By Prof. Jose Maria Sison
Chairperson, International League of Peoples’ Struggle
April 20, 2012
(Reply to Questions from Renato Reyes, BAYAN Secretary General)
Renato Reyes (RR): I hope that you can answer briefly the
following questions re China, Philippines and the assertion of national
sovereignty. We have an all-leaders meeting this Saturday and we are
trying to get views on how to deal with the issue of China’s incursions
on Philippine territory, the Aquino regime’s response and US
intervention.
 |
| Photo from the University of Texas at Austin |
Jose Maria Sison (JMS): First of all, as a matter of principle, the
Filipino people must assert their national sovereignty and Philippine
territorial integrity over the issue of Spratlys (Kalayaan) and other
islands, reefs and shoals which are well within the 200-nautical mile
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) defined by the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). According to the Philippine reactionary government,
it submitted on time to the UN the necessary scientific and technical
grounds to define the Philippine 200-mile EEZ under UNCLOS.
The UNCLOS is the strongest legal basis for the definition of the
territorial sea and EEZ of the Philippine archipelago.. Also,
archaeological evidence shows that the islands, reefs and shoals at
issue have been used by inhabitants of what is now the Philippines since
prehistoric times. But the Philippine reactionary government muddles
the issue and undermines its own position by making historical claims
that date back only to a few decades ago when pseudo-admiral Cloma made
formal claims to the Kalayaan group of islands.
Chinese historical claims since ancient times amount to an absurdity
as this would be like Italy claiming as its sovereign possession all
areas previously occupied by the Roman empire. The name China Sea was
invented by European cartographers and should not lead anyone to think
that the entire sea belongs to China. In the same vein, neither does the
entire Indian Ocean belong to India.
RR 1: How do we view the incursions and aggressive behavior of China
in territories claimed by the Philippines? Is this aggressiveness proof
that China has imperialist ambitions and should be criticized as an
imperialist power? What is the relationship between China’s revisionist
regime and its apparent desire to flex its muscles in the region?
JMS: The Filipino people and progressive forces must oppose what may
be deemed as incursions and what may appear as aggressive behavior of
China with regard to the territories belonging to the Philippines. But
so far China’s actions and actuations manifest assertiveness rather than
outright military aggression. The Philippine reactionary government
should desist from self-fulfilling its claim of China’s aggression by
engaging in an anti-China scare campaign.
The Filipino people and progressive forces must consciously
differentiate their position from that of the Aquino regime, its
military subalterns and its Akbayan special agents who pretend to be
super patriots against China but are in fact servile to the interests of
US imperialism and are using the anti-China scare campaign to justify
the escalation of US military intervention in the Philippines and US
hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.
At any rate, China must not violate Philippine national sovereignty
and territorial integrity, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and
the Code of Conduct it agreed to with the ASEAN. The apparently
aggressive or assertive acts and words of China are in consonance with
its own premise of national sovereignty and territorial integrity as
well as with the bourgeois character of the Chinese state that may
indicate an imperialist tendency or ambitions.
The Chinese state is blatantly a capitalist state. Only occasionally
does it claim to be socialist so as to cover up its capitalist character
as the revisionists in power systematically did in the past. Whatever
is its character, the Chinese state must not infringe or threaten to
infringe Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity. When it does,
it opens itself to criticism and opposition by political and diplomatic
action.
RR 2: On the other hand, would criticism of China serve the US ploy
of increasing its military presence in the region by supporting the
claim that China is indeed a major threat to Philippine sovereignty?
Would such criticism serve to support the claim that China is indeed a
major threat while obfuscating the US continuous undermining and
violation of Philippine sovereignty? How important is it that the Left
join in the assertion of Philippine sovereignty against incursions by
China?
 |
VFA "Balikatan," April 2012
Photo: Yahoo.com |
JMS: Criticism and opposition to any actual incursion by China is
consistent with the assertion of national sovereignty and does not serve
the US ploy so long as we expose at the same time why and how the
Aquino regime’s posture against alleged incursions by China are meant to
serve US goals in the region.
We must be alert to and oppose the malicious efforts of the US and
the Aquino regime to hype China as an imperialist aggressor in order to
allow the No. 1 imperialist power to further entrench itself militarily
in the Philippines and realize its strategy of encircling China and
enhancing its hegemony over East Asia and entire Asia-Pacific region.
