Category: china
When even the Chinese liberals keep silent
MANILA: When a government is known to censor truth and suppress freedom of speech, why do its citizens easily take to the streets in protest against their Asian neighbors? The Chinese liberals and pro-democracy groups have kept their silence on China’s territorial encroachment in Asia long enough.
In an ethics symposium I attended in Washington, D.C. six years ago, the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 was discussed as an example of a government’s attempt to suppress democracy. A Chinese national reasoned that the People’s Republic’s military only responded in self-defense. He said doreign powers instigated and backed the revolution to destabilize the government. The death tolls were exaggerated and the government blameless. The participants which had representatives from at least 15 countries was in an uproar. Everyone knew that those students died for democracy and were silenced by the iron hand of Deng Xiaoping.
Even up to now, the Tiananmen massacre is banned from textbooks and the media, and is essentially removed from China’s history. Internet searches and social media discussions about the event from June 4, 1989 are blocked and policed by the government. Freedom fighters, democratic-leaning citizens and humanitarians use codes to mask messages over the Internet about this event, such as “65-1”, “63+1” and “May 35th.” Yet the voices of freedom from China’s pro-democracy citizens, particularly in Hong Kong, still find a way to commemorate the sacrifices of the students.
Historical revisionism and media content policing still continue in China and goes beyond its borders. With its economic and military supremacy in the Asian region, China has increasingly become more aggressive and less diplomatic in its dealings. China has actively sought to expand its territories both east and west of its borders. In the west, China mobilized its military in a territorial dispute with India’s Ladakh region. In the east, China has claimed the entire South China Sea and the islands in it as its own: territories previously enjoyed as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
China has used its state media to justify its actions to its citizens. Private media channels, including the Internet, are still heavily regulated and censored by the Chinese government. The media has been used to discredit any diplomatic means employed by other countries to resolve territorial disputes. Last year, the Chinese state media published accusations against the Philippines of instigating the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) as accomplices in disputing China’s takeover of territories. It has condemned any arbitration at the United Nations and warned of a “counterstrike” – taken as a military warning.
It is therefore not surprising that there is misdirected anger, coupled with national pride, from the Chinese against their Asian neighbors. The media has been misused in history by many autocratic countries to misinform and cause dissent; this is true even in democratic ones. The Chinese government continues to be one of the worst offenders.
China uses its state media to deploy its “9-Dash Line” map that states, in all absurdity, that anything further than a stone’s throw away from the shores of Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, belong to China. It has completely disregarded the 200-nautical mile EEZ provided by UNCLOS. Under this map, Chinese warships can dock visibly across the Philippine or Vietnamese shores and should not be taken as a threat!
Ironically, the same Chinese pro-democracy, humanitarians and freedom fighters have kept mum about these territorial issues. Even the liberal Chinese from Hong Kong have kept their silence on their government’s military conquest of the South China Sea. Perhaps because there is much to be had in the claim for the South China Sea: it contains 3% of the world’s known oil reserves and 8% of natural gas. Trade routes shared by Asian countries will be monopolized by China. The region is part of the famed Coral Triangle which has one of the richest coral life and marine stock.
The voice of democracy does not speak out only when individual freedoms are suppressed. It requires its citizens to speak out when others countries’ freedoms are threatened. There is no middle ground: defend the freedom encroached upon by your government within and outside your country; otherwise, it just becomes hypocritical.
Speak out when your government antagonizes the same Asian neighbors that have sympathized with your quest for freedom of speech and democracy. The same neighboring countries have welcomed your refugees and taken them as their own. To our Chinese brothers who have democracy on your lips, prove your resolve: it is time for your voices to be heard once again.
usaping tsina
painit nang painit ang usapin. patindi nang patindi ang mga banat ng tsina sa west philippine sea; itinataboy ang ating mga mangingisda (tinira ng watercannon noong enero) at nanghaharang ng supply boats to ph outposts like the sierra madre wreck sa ayungin shoal.
