Part I
The country’s approach to equate our security and economic interests
with the US has made the country an oddball in Asia. The government’s
firming up of our position to stand behind the redefined US “Pivot Asia”
policy has consummated our role as the “funny man of Asia.” Many
Filipinos could only surmise that there is no single strand in that
policy we could point as beneficial to our interest, except to blindly
march along with canine devotion.
Geographically, there is no way for the Philippines to avoid dealing
with our giant neighbor. As a small country, we can only be realistic
in assessing our position correlative to our location and size based on
the “Five Principles for Peaceful Co-existence” enunciated by China’s
most distinguished diplomat, Chou En Lai. We can never assert a
chauvinistic approach in securing our claim over the disputed islands in
the now renamed “West Philippine Seas”.
For our claim of sovereignty to be appreciated by our people, we have
to define it along the lines of securing our physical existence and
economic survival. This means we have to accept the inescapable truth
that China is our neighbor, and could not avoid not interacting with
that country. Taking a pragmatic standpoint to resolving our problem has
become imperative because China has emerged as an economic superpower,
and it is to our interest that we cultivate even closer economic ties
with the Chinese.
The Philippines has a population of 100 million, while China has
1.354 billion. In 2012, the Philippines registered a $425.2 billion
GNP, while China has $12.44 trillion, thus making that country the
biggest economy in Asia, surpassing Japan that registered a $4.63
trillion. In trade, China now ranks as our third trading partner with
11.4 percent, while Japan leading with 14.2 percent, the US 13.2
percent. That remarkable increase was achieved by China in just over
two decades after it opened up its market to the World. China has
overtaken the US as the third largest trading partner of Asean, after
Japan and the European Union, reaching a total of $192.5 billion in
2008.
Paradox to China’s growing economic strength is the receding
influence of the US, and residually of its clout in this part of the
globe. The shift in the economic balance saw the various countries in
Southeast Asia seeking to establish closer economic links with China.
Despite this trend, this country refuses to make a pivot of its policy
by focusing more on the economic boom, which somehow could spill over to
benefit our people.
Rather, we persist in ignoring the historic shift that is taking
place with China at the epicenter of the transition. We refuse to be
carried by the fact that the foundation of China’s increased economic
influence is anchored on maintaining peaceful intercourse with the rest
of Asia. Unlike Japan, where its rise as an economic power grew
alongside with its military strength, and the US, using its military
might to gain economic advantage, China was able to achieve that
phenomenal feat through peaceful means.
The question is why should China now modify its course by asserting
an overbearing attitude reminiscent of the Western style “gunboat
diplomacy” to advance its interest? On the contrary, China is the only
country in modern history to achieve that status without becoming an
imperialist power like what Spain, Great Britain and the US did to
secure their overseas dominion. China has never used its new economic
strength as leverage to exact concessions, and demand exterritorial
privileges to make exclaves with signs, “no Chinese and dogs allowed
inside.”
Despite the souring in our relations with China, that country’s
economic assistance to the Philippines is now four times bigger than
that of the US, the country we expect much to come to our side in the
event of conflict. In Africa and in Asia, including the Asean, China
has outstripped the US in the grant of foreign assistance.
If only we gave serious thought to Deng Xiao Peng’s suggestion in
1984 that to resolve the overlapping claims, countries must enter into a
joint venture to explore and harness the resources in the China Sea,
setting aside in the meantime the issue of sovereignty. Had we taken
that step, maybe we could have economically moved forward by now.
Rather, we remain firm in rejecting the offer, thus giving China a free
hand to explore, exploit, and harness the resources in the disputed
area, added by the fact that it has the power and capability to secure
the disputed area to its advantage without us.
As our rift continues to deteriorate, unwittingly we allowed
ourselves to be used as pawn by the US to isolate China which resulted
in us being segregated from the rest of Asia. In fact, most political
analysts are pondering on what the US wants to achieve. The idea of
containing China failed during the Cold War, and it is with more reason
now why it is doomed to fail.
Others see that the only practical way
for the US to stop China’s growing influence is to possibly go to war
for which nobody is prepared to take the risk. The US knows it will be
fighting a war where China could equally inflict havoc on its territory
to render nugatory the victory it seeks to achieve.
For as long the ultimate objective of the US remains fuzzy, that
would just hang in a suspended animation worthy of being called a “paper
tiger” with the Philippines tagging on like a mascot. It would not
even put a break to the shifting balance despite efforts to strengthen
its military presence in the Asia-Pacific by building a string of
military bases stretching from Japan down to Australia.
Thus, as the country dilly-dallies in resolving its dispute with
China, it is this country that is building its own wall of isolation,
unmindful that the rest of our neighbors are shifting full gear to
capture the promising China market, and are expecting much to benefit
from the economic spinoff residual to its economic growth.
Except for Japan and South Korea, which have their separate reasons
to keep close their military alliance with the US, no other country has
openly endorsed the US policy. They would not want their economic
pipeline to be disrupted by recklessly taking a hawkish stance against
China.
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/03/08/understanding-china/
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment