By: Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Philippine Daily Inquirer
11:52 pm | Wednesday, June 29th, 2011
China such a huge and complex country that it is never easy to know, at any given time, what it is doing or what it is saying, or even who speaks for it. Its pugnacious behavior in the disputed waters of the South China Sea in recent weeks stands in contrast to its longstanding effort to reach out to the world with offers of generous loans and inexpensive technology. Are we seeing here a radical shift in policy?
We are all accustomed to viewing China as a society run by a monolithic state. Thus, we devote a lot of time deciphering pronouncements coming from official and quasi-official sources. We expect these to be centrally coordinated and thoroughly vetted before they are issued. Given the conflicting signals we are now receiving from this mighty and mysterious neighbor, it is natural for us to wonder if this alternate show of China's benign face and mean streak is nothing more than the usual carrot-and-stick routine aimed at softening recalcitrant clients.
I believe we need to review this picture if we are to understand the new China we are dealing with.
While the Chinese state remains under the firm control of the Chinese Communist Party, which is about to celebrate the 90th anniversary of its founding, Chinese society itself has undergone massive economic changes in the last 20 years that have given rise to new influential players. These changes have been brought about by the state's calibrated introduction of market relations into a basically controlled economy. It is important to note that the market reforms are state-sponsored, rather than the organic outcome of spontaneous activity emanating from the wider society. This has crucial implications.
"For example," notes professor Wang Hui of Tsinghua University in his incisive book "China's New Order" (2003, Harvard), "members of the political elite or their families directly participate in economic activity and have become agents for large corporations and industries. Can we call them representatives of civil society? In China, political and economic elites have been completely conflated, and they participate in international economic activity. The worst scandals in the economic sphere exposed thus far have all involved top-level bureaucrats and their dependents."
This picture looks familiar to us. It is the portrait of a society run by a cabal of politicians, influence peddlers and big businessmen who manage to get state agencies to adopt their narrow interests as the state's own. It is a picture we associate with the Philippines or the United States, or the worst capitalist societies, but not with "socialist" China.
Is it farfetched to think that the crude gunboat diplomacy recently displayed by Chinese forces in the South China Sea (the West Philippine Sea to Filipinos, or the East Sea to other Southeast Asian nations) has been orchestrated by Chinese mining companies searching for oil and gas in the area? Is it unimaginable that the shrill voices calling for war against Vietnam (a staunch claimant in the disputed sea) in semi-official newspapers in China have been systematically deployed by the new capitalist groups that have infiltrated and captured China's bureaucracy?
Going by current analysis, what seems to be emerging in China in its unique transition to modernity is a social order that can no longer realistically be represented by a center. Instead of one voice, we hear many – all passing themselves off as the authentic voice of the Chinese people. In the face of this, the challenge for those who must deal with China is to know when and how to respond to various types of offers and provocations with equanimity. This requires an abiding awareness that while China still calls itself a socialist state, one is not dealing here with a monolithic actor, but rather with a complex assemblage of public and private interest groups all claiming state imprimatur. It would be foolish to demand in such instances for the real China to stand up. For, the "real China" continues to be in the making as a new generation of party men, entrepreneurs, and intellectuals prepare to take over.
In light of this, one can only lament the instinctive way in which we run to big brother America for protection against the Chinese bully in the school yard. This kind of behavior spits at the patriotism of the senators of our republic who on Sept. 16, 1991 dared to vote "No" to the American wish to renew the onerous military bases agreement. Moreover, it doesn't speak well of the sovereign nation we claim to be.
Like China, we are a signatory to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (Unclos). This is the international law that covers all maritime territorial disputes. There is an existing legal structure, the 21-member International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to settle such disputes. China is a current member of the tribunal. We have already said that we are prepared to validate our territorial claims in the South China Sea under the terms of the Unclos. Shouldn't we make use of these mechanisms instead of engaging in proxy shadow-boxing?
After deciding to dismantle America's bases in Clark and Subic, we have spent the last 20 years trying to run our country without relying on our former colonial master. The US bases were a crutch we finally had the audacity to throw away. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves if, after all this time, we still act like colonials – unable to stand on our own feet and find solidarity among our Asean neighbors – as we pick our way through the tricky world of international relations.
Email: public.lives@gmail.com
COMMENTS:
China such a huge and complex country that it is never easy to know, at any given time, what it is doing or what it is saying, or even who speaks for it. Its pugnacious behavior in the disputed waters of the South China Sea in recent weeks stands in contrast to its longstanding effort to reach out to the world with offers of generous loans and inexpensive technology. Are we seeing here a radical shift in policy?