recently, mula nang i-file ng DFA ang ating 4,000-page memo sa arbitration tribunal, sa media naman tayo binabanatan, panay ang press release ng mga intsik, ipinipilit, idinidiin, iginigiit, na pag-aari ng tsina ang ayungin atbp., as if saying it over and over like a mantra would make it come true. pinapalabas na tayo pa ang wala sa lugar, tayo pa ang naghahanap ng away, hindi sila. *sarcastic lol*
nakakagalit at nakakabahala, and yet parang hirap na hirap tayo na i-articulate ang ating niloloob at aminin na nakakabuwisit na (sobra na, ano ba) ang pambubully ng tsina. baka kasi magalit ang mga intsik at balikan tayo – bigyan tayo ng problema sa koryente, pauwiin ang pinoy OFWs, magtampo ang mga tsinoy nating bossing, o kapamilya o kabarkada? na oo naman, nakaka-tense, but it’s not as if tayo lang ang mawawalan; ang china rin, mawawalan. maraming hassle for both sides, at the level of nation and individual both, kung sakaling magkagulo. i suppose it seems wiser to not say anything, huwag nang dumagdag sa balitaktakan, huwag nang gatungan pa, let’s just leave it to the prez, united we stand divided we fall and all that.
ang problema, not saying anything means consenting to the deal that the prez is working out with the americans behind the scenes, a deal that is said to provide for u.s. jurisdiction pa rin over criminally erring american soldiers (as in, let’s forget the nicole-smith rape case ever happened), a deal that is also said to provide for enhanced american-troop presence practically everywhere, including metro manila and metro cebu. argh. what’s going on. O.A. naman, kahit pa magkaroon ng automatic retailiation clause, eh wala pa rin naman,
samantala, sagutin natin ang mga patutsada ng tsina. sa kanilang kultura daw, bringing someone to court is an assault? eh sa ating kultura, bullying is an assault, bullying is harassment. so quits-quits na lang, as far as that goes. and what about those alleged promises made by erap and gloria, what’s our official version of the story, what was going on at the time? what exactly did they promise, in exchange for what? may dokumento ba?
or is this statement of DFA sec del rosario now the official policy:
“Countries should be judged by their actions, not by their words.”
by our actions, like filing the memo with the arbitral tribunal, that met with the international community’s approval. actions, like negotiating the parameters of an enhanced u.s. military presence, that meets with the ASEAN community’s approval (wise guys, better us than them). and not by our words. hmm, especially those spoken by previous presidents, unless written down and properly signed and witnessed and notarized? but really? forget palabra de honor? um, kung sabagay, sa pulitika, matagal nang nangingibabaw ang spin at propaganda.
does the same statement explain too why there is no reaction, as in dedma, deadma, patay malisya, to this recent gem from the US state department?
“As a treaty ally of the Republic of the Philippines, the United States urges China to refrain from further provocative behavior by allowing the Philippines to continue to maintain its presence at Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin Shoal),” she said. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters.
the u.s. asks china to ALLOW us to maintain our presence in ayungin. ALLOW. as in, PAYAGAN. as if it were settled already, and we were needing china’s permission to stay in ayungin, never mind that it’s ours, it’s always been ours, and well within our territorial boundaries. it would seem that the u.s. concedes, or gives weight, to china’s claim over ayungin. ALLOW the philippines. as if to humor us, sige na, hayaan na natin, it’s just for show anyway? and this is okay with us? judge america not by its words but by its actions?
and now lee kuan yew, no less, has weighed in, and he thinks china is seriously wanting to change the rules of the seas.
A resurgent China isn’t going to allow its sea boundaries to once again be decided by external parties. Therefore, I don’t believe the Chinese will submit their claims, which are based primarily on China’s historical presence in these waters, to be decided by rules that were defined at a time when China was weak. And China has judged that the U.S. won’t risk its present good relations with China over a dispute between the Philippines and China.
historical presence, all the way back to ancient times. and lee kuan yew seems to think it has merit, sort of. something to look into. let’s compare historical presences, or something like that. meanwhile, via facebook i asked china expert chito sta. romana what he thought of lee kuan yew’s take. this is what he said.
Lee is a veteran in reading & interpreting China’s thinking. Hopefully the arbitral tribunal can provide legal clarity on the validity (or lack of it) of China’s so-called “historical rights” in light of UNCLOS.
I don’t think China is at a point of no return if you mean all-out war. China faces the bigger task of developing from a middle-income to a high-income economy, a war will only upset their economic plan. But China will not yield on what it considers as its “core issue” of sovereignty & territorial integrity. Unfortunately that is how they look at the Spratly & Scarborough issues (rightly or wrongly). Face partly explains why China is opposed to int’l arbitration, it wants quiet diplomacy to arrive (at) a negotiated settlement. But there is still a struggle going on within China between its Confucian face & its globalized face, and everyone hopes China will take the path of a responsible regional & global power.
sana nga.
