Historical reasons for China's position

If you want to make sense of what the latest flare-up on the Spratlys is all about, you cannot rely on statements officials make through media, whether they’re Chinese, American or Filipino. It is a word war but what is the reality? In my opinion the Philippines is being used as a convenient pawn in a power struggle between China and the United States.

If that is the case then our efforts as Filipinos should be for self-preservation. I am more concerned that our government should understand that. The prospects for this kind of official reaction are not very bright. More educated Filipinos should take time and examine the way the narrative is developing. They should express themselves and be heard.

*      *      *

While Filipinos saber rattle and threaten the Chinese that Americans will help us in the event of a military attack, the Americans and the Chinese are talking to each other. They held their first round of consultations recently and both sides have said these consultations were “positive and beneficial”.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai and US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell co-chaired the closed-door meeting. It was, in the main, a follow up of earlier agreements between Chinese President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama when Hu visited the US recently. It is hoped that the Spratlys issue would be regarded in the same manner.

They talked among and about themselves on what is good for their countries. It is especially worth noting their efforts are for “creating a mechanism through which they can achieve a pattern of positive interaction in the Asia-Pacific region”. This cooperation will ensure the region’s stability and development necessary and that includes the Philippines.

With that as the background, we would do better than make belligerent statements like “we will not be bullied” or thank Americans for assuring us they will come to our aid if hostilities break out. It is not clear what they mean by that assurance. They are talking out of two sides of the mouth — one that says yes they will aid the Philippines, and the other that they will not take sides. Do you notice that although Malaysia is a claimant, it does not make noise about it? Wise.

China is the biggest trading partner of most countries in our region so it does not really help to challenge it with meaningless words.

*      *      *

 By the way we also had a flare-up of the Spratlys issue in the Arroyo administration in 2009. Even then China reiterated that dialogue is the best way to resolve the dispute among claimants of the islands.

At that time the dispute was revived because of the passage of the Baselines Law, which defines the Philippine territory to include the disputed islands. The law is in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

 The skirmishing came and went and I don’t remember that the Arroyo government made any statements about the US coming to our support if hostilities break out. It did just what needed to be done. We acted in step with the declaration of conduct signed in Cambodia in 2002 among claimants to be peaceful and harmonious. This was signed by China as well. Some nasty critics of the present government are saying that’s probably why the Americans would prefer a government like Aquino’s. They detested former President Arroyo for playing footsies with the Chinese.

*      *      *

 Frankly I think the issue can be brought down to historical and cultural factors. Historically, China considered itself civilized even before the West came to colonize Asia. It called the Western countries “barbarian” but the name-calling was in vain because by then the Western countries were richer and more powerful, no longer barbarian when they came. China was in turmoil internally and could not resist the ‘barbarian invasion’. That is the undertow that does not come up in the present belligerence. But it is there, as French author Fernand Braudel says will not vanish for a long time. We can place a time on events such as the Spratlys dispute but not what he calls the “longue duree” of past encounters between China and the West.

 China has since risen from the ashes and understandably would resent being dictated upon to share the hegemony they have gained after a long period of suffering and hard work. On the other hand America is a waning superpower but still in the throes of what it was once before China became an economic and political force to be reckoned with. China wants the issue settled within the region and by countries in the region without interference from the US. That is the root of the belligerence.

 But the Americans are not saying that to the Chinese, it is Filipinos who are. It is a sad fact of our colonial mindset. The Philippines, as it were is let loose to do that. After all, it has a claim.

 I am not sure that it will help to keep saying that the Americans will help us. This is an implied threat to China. We should deal with the Chinese but at the same time be aware of America’s own interest. Far more complicated than it is made to appear in media.

 How do we ride out through the complication? By recognizing that the US and China will work out their own problems about hegemony in the region regardless of what we want or think. If it wants to be assured of free passage in the South China Sea that is the maritime heartland of the region, it should use other ways. We talk to China about our claim and push for a regional solution. But we must keep in mind that Oriental sensitivity about face-saving comes into the picture. This, I think, is why China wants to lead in finding solutions.

*      *      *

 Early on I wrote about how Jean Monnet thought of a solution in a similar dispute between France and Germany that gave rise to the European Steel and Coal Community. As he said it was nothing if not revolutionary because the key was for the contending parties to pool themselves together through a higher authority. They became one under a higher authority instead of a squabbling many. That could work if China will initiate the process of forming a common higher authority.