Nations gone Awry: Some Thoughts

Andrew Felix Arsenio Antonio De Castro (30) is a young Filipino who desires change. Change that he feels the current political dispensation in his country is incapable of delivering. Yet, he is part of the State. As he likes to describes himself, he 'locks up the corrupt public officials.' Andrew works as an Assistant Special Prosecutor II of the Office of the Ombudsman in the Phillippines. He shared some of his thoughts here while being in Hawai'i as a Fellow of the East West Centre on the Asia Pacific Leadership Programme. Excerpts:

Pinaki: How long will it take for the Filipinos to emerge out of the colonised mindset in dealing with the USA, the former colonialists?

Andrew: The Philippines is in denial that it still possesses a colonial mentality. While what you read in the news are noisy activists protesting against US policies, in the end, the government policies, culture and the basic way of life are still very colonial. In terms of identity however, I believe we have distanced ourselves from being America's little brown brother as it seemed in the 60s. We now have our own identity, which paradoxically, is a non-identity. Europe and Asia however are increasing trade with the Philippines, so in term of influence, I see the US having less influence within the next 10 years.

Pinaki: You belong to the generation which is the future of the Philippines. What is your explicit take on the path the country should take in the next 20 years? But before that would you please explain that point about a confused identity?

Andrew: It should be a very radical path. Presently, our system of governance is programmed in a way that any minor anomaly in the system (aka someone who is actually honest and well meaning) will be pounced upon even before he gets to do anything significantly good. I have seen good men in government being taken out of office due to some reforms they have initiated which would have decreased the prospects of corruption.

The Philippines, from being number 2 in Asia (next only to Japan) in the 1960's is now among the least performing in Asia. Even war-torn Vietnam is over-taking us and will completely do so in less than two years. The Phillippines must think out of the box in terms of catching up with its neighbors. The government is obsessed with numbers, economic data, and all traditional indicators of economic growth. I don't think that is where the solution is. I believe we should start from the beginning. We, as a nation have no identity. We have no significant culture. We have no pride. We call ourselves Filipinos but we do not identify with each other. Before all this economic gobbledygook, the next 10 years should be spent searching for our identity, what makes us Filipino, what will unite us as a people. Without this, any economic solution will be half-baked, and not sustainable.

From this, the next ten years can be spent on continued bureaucratic reform (which can also begin during the first 10 years). It takes patience, but doing it this way is a service to future generations.

Pinaki: I shall not be asking you for a panacea. But can you point out one element that could become an unifying and integrating feature for the Filipino society besides the common goal of attaining economic prosperity?

Andrew: The Filipinos are separated in terms of dialect, religion and geographic locations. Generally though, we are significantly homogenous. What keeps us from being united is an unspoken class system. The middle class versus the poor. The rich are too distanced to have any friction with the other two classes but between the middle class and the poor is a struggle for space in the middle classes. This prevents us from having a unified front. The people are too busy trying to be middle class or trying to hold on to their middle class status. Whats wrong with it is that they do so at the expense of others. What happens is, instead of seing it as "Us Against Them" meaning the Filipinos versus other nations, its simply, and literally, us against them (neighbours, etc.)

If we can remove this divide, then we can have a healthy working class that can run the nation.

Pinaki: Why is economic and social mobility such a problem?

Andrew: Well, the Philippines does not have a monopoly on economic problems. However, unlike other problematic nations, it has vast natural resources. If you visit the Philippines, all you see in the countryside are rice fields, acres and acres of rice fields. Yet, we still import our rice from Thailand. Not to mention that the International Rice Research Institute is found in the Philippines. What is a better example of poor economic planning than that? There was a move in the late 1990's to convert the Philippines into an industrialised economy. It had partial success but once again, if you do not fix your old problems, you can only expect them to pop up once in many whiles. Now we have a suffering agriculture economy and a lacklustre industrial economy.