but these are testy times astrologically (cardinal grand cross, mid- to late april), signifying dynamic changes for both the collective and the individual. there’ll be an excess of energy all around that would need to be constructively channeled, in our case perhaps by engaging the nation, especially the media, mainstream and online, in a national conversation. pagusapan natin sa tagalog, sa bisaya, sa ilokano, atbp. itong ginagawa sa atin ng china sa west ph sea. pagusapan natin sa tv, sa radyo, sa dyaryo, sa internet, over lunch or dinner, sa opisina kahit over the watercooler or coffee man lang, sa mga pabrika kahit pabulong lang, at sa mga tagayan sa kanto at tunggaan sa beergarden, sabay cheers to our fishermen and soldiers in our fishing grounds and outposts in the west ph sea.
dapat makarating sa ordinaryong mamamayan na sa dramang nagaganap between china and the philippines, hindi tayo ang nambubully, hindi tayo ang nagmamalaki, hindi tayo ang nagkakalat.
pag-usapan natin. alamin natin kung ano talaga ang nangyayari at bakit. only when we understand the matter fully, or even just adequately, can we creatively contribute to the discourse. only when we can discuss it openly and credibly can we hope to participate in policy- and decision-making. and who knows, once we have a handle on the situation, we might come up with media campaigns reaching out to the chinese, people to people, convincing them that bullying and reef-shoal-island-grabbing is just soooo uncool and uncivilized.
our china relations, our u.s. alliance
there’s the china that’s playing the cat to our mouse (the goliath to our david?) in the west philippine sea, aggressively claiming and taking control of territory that is ours by no stretch of the imagination, and, naturally, it’s nakakagalit that we’re obviously in no shape to push back.
and then there’s the china that’s our 3rd biggest trading partner (next to the u.s. and japan), and whose investments we continue to welcome and woo, and whose State Grid Industry Development Ltd. has a 40 % stake in our National Grid Corporation (4 china bigwigs on the board of directors, 7 of 10 with chinese names: read rafael alunan iii’s brief history and who’s who of PNC). yes, think exports, jobs, electricity supply, sabay fret over national security.
and then there’s the china that’s homeland and/or once-homeland to millions of chinoys, some of them now among the wealthiest filipinos, and whose silence could mean anything: abstain, or no comment, so as not to offend either china or the philippines? or kampi naman sa pinas pero loathe to speak against china at this point, hindi pa naman kailangan, di pa hinihingi ng panahon, malay natin, biglang tantanan na tayo ng tsina ngayong napipinto ang pagbabalik ng u.s. bases, version 2014, puwede na rin?
whatever, i agree with jose ma. montelibano who urges that government mount a serious info campaign on our problems with china.
It is not unusual for war to begin with a single shot. The American Civil War started with a single shot from a mortar. History also says that a Serbian assassin shot an Austrian Archduke Ferdinand and triggered World War I. It is not so much that shots were fired, but that they were fired when there was already tension between countries.
And there is tension now. I cannot speak of what is happening inside China but I can definitely speak about our own country. If the tension is not yet palpable, it is only because the Philippine government has deliberately held back from rousing public anger. The news of China’s bullying has been in the news but government has not pounced on the aggression of China to whip up an emotional storm among Filipinos. I can understand why our government chooses moderation, but the game is not up only to us and belongs more to the aggressor.
I do not want to be an alarmist, but I am alarmed. The state of unpreparedness, or naiveté, of the Filipino people will send them to absolute shock if a shot is fired, either by Filipino or Chinese soldiers. Panic is not the best stage from where we can mount our defense. Patriotism is better, and anger instead of fear.
It might be advisable if government begins to roll out an information campaign via tri-media. Social media has been ahead of the game, so far, and will naturally pick up what government will publicly share. The tone of social media will be much more belligerent than the sobriety that government will expectedly display, but that is par for the course. Without some amount of heat, it will be hard to get through both ignorance and apathy
…This early, too, it may be time to send a quiet message to Chinoys. … They control the wealth of the Philippines as gleaned from the latest list of the richest persons in the Philippines. As such, public attention and expectation will be focused on them and their actuation as conflict deepens due to China’s bullying. Loyalty is serious business, and becomes deadly so in times of war.
i get it that the prez’s strategy — invoking the rule of law and taking the dispute to the UN for arbitration, meanwhile refusing to be provoked into any action other than diplomatic — meets with general approval. so, too, the enhanced presence of u.s. troops, in the hope that it would deter further chinese aggression around here, which the leftists, among others, dispute, of course, on grounds that enhanced u.s. military presence would more likely enhance us as target for enemy attack.
but i’m more concerned about this interval between now and that day when the ITLOS rules in our favor (being optimistic). kailan pa yon. meanwhile china seems bent on pushing ahead, testing our limits — jan 27 water-cannoning our fishermen away from scarborough, mar 9 blocking our vessels that were carrying supplies to our sierra madre outpost in ayungin — and all we do is protest vociferously sabay step back, step aside, give way. kaya ba nating i-sustain ang ganyang strategy until ITLOS rules (whenever) without losing more than we seem to have lost already?
and now this via rodel rodis: What did Erap and GMA promise China?
