Richard Nixon’s legacy

I know it is a cliché to write about East meets West, but I think this theme is the widest perspective to interpret current events. This is true especially for Filipinos who are caught between these two cultures everyday of their lives. Create an imbalance with these two aspects and the Filipino mind becomes upset.

The conflict over Scarborough Shoal is a good example. Our Christianity and political culture may come from the West, but our practical living owes much to Chinese trade. Who has not heard of 168 DB? Without Chinese production, middle class homes would not be able to afford washing machines, ovens, air conditioners — all staple furniture.

Not surprisingly when trouble struck at Scarborough Shoal there was no widespread sympathy for aggressive war-mongering except in mainstream media which bullhorns the government’s foreign policy. Even the Filipino fishermen in Scarborough Shoal were upset because they said this was common fishing ground for both Chinese and Filipinos for generations.

*      *      *

With just days before 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China that convenes on Nov. 8 in Beijing, and the US presidential elections in the coming week, I would retrace Nixon’s visit to China 40 years ago. 

I remember the day in February 1972 because family and friends were all around the TV set cheering the event. I consider myself more or less politically literate but a brother sitting close to me who could not care less about politics said, “Magaling ito sa atin. Hindi na tayo mamatahin ng mga puti. Kasama tayo sa pagdangal ng isang Amerikanong pangulo sa Tsina” (This is good for us because we share in the honor when an American President visits China). I would never forget what he said because this was an instinctive, apolitical reaction to the visit.

*      *      *

From the website of Center for American Progress Fund, I share excerpts from an insightful article by Jacob Stokes and Nina Hachigian. They wrote:

“Today marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s historic trip to China, a bold feat of diplomacy that changed the strategic orientation of two superpowers.

“That milestone should prompt policymakers today to consider, as President Nixon did then, both the challenges and the opportunities inherent in the US-China relationship. While progressives demonstrate a capacity to look at both, today’s conservatives tend to focus solely on the challenges and offer shortsighted responses.”

Consider the US presidential candidates’ policies towards China. Republican candidates have spelled out actions they will take if elected against China that could lead to a trade war.

“In contrast, the Obama administration’s approach is steady, clear-eyed, and focused on results. The administration’s bilateral relationship with China focuses on three objectives: building areas of cooperation; dealing directly and consistently with differences; and managing problems,” wrote Stokes and Hachigian.

They point to the Obama administration’s work “to build a regional strategy in Asia, in close cooperation with friends and allies, to ensure that as China grows, it contributes to peace and stability and follows the rules of the international system.”

“This progressive stance offers the best approach to dealing with China. The reason: For the foreseeable future, China will be both a partner and a rival. Our policymakers in the executive and legislative branches have to play the long game, ensuring our strategies vis-à-vis China make sense not only for this week and this year but also for this decade and beyond. Fostering a working relationship with China requires a steady hand and a concerted effort to refrain from overheated tirades and knee-jerk responses.”

(That brings us to Philippine foreign policy. It seemed to have followed the Republican rather than the Democratic party platform vis-à-vis China.)

“Steady US-China relations will also promote stability in the Asia-Pacific region and security for the global commons. And it will enable both nations to help address transnational problems such as climate change, pandemic disease, energy security, and terrorism. The challenge for the United States is to work with China’s leaders and the Chinese people to press them to make responsible choices that contribute to stability, prosperity, peace, and respect for human rights.”

From the article, I was surprised to know that the attitudes of ordinary Americans and Filipinos on China are not very different.

“For their part, the American people do not want an antagonistic relationship with China. In a poll conducted at the end of 2011, 7 out of 10 US respondents said strong relations between the United States and China are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very} important. While Americans are rightly concerned with Chinese economic policies, when asked to choose in a 2010 poll whether to undertake friendly cooperation and engagement with China rather than actively working to limit the growth of China’s power, more than two-thirds of those surveyed thought that the United States should pursue friendly engagement.”

China has its own problems. The article refers to “China’s shocking, disastrous lack of clean water. It faces a potentially devastating real-estate bubble. It has a future aging crisis that’s been called a ‘demographic tsunami.’ And then there’s China’s political system, which is brittle and riddled with corruption.”

Western media tend to dwell on China’s problems especially on ‘suppression’. The suppression is there but it is not the only reality the Chinese needs to deal with.

Officials have been brutally suppressing any challenge to their authority that threatens to escalate — artists, lawyers, academics, and others have been targeted.

While these actions are loathsome, in the broad strategic realm, America should not seek to begin another Cold War or “contain” China. In fact, “only China can contain China,” observes Joseph Nye, the former dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, by engaging in behavior that undermines the security of the region.

This point is crucial — it means that “China’s own behavior will determine whether other nations in the region and around the world will celebrate or defend against China’s rise.”

“The way forward for the United States is to combine strong and forward-looking bonds with our Asian allies old and new with a strong relationship with China. The United States should welcome China’s rise while at the same time insisting that China adhere to internationally accepted rules and norms of behavior at home and abroad.”

It is ironic that while it was a Republican President Richard Nixon who “had the strategic foresight to understand, no amount of posturing can make China go away,” the Republicans today do not understand his legacy.