This leads to social mobility problems. The poor economy has made the people less "generous", meaning that if they can earn more pesos off you, then better. This goes back to what I have said earlier. When one person is suffering economic hardships, he sees it in isolation, so he tries to take advantage of others for his own benefit. An example would be lower wages for his employees, or poor quality of products etc. He does not see the bigger picture that in the end he is sabotaging the economy, and thus making it worse for his children.

Social mobility is also hampered by the struggle between classes that i have mentioned. The rich get richer at the expense of the middle class and poor, same with the middle class. If they make money off the poor, then the poor has less opportunity to join them in their ranks.

Pinaki: You referred to the working class that could run the nation? But why would the elite - military and civilian - allow them to have power?

Andrew: Yes, but by "run" I do not mean to run the government. I just meant that the middle class are the proverbial wheel that moves the nation. By running, I don't mean the managers of the factory, but those who operate the machinery to make it work.

The elite precisely would not want them to have power. That is the problem. The middle class, if united can make a difference, but as I have said, they are too busy fighting each other to unite. Interestingly, it seems that when the Spanish left, it was the elite who took over as "colonizers" who divided and conquered.

Pinaki: Are you talking about the ones who are the real source of power? Why would the existing elite allow the working class to have that?

Andrew: They will not. That is why I believe in radical change. From Marcos to the EDSA Revolution and to the recent overthrow of Estrada, it was all a changing of power between the elite. There was no true revolution. It was simply a flirting affair between the military and the elite, especially the most recent revolution. The sad part is, the middle class and the poor were used as pawns to gain legitimacy for their "revolution".

Pinaki: Considering that the apron strings of the Filipino power-elite is tied to the American imperial desires, how would you expect the situation to change?

Andrew: I would not say that it is tied to American Imperial desires. I think that American interests in the country only lie in direct interests such as international policies, those affecting American nationals directly etc. The power-elite have done their homework and have been sustainable enough to stand on their own. In fact, I think they are strong enough to withstand even American interests.

Pinaki: So who would you say amongst the current political formations in your country come closest to reflecting your desires?

Andrew: No one reflects the change I want to see. There is a senator by the name of Francis Escudero who has promise. He is young, intelligent and very clear with his thoughts. However, he carries too much political baggage. He was the spokesman for the current opposition party, which includes among its ranks people who I am not too happy with. On his own, he can be a refreshing sight amidst the gloomy political landscape. As to his plans for the nation, I do not know. I just know that we share the same views on the current administration.

Pinaki: I was not talking about an isolated individual actually. In fact, you have yourself pointed out the contradiction of the situation by pointing his limitations in terms of his party organisation. I assume your desire for systemic change is not born out of your comparative youth, but is rooted in your fervent wish as a responsible and conscious citizen of your country. Would you say that large number Filipinos share your sentiments?

Andrew: If you are asking about socio-political movements that are leaning towards my desire, there are none. Philippine politics is unfortunately individualistic. Political Parties exist only during campaigns.

I would not say a large number of Filipinos share my sentiments. I am very idealistic, perhaps to a fault. The general impression I get, even from the youth is that the Philippines is a sinking boat, might as well get as much as you can from it then try to save yourself. Its more like, what can we do to save ourselves. Only us. No nation to speak of.

Pinaki: That sounds rather gloomy...

Andrew: It is. I do not know if that is unique of the Philippines as I have little experience of other places.

In My View

Iran: A voice to be heard

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a group of Iranian war veterans recently, "The UNSC (United Nations Security Council) resolutions need to be issued with high precision, while speaking in vain should be refrained in their texts." He was speaking in the wake of the George W Bush government declaring in a much-touted US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran “stopped” all nuclear weapons development plans after 2003 in earlier part of the first week of December. Clearly, Iran needs to be heard more carefully in the future.

Crucially, this was also the week India was debating in its Parliament whether the civilian nuclear agreement it was about to conclude with the USA was really in its interest. The Left parties argued that the agreement was a sell-out to the US establishment for a few pieces of silver and becoming a surrogate power. Bharatiya Janata Party wants to renegotiate the deal so that they could have their own loaves and fishes out of it. Meanwhile, the Indian people have suspended their judgment whether they would like to live in Uncle Moe’s Cabin. (Uncle Moe’s neo-slave variant of the original Uncle Tom!)