…on March 17, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei revealed in a press conference in Beijing that two previous Philippine presidents had made an “unequivocal commitment to China ”that the Philippines would tow away the Sierra Madre from the Ayungin Shoal. China demanded that Pres. Aquino “heed the promises” made by his predecessors otherwise, Hong Lei warned, the Philippines risks losing its “credibility”.
According to Hong Lei, the promises were made in 1999 by Pres. Joseph “Erap” Estrada and reiterated in 2003 by Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). Estrada and Arroyo have yet to respond to this new Chinese allegation. Did they make such commitments to China? If so,why and what did they get in return?
Many observers doubt this new Chinese claim because the Ayungin Shoal did not attain any strategic value to China until after GMA entered into a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) with China in 2005-2008 allowing China the authority to explore the waters within the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone boundaries of the Philippines around Palawan.
China’s exploration led to its discovery of the presence of large deposits of oil and natural gas in the area around the Recto Bank which is just 85 nautical miles from Palawan. The Ayungin Shoal is considered the “gateway” tothe Recto Bank and China did not express any interest in occupying it until after the JMSU was entered into.
According to a Newsbreak report in2008 (“Arroyo Gov’t Pleasing China sinceDay 1”), GMA “clinched the most number of bilateral agreements with China in the two countries’ 30-year relationship.” GMA signed 65 bilateral agreements with China, far surpassing the 8 agreements signed by former President Ferdinand Marcos.
Could one of these agreements have included a promise to tow away the SierraMadre off Ayungin Shoal and turn over all the Spratly Islands to China?
In a special “Correspondents” documentary which was shown more than six years ago, Ricky Carangdang claimed that GMA sold the Spratlys to China.
so, has anyone asked erap and gma yet what’s true and what’s false? never mind. like rodis says, we can’t be held to these alleged secret promises, secret deals, in much the same way that china refused to be held to its june 2012 commitment to leave scarborough shoal.
China is not the party to talk about sticking to commitments and losing credibility for failure to do so. China should recall that in June of 2012, it made a commitment to withdraw its ships from the Scarborough Shoal if the Philippine Navy withdraws its ships as well, in a deal brokered by the US. When the Philippine ships left, China’s ships remained as China said it had never agreed in writing to leave.
rodis also takes on, calls out, rigoberto tiglao, once press secretary and spokesman of gma, whose more ‘nuanced’ approach to the china dispute now makes me wonder if he’s speaking pa rin for gma, or if he has just found his way back to the left via cenpeg. full circle?
and now here’s a romualdez, philstar columnist babes, urging “pragmatism,” i.e., maintain cordial relations with china just like the u.s. is doing; as in, barak’s michelle is in beijing for a week of “educational and cultural exchanges.” o, ha.
pareho lang naman sila, these superpowertrippers. gugulangan tayo at gugulangan, pagsasamantalahan at pagsasamantalahan, hangga’t nakakalusot. magkaiba lang sila kung dumiskarte sa atin, pero di nagkakaiba ang pagtingin sa pilipinas: a weak state, but comely, and strategically located (america’s “gateway to china” since “benevolent assimilation” times), and incredibly rich in untapped gas, oil, and metal deposits, and therefore eminently desirable as ally, i mean, as pawn, i mean, as possession, and worth fighting over, if not divvying up.
paranoid ba. maybe. but we could seriously use a united front at this point in time. the dispute is between the philippines and china, sampid lang ang amerika. playing the china card, as the leftists and the tiglaos and the romualdezes and other anti-aquino camps are doing, is like forgiving china for that atrocious 9-dash line and all the troubles it has brought to our people out in the west philippine sea. as if we needed the extra aggravation. as if we didn’t have enough threats to sovereignty to deal with.
again, we could use a united front at this point in time. we need to get on the same page against china’s belligerence in the west philippine sea. okay lang to pray, hope, for the best, but we also need to prepare nation for the worst. just in case.
*
National security is the real issue by Elfren Cruz
Pragmatism: Key to our foreign relations by Babes Romualdez
https://stuartsantiago.com/special-relations/
Listen to Kung Fu Panda by Teddy Locsin Jr.