeing China's message nothing to do with communism or revolution!   

Still reeking of that American "Occidentosis", the Philippines continues to present itself as a little brown brother to its big anglosaxon elder. Regardless of its inconvenient history and current events that still linger, most of the Filipinos are willing to disregard, or should say "move on" from both the past and the inconvenient truth as Uncle Sam's promise of "making the world safe for democracy" resonates in the minds of an average Juan.

Especially in this growing Chinese threat, it is not surprising if cold war-like hysteria be played whether it is red scare or some xenophobia. And in speaking of that "cold war" then of course the Philippines would make some broad effort to confront the Chinese government and “win the new Cold War" with the blessings and assistance of its western master, claiming that the possible conflict against China as more than just defending sovereignty but of "making the world safe for democracy." Of course, people desired peace and goodwill with the Chinese as that of the Americans, but what type of peace did the Chinese seek? Clearly, they want the Philippines to behave like a vassal the way United States does, claiming the islands, shoals, and a portion of the sea as "theirs". They have Filipinos to kick around most of the time taking "pleasure" to chase fishermen in their small vessels, target coast guard ships with lasers and water cannons, block supply ships heading for Ayungin shoal or the Kalayaan group, and ram the most vulnerable ones in the name of their "nine dash line" claim. 

But this matter becomes more than just the sea- but of influencing people. The past Duterte administration attests to that in showing Chinese influence in policy. Its apologists, by claiming preserving relations not just disregard national sovereignty but also entering a "gentleman's agreement" claiming this would not interfere with delivering supplies to the disputed area in exchange for giving up claims "in the name of amity", what more to see mainlanders engaging in illicit businesses, even using politicians and businessmen to influence their own circles in favour of the other side- especially during the Duterte era wherein national sovereignty was almost disregarded in favour of some superficial "amity" supported with loans. Obviously, Duterte's foreign policy was rooted on the regime's focus on local matters if not limiting foreign relations to that of "trade and investment", that by pretending having an "independent foreign policy" in its pretentious form means no other country or supranational entity such as the United Nations to "make mess" in the country's local matter- such as that of its "war on drugs" to that of "war against the rebels/opposition", and yet willing to accommodate towards big imperialists United States and China especially for defence and "development"- even it meant loans and unjust policies. 

That by having a "gentleman's agreement" with the Chinese bigwigs meant "peace and amity" in the minds of his supporters, claiming that China's offer was better than those from the United States- or is the latter's offer better than China's? "which is which" is the "gentleman's agreement" towards the Philippines sounds "gentlemanly" despite its obvious master to vassal nature of both agreements from China and the United States? 

And yet, since the ideal is to make world safe for that "democracy" then how come internal hostility is an inevitable byproduct of this outlook? No problem that with the current issue of Chinese crime syndicates and its illicit operations in the country it has to be investigated and resolved, what more asserting and defending the country particularly the West Philippine Sea and its islands and shoals, why need for some cold war hysteria just to "make the world safe for democracy"? Is it really for "democracy" or just neoliberal capitalism with its agreements being seen as norms and mores to observe? "red" China today is but a fading pink, it has lost its revolutionary glow, the way people hear "getting rich is glorious" to justify their unscrupulous acts than "serve the people"! Is Xi Jinping preach revolution or socialism to uplift the downtrodden not just China but around the world? Nope! But for the cold war hysterics, that modern China is the same China branded as a bogeyman. 

Again, wouldn't be surprised that with all these still smacks of reeking occidentosis as policies continue to lean towards to the west, to the wall street and its banksters, to the military-industrial complex, all in connivance with local bureaucrats, the modern latifundias, and the military officers altogether consolidating a rotten social order. 

***

Some people tend to say that idealism is not consistent with reality, that not all ideas are applicable in changing conditions. Of course there are those who strongly reject this the way people demand a country that's rooted in principle, of a people having character driven by both intellect and morality and thus serving as a foundation of upholding national dignity especially in the face of looming crisis.  

