It's really more than the Spratlys

The crazy thing about how we are treating issues related to China, notably the Spratlys tempest, is how everything seems to resemble a schoolyard brawl among preadolescent ruffians. It is so pathetic to see supposedly distinguished leaders and spokesmen of nations act and talk this way.

Provocatively funny as sending a WW2 vintage warship to the contested area is, there are those hailing it as a symbolic gesture to serve notice that we will not be bullied by China. Oh yes, even P-Noy said the same exact thing. Nice thing to hear if only the stakes are not as large as they are on the importance of keeping our cool and acting with maturity and intelligence on matters that involve our big and powerful neighbor up North.

I am afraid P-Noy forgot he is no longer a congressman or a senator who can say just about anything to improve his popularity rating. He is now president of the Republic with a responsibility for enhancing the environment for peace. He can’t do that by increasing the decibel level of infantile statements over an issue that is best resolved over the diplomatic table.

It is also horrible that the Executive Secretary said something so naive in relation to the US coming to our defense because we are long term allies. The statement of the American Ambassador notwithstanding, we have to deal with an America whose intertwining interests with China far outweighs any obligations, if any, to a minor ally like us.

Let us not forget China is now America’s major creditor. And with America’s recent foray into an air war with Libya being questioned by some elements of the US Congress, the war making power of the US President is being severely curtailed. Given the political atmosphere in Washington today an automatic American response to come to our defense cannot be presumed.

It is easy enough to rouse up an anti-Chinese hysteria in this country with our latent anti-Chinese feelings at the grassroots. It is the responsibility of our top leaders to put these feelings in check because it is the only sensible thing to do. The destructive potentials of such anti-Chinese sentiments have been seen in countries like Indonesia when, after the fall of Suharto, locals went on a rampage of pillage, murder and rape against the ethnic Chinese living among them for centuries.

That is why it was so disappointing that an otherwise responsible Gov. Joey Salceda would advocate a boycott of Chinese products. The economist Joey knows better. The cheap shot by Gov. Joey demeans his reputation as one of the few local leaders with an informed world view. It is as if the few years spent as Governor of Albay caused Joey to dramatically deteriorate to a typical local politician with a parochial view.

We should tone down our rhetoric. In the first place, all these war mongering only makes it more difficult to sell an eventual reasonable compromise won through diplomacy. In the second place, we cannot afford even a skirmish with China, given the sad state of our armed forces, no matter how heroic our soldiers may be. Given our financial resources and our needs, playing catch up to China’s military is a hallucination. In the third place, we do have to learn to live with China getting more powerful by the day.

I can understand why it is easy for us and other people in the region to feel frustrated and disgusted by China’s “bullying”. China’s foreign ministry spokesman did not helped things much with his disrespectful statement in reaction to the emerging crisis. China also says one thing but does another.

The thing to do is to bring the dispute to the level of international diplomacy. We should be working with our Asean allies to come up with a united stand, reluctant as they may be to displease China. We ought to be organizing a high level think tank of experts with a good understanding of China to help craft the strategy of a Philippine diplomatic thrust.

China is the world’s fastest growing emerging economy and its influence is now being felt, and resented, in countries more than half a world away in Latin America and Africa. Like it or not, China’s impact on our economy affects our political relationship with it as well.

There is no isolating China today. Joey Salceda’s call for a boycott of Chinese goods is like trying to drain the sea in a hole in the sand. China needs to be engaged and how China engages with us should be the result of an intelligent diplomatic approach on our part not knee jerk bombastic statements.

Admittedly, China is not the easiest country to understand. It is outwardly capitalist and market oriented with WTO membership but has a government in a time warp of communist party dictatorship. Its leaders talk sensibly of living in peace with the rest of world but its military habitually engages in saber rattling... parading its latest in aggressive military armaments in case we miss the point.

In terms of disputes with neighbors, China had over the past half a century launched border wars with India and Vietnam. But it has refrained from carrying out threats against Taiwan, possibly because of its concern over its world image more than a fear of an all out shooting war with the United States. Despite recent belligerent assertions of its claim over some Spratly islands, China is not likely to risk international isolation that an open skirmish will likely bring.

Dealing with China must take into account the need to avoid a position where backing off means a loss of a lot of Oriental face. In a sense, the Joint Marine and Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) of Ate Glue may be one such viable compromise at this time. A better version of it that addresses constitutional issues may have to be crafted. There is no loss of honor on our part to appear reasonable in dealing with China.

Walter Lohman of the conservative Heritage Foundation, an American think tank, has advocated a tough American position on the South China Sea conflicts. But even Lohman concedes that everything depends on dealing constructively with China. “In fact, some version of China’s official operating principle of ‘shelving disputes and seeking common development’ is probably the only peaceful way out of the conflict. The problem has been that, beyond the rhetoric, the PRC is not operating in accordance with this principle.”

Those who criticize even a hint of what they call China appeasement should be reminded that even the United States, then the only superpower, took a very conciliatory response to encourage China to come out of its cocoon and engage with the world. While both Nixon and Kissinger were criticized precisely for this approach, history seems to indicate that both were right to have done what they did, when they did.

Lord Patten, the last British Governor of Hong Kong, in his review of On China, Kissinger’s new book, in the Financial Times, noted that “the American relationship with China was based from the start on Washington as supplicant.” Patten wonders whether the tone of Kissinger’s diplomacy “betrays a wholly unnecessary tendency, if not to kowtow, then at least to engage in a pre-emptive deferential bob.”

What happens next, Patten asks? “Kissinger is right to encourage a cooperative relationship with China; co-evolution, he calls it... So simply hectoring China is not a smart option...”

Diplomacy is a delicate thing. It requires first of all, an atmosphere conducive to producing good results... not a confrontational mob that now seems to be emerging. It also requires very knowledgeable diplomats and certainly the Aquino family friend Domingo Lee who is a known Taiwan partisan is far from being the ideal Ambassador to Beijing. The Commission on Appointments should see that obvious lack of qualification.

P-Noy’s maturity will be tested in how he deals with China. And sounding like a retarded congressman is not the way to go. At stake are more than the outcrops of islands called the Spratlys even if it turns out there is substantial petroleum deposits there.

Long view of history

True story. Henry Kissinger was in China in 1972, laying the groundwork for President Nixon’s visit. At a meeting with Chinese prime minister Chou En-Lai, Mr. Kissinger asked the prime minister if he believed whether the 1789 French Revolution benefited humanity. After mulling over the question for a few minutes, Chou En-Lai replied, “It’s too early to tell.”

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. He is also on Twitter @boochanco