Meanwhile, it will remain on record that India voted in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demanding Iran to subsume its sovereign choice about subscribing to international safeguards and fulfill an agenda set in Washington and the other western capitals, going in the name of the “international community.”

The USA has more experience in playing a major power. So it tried to make the best of a bad deal. The NIE was a classic case of a Washington compromise. The Bush administration was aware that it could not drive the country to another war with Iran after the Iraq fiasco with false intelligence. American intelligence community knew that it could not serve up another platter of “designer” intelligence to suit the palate of their consumers in the White House without the American people, and some remaining parts of the world losing all faith in their professionalism.

The political class in the USA was so busy dissembling on the Iran issue during an election season that they needed a respite. And the war mongers in the Pentagon, after losing their chief votaries like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, knew the reality – that they were overstretched to the extreme.

Hence, the NIE was dressed up actually as a triumph of American policies of constraining, containing and threatening the only reasonably democratic country in the North-West and West Asian world. Some portions of the NIE have real fictive value. For example it says, “Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.”

Now, this great sense of overwhelming influence is not justified in the succeeding paragraphs of the declassified copy of the NIE about how this policy legerdemaine took place. Importantly, this is the paragraph in the published text that does not have any classifying remark like “low confidence,” “moderate comnfidence,” or “high confidence” appended to it.

Yet, the US National Security Adviser, Stephen J Hadley, who has the thankless job defending a war-crime prone Bush administration’s policies, told Washington-based reporters that the new conclusions validate the administration's long efforts to pressure Iran, most recently through economic sanctions. The level of confidence in the effects of US policy was certainly not evident when the American president, Bush had declared that the world would countenance a “World War III” if Iran were to arm itself with nuclear weapons, barely a month ago.

As is the case with Bush, he spoke with a forked tongue – not a trait that goes down well with the rest of world especially from the supreme leader of a country that considers itself the sole standard bearer for “democracy” and “freedom.” For Bush knew in August what his intelligence people told him: that in their finding Iran is not arming itself with nuclear weapons. That conclusion ultimately led to the current NIE.

But not all the conclusions of the NIE need to be taken as cast in stone. For humanity nuclear weapons history records that the ‘ultimate weapon’ is not liable to any external machination if a nation believes that its ownership is its supreme national interest. The Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis have proven that rule again and again. Most of them had gone through a process of intense mobilisation of public opinion where the “costs and benefits” – as the NIE discovers to be guiding Iranian calculations – were enunciated.

Iranians know more than most what the costs are. If they have chosen to not walk the nuclear weapons path, they might have judged differently. In the words of Ahmadinejad, "The Iranian nation's victory (stemming from the NIE disclosure) is indebted to this nation's spirit of resistance and their national unity, whose blessings would be hundreds of times greater in the future."

Clearly, this realisation is embedded in the knowledge on what impact the findings of the NIE would have on the UNSC coalition that is driving the ‘sanctions’ agenda. What impact the NIE would have on New Delhi would be interesting to watch.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhum, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in . He is presently in Hawai’i, the USA at the East West Centre as a Student Fellow of the Asia Pacific Leadership Programme at the Centre.

The Way I See It

In My View

Pakistan in trouble

With Pakistan, the USA is between a rock and a hard place. Now that Gen Parvez Musharraf has declared an internal emergency in Pakistan, the American policy pundits have suddenly discovered the virtues of democracy and rule of law. Demands for the George W Bush government to dump the general have reached a crescendo.

All the while when Pakistan military was bombing, strafing, gunning and abducting people in the northwestern part of the country – all without the emergency powers they now enjoy – the demigods of ‘democracy’ in Washington did not have any conscience pangs. Only when Gen Musharraf found himself in a legal tangle with the Pakistan Supreme Court on the verge of ruling his recent re-election void did the Bush Administration and its capper boys found him to be utterly unpalatable.