And contrary to that of the establishment and its pretentious views, people wanted to play a major role in running national affairs and managing the country- and this somehow is an example of democracy. They also want to make societal progress as well as that political and economic independence, but under the current establishment? Quite doubtful knowing that the current establishment pretends to be patriotic or "pro-people" while keeping firm in their interests. They would dismiss people's demands as idyllic if not imaginative just to keep firm in their entrenched interests. But the quest for reviving the nation includes meeting the just demands of the people. These demands are the realities of the society and they are completely in line with idealism- the very same idealism that's dismissed as fantasy by those claiming to be "patriotic" or "principled" yet willing to submit to the whims of exploiters be it local or foreign. And these exploiters and disenfranchisers are lying. They are not the people nor the international community. This is a reality. 

As in the past the country has faced with a few arrogant governments and powers. China and the United States done much carrots and sticks to snare people with sugarcoated promises and exploit them with unjust policies. China underestimates the country's claim over the disputed West Philippine Sea while the Americans exploiting them with promises of security! Is this the country's yearning for peace and development when two "superpowers" treating the country as a vassal that's being kicked to and fro? This is a reality. It is in front of everyone's eyes that be it debt traps on the guise of "development", rape cases by visiting soldiers on the guise of "security", exploiting lands and people with various policies, of personalities claiming to be "for the people" while signing agreements promising kickbacks and lump sum of money, even those with questionable about their identities, actions, and of their loyalties, are all these brought amity especially in the face of continuing crisis? Again this is a reality.  

Such realities would say that the Philippines is still in a continuing past. The establishment speaks of a future for them but by making it a reality coming from a people is against their narrative. The truth is that their opposition is because of the essence of an unfinished revolution and the existence of those who adhere in it: that for the establishment the nation's independence is already fulfilled with the flag being waved and the anthem being sung, but the majority of those who wished for independence find it not enough: farmers demand land, workers demand just wage, professionals demand rights to speech, press, and expression, families wanted their children better education and welfare, people wanted social rights alongside national redemption- and these are more than the flag being flown alone. 

Perhaps, the struggle for national independence is still more than just a celebration. True that the establishment would say there's a battle for a country to face, a future that needs to be taken, but for the people, especially the downtrodden, it demands an all out resistance- that neither from Beijing nor Washington, Shanghai Bund nor Wall Street would impose policies on them; while Apologists of the establishment would cry bad "oligarchs" or corrupt "politicians" to justify their stance that includes urging multinationals to exploit the country with lax or no regulations to offer - making a concerned think if they're really driven by "patriotism" or just sheer consolidation of interests at the expense of people's aspirations? 

Such concern demands unity, but such unity needs principle, and the commonality that cannot be undermined by some assuming as "powers that might be."  

Be Torchbearers, Builders, Fighters of a Nation's destiny!

Be Torchbearers, Builders, Fighters of a Nation's destiny!

Regardless of the changing times the youth has to uphold the ideals and aspirations of the nation and its people, of seeking truth frim facts and to assert the need of a national rejuvenation.  

For as youths as seen as the most active and energetic element, it is worthy to call then as hope and future of the nation and its people. True that with their passion and creativity the youth should be endowned with rare opportunities to achieve things and greater responsibiities to fulfill to make communities thrive, a nation to prosper, and families to enjoy its blessings.  

However, in this current order this note would say that the youth has really having a big task to fulfill. In a time that corrupt officials, cruel despots, of leaders whose self-interests prevailed over those of the people and the nation, it becomes a duty for the youth to expose and oppose them by any means necessarily. By looking back at history the ones called youthful and passionate have taken the weapon be it the pen or the gun to assert reforms and to inspire people, especially the downtrodden to revolt against oppressors local or foreign alike. It is the youth who, despite living dangerously has willing to jump into the abyss as necessarily in pursuit of freedom and justice to the country.  

