"Celebrating independence by asserting genuine independence"
(Or "nationalism in the time of multinational occidentosis")
By Kat Ulrike
At first, this note bid greetings to the Filipino folk in celebrating the 126th Independence Day of this country, which signifies the liberation of the Philippines from Spanish rule.
While the Filipino people celebrate their independence, the country is dealing with issues that are making their fight for true sovereignty more intense. As international conflict and tension between nations like China, which has targeted the Philippines in disputes over territorial claims of the West Philippine Sea, and the United States, which has increased its military presence and activities in the nation, these manifested to advance its own geopolitical interests and economic stronghold in Southeast Asia, current threats to Philippine sovereignty evolved.
And it is not surprising that in the face of these events that the Philippines continues to remain stuck in its continuing past, a vassal between two big countries jousting for dominance in the asia-pacific region. China's aggressive claim over the country's territories has resulted in massive violations of people's rights in order to satisfy its agenda of becoming an imperialist power. These violations range from claiming the country's waters by arguing that the nine-dash line is a legitimate basis for ownership to infiltrating socio-economic activities and infringement on national policies. Meanwhile, the United States' persistent threat to a country's sovereignty through the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), and significant economic infiltration increases the likelihood that the nation will be used as a battlefield and continues to victimize people in support of its neoliberal agenda.
These situations would say that the country needs to reignite its patriotic sentiment that's more than the promotion of "all things Filipino" as that of Barong Tagalog and promoting personalities like Manny Pacquiao. The Nationalism that's forged by the heroes and martyrs of this continuing past cannot just be stunted by the sugarcoated promises of an order that clings to interests whilst pretending to be patriotic or nationalist. Despite being independent since 1946, the nation remained tied to its former coloniser what more its aggressive neighbour through unequal agreements, promising "development" one after the other despite obvious facts of debt traps and repression. And it is not surprising that both United States and China have made a multinational occidentosis that's downplaying the nation's right to self-determination and the will to develop its future according to its own direction.
Thus, this made the concerned ask, if this multinational westoxification on the pretense of "development" and "security" really benefited the nation? For sure the common Filipino have learned its history, as imperialism heightens the Filipino people’s marginalization and disenfranchisement which diminishes their ability to claim rights and dignity. The nation has benefited the blessings of western ideals, of development as that to freedom and democracy, and yet the presence of both imperialists hampers true national development and disbars from realizing a truly just and equitable society.
On other hand, this note find nothing wrong in admiring and adopting Western models and criteria in education, the arts, and culture; even heroes like Jose Rizal or Andres Bonifacio were influenced by the ideals from the west, that the Philippines was "western" in its foundations despite oriental in its ground; but, by depriving the nation its own quest for self-determination and instead remain as a passive market for Western goods and as pawn in Western geopolitics, of what is admiring the west? Does it mean that by enjoying modernity means depriving its own worth? That again, isn't it that westoxification? Or Occidentosis?
For sure there are those who disagree on this thought especially those who simply equate westernisation to reform and modernisation. Again true that the west brought developments to the developing east, but again does it mean the developing east should remain dependent on the developed west all despite generations of understanding how the west became "progressive"? Japan understood the ways of the west and had to apply it just "to make a rich nation and a strong army" to "beat the barbarians" using their perspective, but does it mean Japan had to be contented to the promises and plans of the west with its expanding markets? China and Vietnam had to learn and adopt the ways of the west in order to "self strengthen" only to be realised by breaking the shackles imposed by the old order- that the developed west benefited from these two countries and its weaknesses. Who wants a country to remain poor, impotent, an importer and consumer despite learning and seeing what the west has shown?
This is not some kind of an individual matter but a national one. Ordinary people may call it as "colonial mentality" that fondness for things foreign, what more western all at the expense of local talent and knowledge- simply because of a status quo that prefers to keep a country backward and agricultural "for the sake of international commerce, trade, and finance". "Critics" of the national system may blame oligarchs or "leftists" for the "backwardness" the country has to endure with "protectionist policies". And yet with the willingness to have unbridled neoliberal capitalism of the multinaitonal banksters to exploit and call it "reform" or even "modernisation" isn't it that occidentosis of a multinational/transnational variant? The banksters, the multinational conglomerates are also in connivance with the local exploiters who also benefited from neoliberal exploitation.
But does it also mean foreign investments be disregarded? This note also agrees with foreign investment so long as it is in accordance with just regulations (labour, environmental protection, etc.) to ensure real contributions to national development as opposed to the mainline view of promoting foreign investment-centric regimes, which expand enormously the rights of the foreign investor, and correspondingly diminish the controls that the host state may exercise on the investor.
This note serves as a reminder of the historical injustices that the Filipino people have faced, and it also strengthens the case for true national sovereignty—a state in which the interests of the people come first and no imperialist stands in the way of the nation's progress. This is not to say that the nation should return to an idealized, romanticized past; rather, to see a nation that should use tools, knowledge, and expertise to actually elevate the country, enhance its culture, and boost its economy—all while fostering a community that is a nation in the making.