Whether we like it or not, Geo-politics is in play in the unfortunate
Recto incident, involving 22 Filipino fishermen that was allegedly abandoned by
the Chinese vessel whom the former are pointing to as the cause of the collision.
Netherland based Filipino in her article for the Manila Times
last June 20, made a very interesting and somewhat eye opener in all of this
frenzy.
She calls President Duterte as a dragon whisperer as
against the stance taken by the Pnoy administration as dragon poker “whose
historical idiocy led him to liken China to Nazi Germany.”
 |
| President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (photo credit to owner) |
“The SCS is the throat of China’s
maritime-dependent economy. The Center for Strategic and International Studies’
(CSIS) China Power Project shows how this sea is existentially important to
China: in 2016, “nearly 40 percent of China’s total trade…transited through the
South China Sea;” and about 80 percent of its oil imports pass through it.
Since the SCS is critical to China’s survival, it will do everything to protect
that trade route, just as Britain sought to protect their trade route in 1914.”
“So far, Duterte has been doing good in
being a statesman who refuses to be a slave to public opinion shaped by a media
engaged with relentless yellow journalism. His brand of diplomacy is devoid of
dogmatism, prudent and pragmatic. He refuses to poke the dragon as these
ignoramuses want him to do."
For the full understanding and the sake
of full transparency, we are quoting in full the article written by Sass
Rogando Sassot titled “ Duterte and the stability of the world” in the Manila Times for the benefit of all our
readers.
Duterte and the stability of
the world
THE stability of the world relies
on President Rodrigo Duterte and his successor’s ability to remain a dragon
whisperer rather than revert back to being a dragon poker, like his
predecessor, Benigno Aquino 3rd, whose historical idiocy led him to liken China
to Nazi Germany.
Derived by Graham Allison from
Thucydides’ analysis of the proximate cause of the Peloponnesian War, the
Thucydidean trap posits that war is the likely outcome of the power struggle
between a declining superpower and an emerging one. Provoked by fear of the
other, the former will launch a war to secure its position or the latter will
initiate it to speed up its ascent. American military involvement in the South
China Sea (SCS) conflict might just pave the way for this doomsday scenario.
Historians
of international history have all been predicting that a new world war is
looming, and the SCS is one of the potential flash points. In her 2013 essay
“The Rhyme of History: Lessons of the Great War,” historian Margaret MacMillan
saw parallelism in what’s happening now with China and the United States and
“the national rivalries [that] led to mutual suspicions between Britain and the
newly ascendant Germany before 1914.”
At
that time, Germany was controlling Belgian ports. Since these ports were close
to their coasts, the British saw this as a threat to their trade routes. So,
when Germany attacked France in 1914, which would give it more access to the
maritime throat of the British economy, Britain declared war.
The
SCS is the throat of China’s maritime-dependent economy. The Center for
Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) China Power Project shows how this
sea is existentially important to China: in 2016, “nearly 40 percent of China’s
total trade…transited through the South China Sea;” and about 80 percent of its
oil imports pass through it. Since the SCS is critical to China’s survival, it
will do everything to protect that trade route, just as Britain sought to
protect their trade route in 1914.
The
United States is currently involved in an ever-escalating trade war with China.
Destabilizing the SCS is an attractive option to disrupt China’s economy. The
US doesn’t need to launch a conventional warfare. Encouraging a low intensity
conflict would do. Or it could even clandestinely encourage military
adventurism of its ally, the Philippines. Both of which could get out of hand.
In
the 1950s, during the Cold War, the great advocate of neutral Philippine
foreign policy, Claro M. Recto once warned about our “dangerous and provocative
entanglements” with the interests of the United States. “It exposes our people
to the fearful consequences of another war,” he stressed. “A war which will be
fought on Asian soil with only expendable and bewildered Asians for sacrificial
victims on the altar of power politics and international intrigue.”
MacMillan
highlighted the role of public opinion, “fanned by the new mass circulation
newspapers,” in pushing the relationship of Britain and Germany “in the
direction of hostility than friendship.” And just like during World War 1,
Macmillan observed, “public opinion can make it difficult for statesmen to
maneuver and defuse hostilities.”
Philippine
mainstream media, the Catholic Church, the Liberal Party and its allies, their
social media propagandists, and the Left have been shaping a dogmatic brand of
nationalism in the consciousness of Filipinos. To use a term by sociologist
Zygmunt Bauman, these political forces are promoting the “religionization” of
international politics.
Armed
with the chauvinistic mindset, they have been transforming “a conflict of
interests calling for negotiation and compromise (the daily bread of
politics)…into an ultimate showdown between good and evil that renders any
negotiated agreement inconceivable and from which only one of the antagonists
can emerge alive.”
So
far, Duterte has been doing good in being a statesman who refuses to be a slave
to public opinion shaped by a media engaged with relentless yellow journalism.
His brand of diplomacy is devoid of dogmatism, prudent and pragmatic. He
refuses to poke the dragon as these ignoramuses want him to do.
When
some of my Filipino friends here in the Netherlands invited me to stage a
protest outside the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague when the
arbitral case against China was filed in 2013, I emphatically refused and told
them that the whole thing was a mistake and that would cost our country a great
deal of money, diplomatic capital, and put our country closer into the
crosshairs of the US-China rivalry.
When
Duterte spoke during the June 2015 Asia CEO Forum, I was surprised at his
stance on the SCS crisis. He understood the dangerous geopolitical position of
the Philippines. During the campaign, Duterte kept on mentioning his proposed
conciliatory approach towards China. I was thrilled because, for me, he would
seriously turn the tide of history.
For
those infected with infantile nationalism, Duterte’s rapprochement with China
is cowardice. To the learned, Duterte’s Recto-like foreign policy is planting
the seeds of protection against tragedy — the Philippines being used by the US
as its proxy belligerent with China. And since that would avert destabilizing
the SCS sea lane of communications, Duterte is also doing the rest of the world
a great service, by preventing a crisis that would seriously undermine the
global economy and peace.
But
until when?
What can you say about this?
Share
us your thoughts by simply leaving on the comment section below. For more news
updates, feel free to visit our site often.
Stay
updated with today's relevant news and trends by hitting the LIKE button.
Thanks
for dropping by and reading this post.
Report from The Manila Times
0 Comments