But the passion and fire of the youth doesn't just limit to that of attacking the corrupt and of the despotic. Since the duty of the youth is to save the nation so is to be creative in promoting a future that the nation and its people truly deserves and benefits from it. The promotion of arts, the advancement of sciences, are driven by the need "to save the nation" from its decay whether being a vassal of bigger entities or from cruel despots who deprived the nation its right for self-determination and development. To quote Imam Khomeini, that "You, the young students and the rest of the youth, are my hope and the harbingers of good tidings. You, the masses of young people, the masses of students, are my hope." For they're "full of vigor and vitality, are in the bloom of life, like the at eight or nine in the morning" as Mao said, and with eagerness to learn and fight being "the hope of the future" as what Rizal expressed, why deny them the right to build, create, and fight for the country being cherished and loved but instead feeding them something that maketh the youth, family, community, and nation into ruin? Such deterioration of passion has created a generation of disinterested and exploitable beings, trapped in a cycle of a continuing past while few dared to resist just to take back the future from an exploiting and cruel order.  

Ironically, that order would parrot Rizal or any other personality expressing hopes on the present and future generations. But in seeing the inconveniences of the present, should these generations be contented in a cycle of being exploited? No! Like Rizal in his El Filibusterismo he asked if "Where are the young who must dedicate their roseate hours, their illusions and enthusiasm to the good of the country? Where are they who must generously spill their blood to wash away so much shame, so many crimes, so much abomination? Pure and spotless must be the victim for the holocaust to be acceptable. Where are you, you children who must embody the vigor of life that has fled from your veins, the purity of ideas that has become in our minds and the fire of enthusiasm that has gone out in our hearts? We await you, Oh youth! Come, we await you!" 

Sorry to make this note long, but the youth, with its passion, creativity, and thirst for knowledge, adventure, and real social and national change are themselves torchbearers, builders, and fighters of a nation's destiny.   

Fighting for the Working Classes means Nation Building for the opressed masses

Fighting for the Working Classes

means Nation Building for the opressed masses 

 By Kat Ulrike

For more than a century, Filipino workers, like all other working classes and toiling masses around the world, have continued to battle for their rights and ambitions in the face of unbearable conditions caused by the unparalleled global crisis and unjust policies imposed by interest-seekers. With its legitimate calls and in the face of various injustices, these labourers' hearts and minds have been strengthened by the desire to wage revolution and create a just society. 

 Especially in light of this continuing past wherein joblessness, unjust wages, illegal labour conditions, and workplace exploitation, workers have been forced to accept that profit-hungry multinationals and despotic oligarchs are in a "rat race" to accumulate more profits at the expense of the workers. 

 In addition, the imposition of unfair trade and investment liberalisation agreements to developing and underdeveloped countries allowed multinational exploiters in collusion with local counterparts to aggressively develop and exploit labour power through repression of wages, unjust working conditions, and suppression of rights. Policies like neoliberalism, deregulation, privatisation, and commercialization have been primarily directed against the working masses whose social, economic, and even political rights have been maimed to maximise surplus value from their labour power. 

 Even though the order's supporters deny this and talk about how workers are "contributors" in "shaping Philippines into a thriving and dynamic society" and how resilient they are, is this really their "support for the working masses" when their unjust policies subject the workers they praise to constant attacks, wages that are well below living standards, attacks on unions and other organisations, and silencing of those who demand the right to organise, speech, and express themselves using "insurgency" as its justification? Even with their generous earnings, they are unable to make ends meet, and unemployment has persisted despite government pledges to create jobs and provide "opportunities" that would help the working class. Even Labour laws being bragged by the authorities for "protecting workers" also been amended to favour the exploiter- subjecting workers to prolonged working hours, unpaid overtime, compressed work weeks, contractualisation, and other worse working conditions. 

 Bullshitries like those from the order, along with declining living conditions and a dramatic, unabated increase in the cost of goods and services, would suggest that workers cannot continue to be satisfied with the state of affairs. In terms of living conditions, children's education, food and nutrition, health care, and access to public utilities and services, workers and their families suffer from both quantitative and qualitatively lower levels. Filipino laborers and their families are heavily indebted and lack of savings. 