You should take critical notice of the fact that the agents of US
imperialism like Aquino, his military sidekicks and his Akbayan
hangers-on are presenting themselves as superpatriots against China
while they allow the US to increase the presence of military forces and
activities under the Visiting Forces Agreement, the Balikatan exercises
and various other pretexts.
It is a matter of principle to invoke national sovereignty and
territorial integrity against China’s claims on certain islands, reefs
and shoals that belong to the Philippines. But we should expose and
oppose the US and the Aquino regime for actively undertaking what are
obviously anti-China provocations and propaganda aimed at justifying the
escalation of US military intervention and further entrenchment of US
forces in the Philippines, as part of the strategic scheme of the US to
preserve and strengthen its hegemony over the Asia-Pacific region,
particularly East Asia.
Further, the US imperialists are increasing their pressure on China
to privatize its state-owned enterprises, to restrain its bourgeois
nationalist impulses, to yield further to US economic and security
dictates and to further promote the pro-US or pro-West bourgeois forces
within China. In comparison to the Philippines, China is a far larger
country for imperialist exploitation and oppression. Having more
economic and political interests in China than in the Philippines, the
US is using the Philippines as a staging base for actions aimed at
pressuring and influencing China rather than protecting the Philippines
from China.
The US-RP Mutual Defense Treaty does not contain an automatic
retaliation provision. The US has used this treaty as the basis for the
Visiting Forces Agreement and for the escalation of US military
intervention in the Philippines. But in case of attack from any foreign
power, the Philippines has no basis for expecting or demanding automatic
retaliation from the US. The treaty allows the US to act strictly in
its national interest and use its constitutional processes to bar the
Philippines from demanding automatic retaliation against a third party
that attacks the Philippines.
The US and China can always agree to cooperate in exploiting the
Philippines. In fact, they have long been cooperating in exploiting the
Philippines. The Chinese comprador big bourgeoisie in both the
Philippines (Henry Sy, Lucio Tan and the like) and China (within the
bureaucracy and outside) are trading and financial agents of the US and
other imperialist powers.
RR 3: The Aquino government has availed of diplomatic venues to
resolve the dispute. Meanwhile, the Chinese incursions continue. The
Philippines is a weak country militarily and has no capability for
securing its territory. What would be the requirements for the
Philippines to be able to effectively assert its sovereignty (not
limited of course to questions of territory)? Briefly, how can the
Philippines develop a credible external defense?
JMS: Rather than entertain hopes that the Aquino regime would defend
Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Filipino people
and progressive forces must resolutely and militantly expose and oppose
the puppetry, shameless mendicancy and the hypocrisy of the regime in
pretending to be for national sovereignty and territorial integrity
against China while inviting and welcoming increased US military
intervention in the Philippines and using the country as a base for
strengthening US hegemony in the Asia Pacific region.
Only the Filipino people and revolutionary forces can gain the
capability to secure, control and defend their territory by fighting for
and achieving national and social liberation in the first place from US
imperialist domination and from such reactionary regimes of the big
compradors and landlords like the Aquino regime.
Otherwise the US and
their puppets will always be the bantay salakay at the expense of the
people.
When the Filipino people and revolutionary forces come to power, they
will certainly engage strongly among others in metal manufacturing,
ship building and fishing in close connection with securing the
Philippine territorial sea and exclusive economic zone.They shall have
internal political-military strength and socio-economic satisfaction.
And they shall develop international solidarity and use diplomatic
action against any foreign power that violates Philippine sovereignty
and territorial integrity.
 |
| Photo from IBON via Bulatlat.com |
At the moment, the US and Aquino regime are engaged in a calibrated
anti-China propaganda campaign in order to justify and allow the US to
control the Philippines and East Asia militarily. We are being subjected
to an anti-China scare aimed at further strengthening the dominance of
US imperialism and the domestic rule of its reactionary puppets like
Aquino. Right now, we must give the highest priority to fighting these
monsters.
The Filipino people and the progressive forces must complain to the
entire world against any incursive act of China and at the same time
against the maneuvers of the US and its Filipino puppets to use the
anti-China campaign to further oppress and exploit the Filipino nation
and people. By the way, the Aquino regime blows hot and cold against
China. In fact, it is vulnerable to China’s manipulation of Philippine
exports to China like some semimanufactures and agricultural and mineral
products.
When the Filipino people and revolutionary forces win, they shall be
able to bring up through official representatives the issues concerning
the UNCLOS to the UN General Assembly and the Hamburg-based
International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. They can encourage the
cooperation of certain countries like Russia and Norway to avoid
unwelcome impositions from US, UK and Netherlands in the exploration and
development of oil and gas in the areas of the Philippines.
