is my Trade Tripper column in the last weekend's issue of BusinessWorld:
My column “Flip flopping Asian pivot” (Oct. 11)
seems to have struck a chord. Although analysis on President Obama’s
no-show at the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit is not
lacking, nevertheless, despite the contrasting views on the possible
effects of his no-show, what can’t be denied really is the uncertainty
his absence evoked.
China isn’t exactly shy to exploit the situation. As Tyler Roney
reports (“With Obama MIA, China Touts Multipolar World,” The Diplomat,
Oct. 8), “Xi Jingping has been the star of the recent talks in Asia,
giving the planet a taste of a new ‘multi-polar’ world” and “China’s
state media is heralding this switch in attention to a new world order.”
Still, Roney was cautious: “This doesn’t exactly stop the pivot to
Asia, but it’s an odd signal for Asian nations looking for stability.”
So, the inevitable question: what’s wrong with a “multipolar world?”
But, the issue I believe, however, is not whether such is a good idea
but rather the values espoused by the possible “multi” parts. Pluralism
has been touted as something desirable but that fundamentally
presupposes a pluralism based on reason. If, however, the contending
countries’ conflicting worldviews are inherently opposed to each other,
then the wisdom of encouraging a weakened US in favor of a multipolar
world becomes questionable.
The point is better illustrated by Aleteia’s John Burger report on a
Chinese activist’s recent remarks (“Forced Abortion Dilutes Sacredness
of Human Life, Says Chen Guangcheng,” Oct. 17): “Totalitarian regimes
pose the greatest threat to human civilization, and the free world’s
number-one priority should be their demise, said Chinese human rights
lawyer Chen Guangcheng in a public address at Princeton University on
Oct. 16.”
What is important to note here is that Chen’s position is almost exactly
aligned with Philippine values on the sanctity of life: innately
opposed to coerced “one-child-per-family policy and the forced abortions
and sterilizations that have occurred in its enforcement,” as well as
the Chinese government’s systematic repression of religious freedom.
And as if to drive the point home: “In an interview afterwards, Chen
said the issue of abortion in China is different from the question over
its legality in the United States. ‘I want to emphasize the issue of
forced abortion. In Chinese society, the negative impact of forced
abortion is very clear. Besides causing a problem with an aging
population and an imbalanced gender ratio, it’s also an issue of
undervaluing life. It is done so frequently that the concept of the
importance or sacredness of human life is diluted.’”
The foregoing must be taken alongside the context of our territorial
dispute with China. Emphatically, the Philippines stands for the
principle of an international rule of law rather than ruthless power
politics: “Philippines Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, referencing
his country’s ongoing territorial dispute with China, reiterated that
‘recourse to judicial settlement of legal disputes should not be
considered an unfriendly act between States.’ As with Vietnam, he said
that such action ‘is anchored in international law.’” (“Improving
Democratic Governance in Asia,” Andrew Billo, The Diplomat, Oct. 13)
On the other hand, to believe the Chinese government would acquiesce to a
law oriented dispute settlement is irresponsible. When “Hillary Clinton
took the side of Vietnam in mildly pushing back against China’s claims
to the South China Sea, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi could barely
contain his anger. Calling the Secretary of State’s remarks ‘an attack
on China,’ he lectured that ‘China is a big country and other countries
are small countries, and that’s just a fact.’” (“China’s aggressive new
diplomacy,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 2010)
In human rights, China’s duplicity is well recorded (human rights activist Wei Jingsheng’s New York Times
article “Don’t Believe China’s Promises,” May 4, 2012, is an example).
And China has no qualms backstabbing even religious freedoms: see George
Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center declaring: “For some
time, a modus vivendi was in place between the Vatican and Beijing on
the appointment of bishops. It was never codified, but everyone knew the
basic rules of the road: No bishops are to be ordained without the
tacit approval of the Holy See. The regime brazenly broke that working
agreement late last year, going so far as to drag one elderly Chinese
bishop by his hair to an illicit episcopal ordination.”
In questioning the idea of a multipolar world led by China as it
presently is, the words of Chen Guangcheng are well worth noting: “When
dealing with a government practicing violence and deception, if you
don’t try to influence it with your universal values, such as freedom,
equality, democracy, and constitutionalism, you are very likely to be
affected by the wickedness of this government.
“In an age of information explosion, it is impossible for you, me, or
anyone else to stay away from the world. If someone is convicted for
defending human dignity and universal values, every one of us has
inescapable responsibilities.”