They now want him to write his own dissolution by handing over power to Benazir Bhutto after a cursory Parliamentary poll early next year. This is the same Bhutto who in her previous incarnation as the head of a kleptocratic regime had denuded the country of all fair play. Now that she is ready to do any one’s bidding – particularly that of the Americans – for her own anointment, the US strategic punditry has found in her the visions of liberal liturgy that would deliver them all Islamic terrorists residing in the region.

So, in other words, Washington is swinging from one bad choice to one worse, because they have no other. In the past 25 years, ever since Pakistan under Gen Zia-ul Haq decided to become a frontline state in the Cold War battle in Afghanistan, the Americans have joined hands with successive regressive regimes in Islamabad to systematically destroy all semblance of decency and progressivism in the country’s politics.

They have not allowed any institution in the country to survive barring the armed forces. They have fostered the feudal lords to thrive in the country in the guise of democratic politicians. And for more than decade, they let forces of Islamic radicalism grow just so that it could act as a bulwark of American interests – under the aegis of a Wahabi philosophy pioneered by the other American stooges, the Saudi royal family.

Now all those policies are coming home to roost. Gen Musharraf might not have been the paragon of virtue that the American policymakers expressly profess as their motto, but nor was he the embodiment of evil that the US’s pro-establishment, mainstream media is drumbeating about. Musharraf is a man who has shown his liberal instincts a number of times, though often obscured by his high showmanship.

For a long time, he struggled hard to maintain a balance between his necessity of confronting the Islamic radicalists and not going against the theological bent of the population. He did even try to shift Pakistan from the path of endemic anti-Indianism as a sine qua non of its existence as he realised that it was coming in the way of his attempts at modernising the country. Unfortunately for him, Pakistan’s ruling elite had been weaned away from sharing power with the people – evident in a limited way in the early days of Pakistan – and to a total dependence on the USA.

Having been bred in Pakistan army that has been the largest beneficiary of this American largesse, Musharraf was not in a position to make a clean break with the past. Moreover, after 9/11 he took the conscious decision of siding of with that section of world opinion, which was against religious obscurantism driving Islamic terrorism. Coincidentally a shade of this opinion was being led by the US and Musharraf decided to make this work to his advantage thus gaining legitimacy for his regime.

This attitude of his helped India also to deal with cross-border terrorism aimed at the country even though often the newly established systems failed to deliver. But for the first time in the sub-continent’s past did a ruler of Pakistan veer away from the path of the anti-India bandwagon. But curiously, neither the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government nor the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government allowed him to garner some political mileage out of his endeavour that could gain him elbowroom in the politics across the borders.

Possibly, both the Indian regimes were keener to please their new friends in Washington, thus keep up an unrelenting pressure on him. The basic fallacy in this Indian strategic argument was the lack of a Pakistani civil society that could buttress a democratic push against the Islamic radicalists. India could at least have held Musharraf’s hand in putting up that kind of a political resistance and not have taken such a securo-centric stand on the whole complex relationship.

Now, it might already be too late for even India to salvage its Pakistan policy that goes beyond keeping the former’s borders benign. For whichever regime comes to power in Islamabad in a post-Musharraf phase would seek to hide their American apron strings under a radical verbiage targetted against India. They would try to balance their hardline stance against Islamic terrorists targeting the USA with a softer line against those that seek to destabilise India.

If anyone in New Delhi believes that the policy mavens of Washington would actually live up to their rhetoric about eliminating “all terrorism” launched from Pakistan, s/he should be given the highest honour, saved for utter naivete. The desperation levels of the US elite is too high for them to consider any view that does not cater directly to their immediate interests.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhum, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in . He is presently in Hawai’i, the USA at the East West Centre as a Student Fellow of the Asia Pacific Leadership Programme at the Centre.

In My View

Shining China

Chinese scholars are now debating whether the country could invest some of its trillion dollar plus foreign exchange reserve into a new “Asian fund” that would focus on building infrastructure in poorer Asian countries. The fund would be managed by an international organisation, specially created for administering it.

