Panatag, Kalayaan, Chinese vessels and US troops: Reflections on the near-conflict experience in Filipino, Chinese and American relations

Last time, Filipinos sought news about Akbayan's protest in Chinese Embassy in Manila.

Those protests were made in response to the intrusion of Chinese forces in Kalayaan group of islands, and lately in Panatag island, also known as Scarborough shoal by many.

However, it seemed that as Akbayan were protesting in that said embassy, most are rather ridiculing the role of National Democrats in the matter involving Kalayaan group and Panatag island. As the latter tend to focus entirely on the presence of American troops, of fighting against Military-sponsored terrorism and rampant poverty in the archipelago, Akbayan and other sponsored groups, particularly the far-right, using National pride as its forefront of its action yet blind in regards to American presence in the isles rather assail the National Democratic movement as a "Chinese Stooge" or any other negative sentiment such as the never-ending "Red Scare" tactic.

But if the National Democrats, or "Maoists" as what Akbayan and the far-right rant about and thinking that they are pro-China or what, then how come the Communist Party of China seemed to be unsupportive of its "Filipino allies?" As according to the Philippine Daily Inquirer last 27, December 2011:

"The 90-year-old CPC has “good relations” with mainstream political parties in the Philippines, like the Liberal Party, President Benigno Aquino III’s political group, as well as the Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, Nationalist People’s Coalition, Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, and the Partido ng Masang Pilipino..."

CPC itself said so that they are supporting mainstream political parties the way they had an embassy in Manila and having good relations through culture and trade, yet how come most tend to say that the Chinese "Communists" are still supporting CPP? Isn't it quite desperate to think of that most tend to parrot a cold-war justification despite seeing Chinese "Communists" talking with Liberals, Conservatives, Populists than the Communists whom they supposedly align with.

And since the CPC-controlled mainland is venting off modern-day irredentism such those of Kalayaan group and Panatag Island, why not also take claims on the whole of Luzon? Quite thinking that they use historical references over and over, of telling that Panatag Island as their Huangyan, they should have said that Luzon was known as Lu Song 吕宋 and ruled by a Chinese, and having tributaries such as as what Jose Maria Sison said:

"Chinese historical claims since ancient times amount to an absurdity as this would be like Italy claiming as its sovereign possession all areas previously occupied by the Roman empire. The name China Sea was invented by European cartographers and should not lead anyone to think that the entire sea belongs to China. In the same vein, neither does the entire Indian Ocean belong to India."

For sure everyone would dare to ridicule a Maoist who criticize a country whose main tenet is Maoism. But still, Professor Sison, also a patriot that uses geopolitics in that message rather speaks the claim of the Philippines over Panatag Island and Kalayaan Group the way the far-right speaks of claiming Sabah!

But then, most rather speak over and over using Cold War-era ideology basis as pretext of the conflict between Philippines and China rather than realpolitik. The Cold War hysteria of using Democracy over Communism, of blaming Red China for ills such as insurgency, undermines relationship between China and the Philippine Republic regardless of seeing China's "Communists" having close relations with the Liberals, Conservatives, Populists. Remember NBN-ZTE deal during the Arroyo regime?

And as for China, it prehaps not recalling the agreements especially those from the Bandung Conference in favor of irridentism from the use of threat to its membership in the World Economic Forum and World Trade Organization same as the United States. To recall the agreement, here it goes:

1.Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations

2.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations

3.Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small

4.Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country
5.Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations

6.(a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve any particular interests of the big powers (b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries

7.Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country

8.Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations

9.Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation

10.Respect for justice and international obligations.

This kind of agreement involves "Communist" and "Non-Communist" Nations joint together in Bandung, Indonesia. The late premier Chou Enlai even advocated it further the need for mutual coexistence between nations with different ideologies and non-alignment, so was the Philippines although it was and is undermined by relying on American-sponsored policies that undermines its membership in the Non-Aligned Movement.

Strange isn't it that since China reduced the agreement into a mere sheet of paper, the United States continues its presence in the Philippines through Military presence and the Philippines by merely contenting despite threatened by both countries, this writer would think that in what pretext of being contented despite threatened? Will it be the pretext of Trade? Foreign Investment? And if justified, then how come at the same time maintaining a Cold War attitude in a matter that requires observance based on Real and Geopolitik?

It shows the confusing stance of what the nation hath carried over for generations as observed.

And to think that while recognizing CPC-controlled China, of having trade and intercourse with them, of recognizing the Bandung Conference and other related agreements, then why most are rather still parroting cold-war, pre-Nixon justifications, this writer would rather think that since they are still maintaining a Cold War attitude over Realpolitik as its policy, of thinking that the CPC continues to support the CPP, then why not support the Guomindang (KMT) instead? Of cutting ties with the mainland and start making the Cultural office of the KMT-Controlled "Free" China (Taiwan) into an Embassy?

For sure most would say "better to support Taiwan than China" or any other idea that reminds of Martial Law and earlier American-sponsored ideas of yore-especially those who favor retention of American forces, of building military bases, and justify defense spending for corrupt, repressive and counter-productive purposes. While others tend to keep a policy that involves getting threatened while at the same time trading with both sides (US and China) of raw materials that somehow, idealistically speaking would make the Philippines strong.

Speaking of that "idealistically speaking " portion, this writer would say that the Philippines, in order to become strong, should require being self-reliant, and through it lies becoming non-aligned, including a stance involving a strong people's defense system and a self-reliant economy that would make the Philippines a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement that once led by Indonesia during Soekarno. Frankly, this kind of suggestion requires a mind of a Swiss, an ability of a Scandinavian, and a brawn and stubbornness of a Burmese to create a strong, self-reliant, neutral nation willing to counter such threats coming from both sides such as Red China and the United States.

Otherwise, expect a greater conflict that everyone is exited or threatened to think upon. Weird isn't it?