Most of Southeast Asia, and especially the Philippines, used to fear China because it was communist. Today we must fear China because it is going nationalist, and in a very big way.
Filipinos had a tiny glimpse of Chinese military assertiveness in 1995 during the naval skirmish over Mischief Reef, 130 miles off the coast of Palawan. Today Mischief Reef remains in Chinese hands. By 1999, what were supposed to be mere fishermen?s shelters had been built up three stories high, with satellite dishes, communications antennae, anti-aircraft emplacements, a helicopter landing pad, and wharves capable of handling naval vessels. More recently, Filipinos were awed by the political clout of ZTE Corp. in the national broadband scandal that rocked the country with Secretary Romulo Neri?s and whistleblower Jun Lozada?s revelations, yet ZTE apparently isn?t even in the truly big league by Chinese standards.
For sure there have been moments that have fanned Chinese nationalist fervor. The spectacle of the 2008 Beijing Olympics was a rallying point for national pride. Apparently, ordinary Chinese citizens were infuriated by those pro-Tibet, anti-China protesters trying to wrest the Olympic torch from its official carriers as they ran through the streets of London, Paris and San Francisco.
The NATO?s accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia in 1999, which killed three Chinese nationals, provoked public protests that led to the stoning of the US Embassy in Beijing. And in a symbolic episode, at a Christie?s auction, the Chinese winning bidder refused to pay for Chinese artworks that he said had been plundered from the homeland.
?Love of country? is inflamed by deep-seated feelings among Chinese (easily shared by Filipinos) over colonial shaming that fueled nationalist indignation, from the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 to the May Fourth Movement of 1919. Inflamed nationalist sentiments have apparently crescendoed. During my recent trips to Beijing, I noticed the big posters referring to ?China?s Peaceful Rise? (significantly, in both Chinese and English), apparently a conciliatory signal to downplay fears that they are out to contest US superpower dominance.
However, it might be difficult locally to explain the distinction between what is communist and what is nationalist, since Filipino commies have basically packaged themselves as patriots, for whom, so the local Maoists say, the nationalist revolution is just one stage in the journey toward a crimson future.
It will also be difficult for Filipinos to begrudge Chinese nationalism either, especially since Filipinos similarly aspire, indeed idealize, what they call ?love of country.? Indeed, Filipinos will intuitively identify with China?s lifting its citizens out of poverty, raising the standard of living in barely 30 years, and after decades of being shunned and isolated, gaining the world?s respect as the third largest economy and the second most powerful military force.
What should be disquieting for the Filipino is not the fact of Chinese power, but how China has used that power?against minorities in Tibet and in Xinjiang, against the parents grieving over the death of their children, either from contaminated milk formula or from Sichuan?s sub-standard school buildings made by cost-cutting contractors in cahoots with corrupt state regulators. By now, too, I have learned after conversations with Chinese scholars and students, that the Tienanmen death toll is not a topic for polite conversation.
In other words, whether in Manila or Beijing, it is the deliberate misuse of the noble cause of nationalism that is most dangerous. It appeals to legitimate grievances over past injustices, but channels the resulting outrage to deaden grievances over present injustices. Market reforms have led to the dismantling of the welfare system of ?iron rice bowl? guarantees; the widening income gap between rich and poor, urban and rural; environmental degradation and their social costs; and?oh so familiar to Filipinos?crony capitalism that has enabled government and party big-shots and their favored businessmen to corner state enterprises and agricultural lands. But hey, look who?s complaining now about those Capitalist Roaders!
Worse, reports show that nationalism has throbbed with the same fervor of mob rule during the dark days of Mao?s Cultural Revolution. In other words, same tactics but different causes. It seems lessons were learned from that nightmare, but selectively.
When I lectured at The Hague Academy of International Law on the South China Sea disputes, amid a predominantly European and some African audience, I noticed an identifiable group of Asian faces and, in later conversation, I learned they were mostly Chinese doctoral students studying in the finest universities in Europe and the United States. They were all bright, alert, persuasive?and very nationalistic, the generation that has enjoyed the bounties of Deng?s economic reforms three decades ago. I recall having told myself: In 10 years, these are the guys whom the Philippines and the rest of the world will find on the other side of the negotiating table. We need to build up our own generation of experts to match them.
Filipinos are caught in a quandary. We so admire China for what it has achieved, yet fear that their new found national self-confidence and reclaiming of their past glory will not bode well for its Southeast Asian neighbors.
* * *
Comments to passionforreason@gmail.com