We are all accustomed to viewing China as a society run by a monolithic state. Thus, we devote a lot of time deciphering pronouncements coming from official and quasi-official sources. We expect these to be centrally coordinated and thoroughly vetted before they are issued. Given the conflicting signals we are now receiving from this mighty and mysterious neighbor, it is natural for us to wonder if this alternate show of China's benign face and mean streak is nothing more than the usual carrot-and-stick routine aimed at softening recalcitrant clients.
I believe we need to review this picture if we are to understand the new China we are dealing with.
While the Chinese state remains under the firm control of the Chinese Communist Party, which is about to celebrate the 90th anniversary of its founding, Chinese society itself has undergone massive economic changes in the last 20 years that have given rise to new influential players. These changes have been brought about by the state's calibrated introduction of market relations into a basically controlled economy. It is important to note that the market reforms are state-sponsored, rather than the organic outcome of spontaneous activity emanating from the wider society. This has crucial implications.
"For example," notes professor Wang Hui of Tsinghua University in his incisive book "China's New Order" (2003, Harvard), "members of the political elite or their families directly participate in economic activity and have become agents for large corporations and industries. Can we call them representatives of civil society? In China, political and economic elites have been completely conflated, and they participate in international economic activity. The worst scandals in the economic sphere exposed thus far have all involved top-level bureaucrats and their dependents."
This picture looks familiar to us. It is the portrait of a society run by a cabal of politicians, influence peddlers and big businessmen who manage to get state agencies to adopt their narrow interests as the state's own. It is a picture we associate with the Philippines or the United States, or the worst capitalist societies, but not with "socialist" China.
Is it farfetched to think that the crude gunboat diplomacy recently displayed by Chinese forces in the South China Sea (the West Philippine Sea to Filipinos, or the East Sea to other Southeast Asian nations) has been orchestrated by Chinese mining companies searching for oil and gas in the area? Is it unimaginable that the shrill voices calling for war against Vietnam (a staunch claimant in the disputed sea) in semi-official newspapers in China have been systematically deployed by the new capitalist groups that have infiltrated and captured China's bureaucracy?
Going by current analysis, what seems to be emerging in China in its unique transition to modernity is a social order that can no longer realistically be represented by a center. Instead of one voice, we hear many – all passing themselves off as the authentic voice of the Chinese people. In the face of this, the challenge for those who must deal with China is to know when and how to respond to various types of offers and provocations with equanimity. This requires an abiding awareness that while China still calls itself a socialist state, one is not dealing here with a monolithic actor, but rather with a complex assemblage of public and private interest groups all claiming state imprimatur. It would be foolish to demand in such instances for the real China to stand up. For, the "real China" continues to be in the making as a new generation of party men, entrepreneurs, and intellectuals prepare to take over.
In light of this, one can only lament the instinctive way in which we run to big brother America for protection against the Chinese bully in the school yard. This kind of behavior spits at the patriotism of the senators of our republic who on Sept. 16, 1991 dared to vote "No" to the American wish to renew the onerous military bases agreement. Moreover, it doesn't speak well of the sovereign nation we claim to be.
Like China, we are a signatory to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (Unclos). This is the international law that covers all maritime territorial disputes. There is an existing legal structure, the 21-member International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to settle such disputes. China is a current member of the tribunal. We have already said that we are prepared to validate our territorial claims in the South China Sea under the terms of the Unclos. Shouldn't we make use of these mechanisms instead of engaging in proxy shadow-boxing?
After deciding to dismantle America's bases in Clark and Subic, we have spent the last 20 years trying to run our country without relying on our former colonial master. The US bases were a crutch we finally had the audacity to throw away. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves if, after all this time, we still act like colonials – unable to stand on our own feet and find solidarity among our Asean neighbors – as we pick our way through the tricky world of international relations.
Email: public.lives@gmail.com
COMMENTS:
vrag · 21 minutes ago
Getting America into the picture in the mess we are in right now in Spratlys is not " proxy shadow boxing" Randy, it's plain survival instinct and common sense. Remember we are now run like **** by our own countrymen! The Chinese are not coming, they are already here . They are at your doorstep.
Ric Cruz · 58 minutes ago
Ang dami talaga bilib sa kano. Ilang beses na ba sila nanalo sa digmaan matapos ang WW II?
Korean War: May North and South Korea pa rin eh.
Vietnam War: Napag-isa nga ang Vietnam...kasi panalo ang komunista, hindi ang kano.