If this sounds like Beijing’s first foray into challenging the established international financial institutions like the western dominated International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the Japanese financed, Asian Development Bank, just ask Prof Wu Jianmin, a consummate diplomat; a former ambassador to the France, besides an UN body in Geneva. He is now the president of the Chinese Foreign Affairs University in Beijing.

He told us in a talk that “anti-globalisation protests are not popular in China.” For the country’s growth is wedded to East Asia’s growth and “globalization.” As if to buttress his point he quoted the IMF stating that China contributes 25 per cent to the globe’s economic growth.

That self-confidence does not seem misplaced when one travels through the country. A 36-hour boat ride through the Yangtze beginning at Yi Chang and ending in Chongqing, tells a story of a nation on the rise and very near the top. The goal for the new cities, which have grown after the inundation of the Three Gorges dam put the old into a watery grave, seem to be to touch the sky. Literally, the cities and towns are dotted with skyscrapers as the innumerable Chinese seek to save on living space. But they have abundant opportunities, and are now coming into real money.

Post-Soviet socialism does not have a template for evolution. Marxism never told its adherents each step of achieving a socialist society, but instead had merely detailed the nature of capitalism and created the goal of socialism as a step forward leading to communism as the highest form of human condition.

China’s post-revolutionary ideologues are shaping a capitalist nation that could lead the people to the final stage socialist emancipation. Interestingly, despite being the third largest economy of the world, consumption levels of the Chinese is still quite low. They save more than 30 per cent of their income. They still do not throng the shopping plazas in as many numbers as their population should entail.

But in the process it is redefining many of the familiar signposts of socialism. As Dr Xiang Yao, director of a research institute attached to China’s apex State Council puts it: “In the past, our wrong policies have ended the lives of hundreds of thousands. In the past we followed poor socialism as opposed to rich capitalism. Previously, we put too much emphasis on class struggle.” Almost 35 per cent of the country’s top 500 millionaires are members of the Communist Party of China.

Now Hu Jintao’s China is full of words like “scientific harmonious socialism.” Like any other democratic nation - though ruled by one party – in China a governing idea first needs to become a part of the popular lexicon. The Chinese president had been saying those words for the past five years – since he came to power. Only this month, the CPC enshrined the word “scientific” into its constitution, giving the necessary direction to its socialist dicta.

The city-dwellers now openly talk of the “great divide” between the well-off urbanites and the poor rural folks. Dr Xiang even talked about another divide – the regional divide – that separates the more developed east from the less developed west and central China. He says financial resources and investments need to be diverted to those parts of the country as “eastern China should support the growth west and central China.”

So instead of “distributing poverty” – as socialism was long thought to do – the Chinese state is seeking to redistribute the national wealth. That wealth is being generated by the people of the country whose boundless energy has been unleashed by the party-state.

And how does China view its tri-lateral relationship with Russia and India? Prof Wu says that the relationship is based on the precept of “cooperation,” which is contrary to the notion of “confrontation” amongst neighbours.

“We will not follow our unilateral interests,” he says, “We want to be a prosperous, democratic and a civilised country.” Apparently, he is not just addressing an Indian but indeed his intended audience was others, further west. Clearly, China had decided to have a new kind of stable engagement with the major powers; its neighbours; and with the “developing countries,” as Dr Wu Jianmin elucidates.

The sense of Chinese civilisation abounds the country in many of the symbols chosen to make the nation attractive to its own people and outsiders. While the Chinese revolution - led by the CPC – entailed a clear disconnection with the country’s rather difficult past, now an attempt is being made to uphold some of the cultural artifacts of the same past so as to give the people a sense of history. The natural concomitant of that is the rise of Chinese nationalism, that can reach a high pitch in the years to come. Especially with China hosting the greatest sporting spectacle of all, the Onlympics next year. How this colour their worldview would be an interesting thing to watch?

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhum, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in . He is presently in Hawai’i, the USA at the East West Centre as a Student Fellow of the Asia Pacific Leadership Programme of the Centre.