Confluence of influences

HONOLULU — Hawaii, the birthplace of US President Barack Obama, is gearing up for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders’ Summit in November. No one will argue about the growing significance of the Asia-Pacific region in the global economy as underscored by Admiral Robert Willard, Commander of the US Pacific Command (USPACOM) who said the region “remains a thrilling and challenging part of the world, critical to the global economy, critical to the United States and its interests.” Topping the list of concerns is China, whose increasing economic influence — plus the fact that it is actively building up its military capability — is making the US and its Asian neighbors a bit jittery. While the US and its allies like Australia deny insinuations of nervousness about China, their recent actions (and words) belie such denials. Three weeks ago during the Ausmin (Australia-US Ministerial) consultations in San Francisco, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the enhanced alliance between the two countries, saying this should send “a very clear signal” to the Asia-Pacific region, with more American ships, troops, aircraft and hardware to be deployed on Australian soil.

In the book The Security Environment in the Asia-Pacific (edited by Hung-mao Tien and Tun-jen Cheng), the Chinese Dragon’s growing influence is attributed to “a confluence of several developments inside and outside China” such as “the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the superpower rivalry” which meant that China was no longer threatened by a direct attack by the US and the Soviet Union. Of course, the economic reforms initiated by Deng Xiao Ping in the ’70s freed the country from communal farming and opened it up to more foreign investments and encouraged private businesses. China gradually expanded economic and diplomatic relations with other countries — which became a catalyst for its growing economic and political influence.

Taiwan, considered by China as a rebel province, has signaled its growing wariness of the mainland by engaging in a $5.3 billion F-16 upgrade deal with the United States — a development vehemently opposed by China who warned that it could severely harm the relationship between Beijing and Washington. Taiwan insists that the upgrade would enhance its defense capability and help balance the so-called “China threat” in the region. As things stand, the US is faced with a difficult balancing act, where it has to tread carefully to maintain its strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region without thoroughly irritating China. After all, China is the single biggest holder of US government debt (now at over $14 trillion) with an estimated 36 percent or $1.6 trillion in US treasury bonds — and as everyone knows, military and economic power is tied up with economic power. But then again, China will probably not want the US to go down economically, too, precisely because a lot of their money is at stake.

Analysts say however that the emerging struggle for power between China and the US will place smaller countries (particularly in Asia) in an awkward position. For many of these countries like the Philippines, the US has been a traditional and important ally, but there is also no denying the fact that China has now become one of the biggest (if not already the biggest) trading partner for such countries as Japan, South Korea, India and Australia. In the past few years, China has been perceived as getting increasingly aggressive and not too shy about flexing its muscles.

Over a week ago, People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, took a swipe at the Philippines and Japan (who promised enhanced naval cooperation and insinuated their disagreement with China’s claims over the disputed Spratlys), with a scoffing editorial that said: “Certain countries think as long as they can balance China with the help of US military power, they are free to do whatever they want.” 

Which reminds me of what Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario told me about how President Noy cleverly conveyed to the Chinese the Philippines’ firm stand over the Spratlys: “We have a lot of heroes like Gregorio del Pilar, Emilio Jacinto and many others who were willing to die for our motherland. We may not have the firepower you have, but come to think of it, like our heroes, many Filipinos are willing to die for our cause.”

*      *      *

I had a conversation with US Ambassador Harry Thomas the other day and he said that his remark over the existence of the sex trade in the Philippines was completely taken out of context. Our Ambassador-friend’s candor has raised the hackles of legislators and various groups who consider his statement insulting and degrading. But the fact of the matter is, we do have a major problem with child trafficking connected to prostitution as seen in CNN and BBC documentaries. And what is particularly revolting about it is that in many cases, it is the parents themselves who push their children to work as sex slaves.

We Filipinos are very sensitive about perceived criticism by foreigners especially if they come from our American friends. Statements from the US Ambassador are never taken lightly, like the time when then-US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone earned the ire of then-Chief Justice Hilario Davide by criticizing the Philippine judiciary as completely corrupt. Davide dared Ricciardone to “name names.” In fact, our late friend Max Soliven came out with hammer and tongs against the US envoy. But on the other hand, there were also those who lauded Ricciardone for having the guts to say something that could only be said in whispers. As they say, oftentimes the truth hurts.  

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]