Kuwait: Oo nga panalo, pero pinatakas si Saddam, kaya hayun 5,000 Kurds ang pinapatay sa Iraq bilang ganti.
Iraq: Hanggang ngayon di pa nahahanap ang Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Haiti: Oo nga panalo, pero noong sampahan ng kaso ang pinuno, ano ang ebidensya ng kano? TAMALES!!!
Cuba: Buhay na buhay pa si Fidel Castro matapos nina Presidente Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr., at Obama.
Romeo Rivera · 2 hours ago
The author reprimands the current Philippine government with shame for running to uncle Sam in the face of the current looming crisis in the Spratlys. May I ask dear sir what would you do or what would be your recommended solution if the Chinese do upheld their claim with force? Protest and more protest in the UN? But we are already currently doing that and what benefit is that doing to us? From what country would you ask for help militarily if not the US? Are there any country willing to help us go against China? Or will you just let the Chinese have their way? And just protest while their at it? What's your solution sir? You're so good at analyzing problems, how about thinking for possible solutions for a change?
@ANTONIOLUNAjr · 3 hours ago
Hindi namin sinasabi na pabalikin ninyo ang mga kano dito, we are saying reform and modernize us, if you can buy pirated jets from china then will fly it. do not always attached the AFP's problem sa AMERICA. 20 taon na, and those Senators did nothing. but indeed we were not ready when they were expelled by our senators up until now has no idea what their armed forces is.
militar yan mga utak marcos, kawawa naman tayo. do you really want your military to remain like it.
Single Dad · 3 hours ago
you got it right: after 2 decades without the US military bases we still act as if we are colonials, unable to stand on our own. maybe it's because of the divisiveness of our culture. we couldnt seem to unite into one common, noble cause. to-each-his-own mentality that is a sad reality we faced before, and still facing right now.
Ric Cruz · 6 hours ago
Para nga tama si Mr. Randy David. Noong nakalipas na araw, mayroong isang Intsik mula Tourism office nila na nagsalita tungkol sa Spratly issue. Isinulat ko sa forum kung ang ang kapangyarihan ng kawani na iyon na magsalita tungkol sa usaping Spratly.
Ric Cruz · 6 hours ago
I'd rather have the current Subic and Clark that employs 150,000 Filipinos, engineers, skilled technicians, office managers, etc., rather than when they were military bases that employs a mere 40,000 poorly-skilled gardeners, drivers, carpenters, etc. I'm not belittling menial jobs, but high value-added jobs actually increase the demand for menial jobs. A housewife, for example, who cannot work as a bar girl, can work as a factory worker. Therefore, she would need a nanny for her children. Not only are 2 jobs created, one of the jobs is a better-paying one.
Mafi Fulus · 6 hours ago
"This kind of behavior spits at the patriotism of the senators of our republic who on Sept. 16, 1991 dared to vote "No" to the American wish to renew the onerous... "--------"Patriotism" ? Those "Magnificent 12" senators are the ones to blame for all this humiliating experiences that we are facing right now in Spratlys.This bunch of 12 ragtags are a big disgrace to the Filipino people.Shame on them.
'we have spent the last 20 years trying to run our country without relying on our former colonial...."----------the last 20 years are the worst 20 years in our history.No doubt about that.
" It is the portrait of a society run by a cabal of politicians, influence peddlers and big businessmen who manage to get state agencies ..."-----------------"influence peddlers"? I think you're referring to the word "influential peddlers" Mr. David ?
@ANTONIOLUNAjr · 10 hours ago
My apologies mga kabayan. But I will not stop.
I had seen soldiers beheaded, butchered.
Hundreds were killed during the assault of Camp Abubakar.
We live in places no one of you would dare to live.
We eat wild plants to survive.
You can say it is because of our corrupt Generals.
After the great day of celebration led by Senate President Jovito Salonga you did nothing to reform us.
You still fight in the streets forgetting about us.
Blaming us of cruelty and all forms of Marcos-like tortures.
You have powers to reform us especially the Commander-in-chief but you did nothing great senators.
You think of how you will win an election and sit in its comfort while we sleep on hills, forest, actually it is very hard to sleep when enemies are near.
We are no SUPERMAN.
Isipin nyo ang ginawa ninyo. We were not ready then. We were so dependent on American military aid.
Why then did you forget us?
Why did you not DO anything?
Sino ba ang lalapitan nyo pag may mga masamang elemento sa labas ng bahay nyo. Either Police or Military.
ANO BANG GINAWA NYO?
PAGTAWANAN NYO NA LANG ANG KAKAYAHAN NAMIN...TUMAWA KAYO
No comments:
Post a Comment