"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."