 And to think that the current order preaches "development" and claims "progress" like its predecessors, it has aggressively pursued policies that benefit foreign economic and military interests. Marcos, like his predecessors, has ignored workers' demands for wage rises in order to maintain his regime's policy of cheap labour as a major component in his anti-national push to curry favour international banksters and investors. What kind of development the current administration is babbling about? Preaching "nationalism" while shunning workers and the masses's demands? Even willing to amend the current constitution to to reinforce its neoliberal policies that will further subject Filipino workers to greater oppression and exploitation! Of course, its supporters claim about neoliberalism can bring "development" and "cheap products", while blaming protectionism for all the woes the country has, but, with all the existing neoliberal policies that exploit and disenfranchise rather than benefit or benefit people, why amend the economic provisions that rather enshrines the same exploitative policies especially in a developing country? 

 Again, the current order will try best to consolidate interests. Since they strongly opposed the worker's demand for genuine social justice and national emancipation political repression in the name of "counterinsurgency" has been intensified. As in the past, labour leaders and organisers, activists, even concerned folks are subjected to surveillance, harassments, arrests, abductions and extrajudicial killings perpetrated by military and police agents. However, this domestic repression towards patriots also meant kowtowing to foreign interests as well- whereas the past administration served China whilst allowing agreements with the United States, the current chose to serve the latter as it allows its military forces to increase their presence and strengthen their foothold on the country. The "Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement", like its earlier "Visting Forces Agreement" and other related pacts intensifies saber rattling against China while the latter has its economic and trade agreements. And Marcos, who preaches "defending sovereignty" with American aid is the same Marcos who also signed agreements with Xi Jinping a year ago!

 Regardless of the statements brought by the order and its supporters, or even that of its token "opposition", the Filipino, whose majority is that of the working class and toiling masses, have to stand up against the dicates whether from Wall Street, Shanghai Bund, or others wanting to impose unjust policies against the folk. For sure this message would say "this is not about the workers and praising for their hard work" not knowing that the worker who does most of nation building is the same worker who end having low salaries, facing higher costs of living, end unemployed, what more deprived of right to express and organise for national sovereignty and social rights, this event, which originally meant to commemorate the martyrs of those fighting for social rights should reignite the reason why workers in the country and in abroad shouldn't just "celebrate" but also to fight and take back the fruits of hard work, the future that's deprived by those claiming to be "at their side". Why? Should Labour day is all about praising the workers and not supporting just causes even if goes beyond the parameter? It is not surprising that there are those who claim “their protest is all but noise” and “nothing to do with the workers” especially when these toiling folks marched over Manila and facing the police. Of course their calls are as just as opposed to the paper promises of those assuming to be “concerned”, giving pittance to those who demand a wage livable in the face of continuing crisis. 

Those “critics” would even cry “subversion”, if not “terrorism” to those clamouring for social rights as that of national sovereignty- is it because Filipino nationalism becomes that of a working class one? Or just because there Filipino nationalists who able to study some “subversive” works like Marx or Lenin? Isabelo De Los Reyes, known for being a Filipino Marxist, sought that in a democratic Philippines, the future of the nation belongs to the peasants and workers, “because they are the most numerous class.” Hence, class character and national character and the demands of classes and nation are inseparable from each other- and since fighting for the working class is also nation building then it is, especially in a country that tries to stand up and say “neither from Wall Street nor Shanghai Bund to dictate what a nation should be”; and that a nation’s patrimony, its sovereignty be strongly defended by its very people, what more making nationalism truly benefits the community and its folk. 

 For in the face of worsening forms of exploitation and economic conditions, heightened political repression, the current administration's outright subservience to US imperialism, and in the face of threats from China's imperialism, the Filipino working class movement must take a more prominent role in the the struggle for national and social liberation. This continuing past of domestic repression and subservience to interests, whether by force of arms or "debt traps" cannot stop the working class from fighting for rights and taking back future of having a better nation.