Even at this time, approaches can be made to China to avoid
confrontations and tensions over the territories that belong to the
Philippines and to engage in all-round cooperation for mutual benefit,
especially for the advance of national independence, the industrial
development of the Philippines and the termination of the extremely
oppressive and exploitative US hegemony over East Asia, which victimizes
both the Philippines and China.
RR 4: What approaches would you like the Philippines to make towards
China? Were such approaches taken into account in the 2011 NDFP proposal
to the Aquino regime for an alliance and truce? In this regard, what
can the Left do in view of the rabid servility of the Aquino regime to
the US.
JMS: China has been known for its policy of dealing diplomatically
solely with the state (rather than with the revolutionary forces) in any
country and for its flexibility in considering the needs and demands of
that state or country. It is not as imposing and as aggressive as the
US in diplomatic and economic relations with other countries. It tries
to comply with what it professes, such as the principles of
independence, non-interference, equality and cooperation for mutual
benefit.
Thus, the National Democratic Front of the Philippines has proposed
to the Aquino regime strategic alliance and truce in the context of
peace negotiations. It has challenged the Aquino regime to make a
general declaration of common intent with the NDFP to assert national
independence and end unequal treaties and agreements; expand democracy
through empowerment of the workers and peasants; carry out national
industrialization and land reform; foster a patriotic, scientific and
pro-people culture; and adopt an independent foreign policy for world
peace and development.
A key part of the NDFP proposal is for the Philippines to approach
China and other countries for cooperation in the establishment of key
industrial projects for the national industrialization of the country.
Certainly, it would be greatly beneficial for the Filipino people that
the Philippines is industrialized and ceases to be merely an exporter of
raw materials, semi-manufactures and migrant workers, mostly women.
But the US agents in the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the
Peace Process and in Akbayan and Aquino himself supplied information on
the NDFP proposal to the US embassy and Washington. They proceeded to
cook up the anti-China scare campaign in order to undercut the proposal
and serve US imperialist interests. It would be absurd for BAYAN, Bayan
Muna and MAKABAYAN to join the rabidly pro-Aquino Akbayan or even
compete with it in the anti-China scare campaign that draws away
attention from US imperialism as well as justifies US military
intervention and aggression in the Philippines and the whole of East
Asia and the Asia-Pacific.
The people should know that the agents of US imperialism in the
Aquino regime have used various malicious and cruel tactics to block the
road to a just peace. The tactics include the abduction, torture and
extrajudicial killing of NDFP consultants in violation of JASIG and the
continued imprisonment of hundreds of political prisoners in violation
of CARHRIHL.
RR 5: How would you describe the contradictions between the US and
China? On one hand, the US is wary of the rise of China as a military
power and has sought to encircle China, yet on the other hand, the US
economy is closely linked to China’s. and China is said to be the
biggest creditor of the US.
JMS: There is unity and struggle between two capitalist powers in the
relationship between the US and China. The US is not yet really worried
about China having the military strength that can be projected outside
its borders. It is more worried about China’s military strength being
able to defend China, fend off US imperialist dictates and threats and
combat separatist forces in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.
The US strategy of encirclement is calculated to keep China as a
friendly partner in the exploitation of the Chinese and other peoples.
The US and China have already more than three decades of being close
partners in promoting and benefiting from the neoliberal policy of
globalization. The super-exploitation of the Chinese working people,
China’s trade surpluses and huge indebtedness of the US to China are
matters well within the negotiable relations of two capitalist powers,
which would rather go on taking advantage of the working people rather
than go to war against each other.
The efforts of China to find its own sources of energy and raw
materials and markets and fields of investment can be at times
irritating or even infuriating to the US (when the conflicts of interest
occur as in Iran, Sudan, Libya and Syria). But the capitalist powers
can settle their relations with each other at the expense of the working
people and underdeveloped countries, until the crisis of the world
capitalist system further worsens to the point that a number of
capitalist powers accelerate their aggressiveness and even become
fascist in their home grounds. ###
(Reprinted with permission from Mr. Joma Sison)
Source:
Sison, Jose Maria
. ON PHILIPPINE SOVEREIGNTY, US & CHINA . 20 April 2012. http://www.josemariasison.org/?p=10619
....
Reposts are licensed to the respective authors. Otherwise, posts by
Jesusa Bernardo are licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Philippines.
