Let’s put the above title in context – i.e., against this backdrop: The Economist [15th Aug 2020] named the Best in Class emerging economies: “Among our neighbors, they include (1) Myanmar, (2) Vietnam, (3) China, (4) India, (5) Sri Lanka, (6) Thailand, (7) Malaysia.
“The rest rounding out the top performers are (1) Albania, (2) Romania, (3) Panama, (4) Bulgaria, (5) Poland, (6) Turkey, (7) Hungary, (8) Chile, (8) Iraq.”
“The Economist summarized the critical factors shared by these countries: (1) stunning investment and trade levels; (2) higher levels of education and government effectiveness; (3) score highly with exports that are both eclectic and exclusive, as in higher value-added, that few other countries export.”
Let’s pause right there.
Consider these countries today outperforming the Philippines to randomly pick them: Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Albania, Panama, Iraq.
In other words, the critical factors referenced above must dominate our national conversation. For example, we must toss “pwede na ‘yan.”
We want to join the ranks of the Best in Class emerging economies. That is what Juan de la Cruz is saying. Where we are today is the regional laggard. But how do we join the best in class?
Aristocracy impedes human development and, worse, it blinds us – the elite class – to question our thinking.
The South China Sea has grabbed our national conversation – and the rest of the world. Yet, as the blog has raised, why did we even kick out the US military? Is it about sovereignty and Nationalism?
Consider: “German Nationalism is an ideological notion that promotes Germans and German-speakers’ unity into a nation-state. German Nationalism emphasizes and takes pride in the national identity of Germans.
“Aggressive German nationalism and territorial expansion was a key factor leading to both World Wars.” [Wikipedia]
In other words, we cannot put one over the Germans when it comes to Nationalism.
Then consider: “The US government’s decision to withdraw thousands of troops from bases across southern and western Germany will have a massive impact on affected communities, local politicians have said.
“Several mayors in the region have already called on the German government to offer financial aid.
“The worst affected is likely to be Grafenwöhr in Bavaria, the most extensive NATO training base operated by 7th Army Joint Multinational Training Command.
“It is due to lose 4,500 troops. Three thousand locals from a population of 6,500, are dependent for employment on the base, and according to the mayor, Edgar Knobloch, the presence of US troops, who have been stationed there since the end of the second world war, is worth around €660m to the local economy.
‘These two figures speak for themselves as to what this will mean for us,’ Knobloch told the broadcaster DLF.
“He said the local region faced losing a reliable partner in the Americans, and local anger was likely to be triggered by any economic losses. ‘We have always had an excellent and friendly relationship with them, including to the commanding generals. Communication has always been superb.” ['Simply not OK': removal of US troops, Kate Connolly, The Guardian, 2nd Aug 2020]
Consider: Germany has a population of 80,159,662, a little less than ours, with $50,800 per capita GDP (PPP), and a $3.701-trillion GDP.
Then put the above spiel next to this article: “The Philippine Senate rejected the treaty [to extend the lease] in September after an impassioned debate, i.e., the American military presence was a vestige of colonialism and an affront to sovereignty.
“The move to eject United States forces seemed less a debate over the bases’ value than a demonstration of sovereignty and national pride.
“US Defense Department officials have scrambled to find alternatives.
“None of the proposed sites, including Singapore and Japan, seem to match Subic’s advantages, including huge deep-water facilities and access to the South China Sea’s strategic waters." [Philippines Orders US to Leave Strategic Navy Base at Subic Bay, David E. Sanger, The New York Times, 28th Dec 1991]
If we were forward-thinking, would we have figured the Subic advantage, including extensive deep-water facilities and access to the South China Sea’s strategic waters? Moreover, neither Singapore nor Japan has a Subic to offer.
Recall the blog discussed the object of a partnership, i.e., a win-win scenario. That even smaller and impoverished nations have something to offer. Think of Vietnam and how much FDIs it has attracted that it broke the line of poverty.
Let’s hold it right there.
Think of where we stand benchmarked against impoverished Vietnam – not to mention our neighbors, starting with the Asian Tigers, and Malaysia, and China – and wealthy Germany. Are we out-of-step with the rest of the world?
The spirit of creation – manifested by this universe – is one of interdependence. And the photosynthesis phenomenon – i.e., nature – is the best example.
But to figure these things out presupposes human development – to move up from dualism to relativism – and metacognition – to think about and question one’s thinking. Because absolute knowledge is not of this world, not even Juan de la Cruz’s.
What about the community and the common good? Do we even care if we continue to descend in the abyss?
Consider: “Nicomachean Ethics is a philosophical inquiry into the nature of the good life for a human being.
“Aristotle begins the work by positing some ultimate good toward which, in the final analysis, all human actions ultimately aim. The necessary characteristics of the ‘ultimate good’ are complete, final, self-sufficient, and continuous.
“In practical terms, this activity is expressed through ethical virtue when a person directs his actions according to reason. The very highest human life, however, consists in the contemplation of the greatest goods.” [Moschella, Melissa. “Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics Summary.” GradeSaver, 3rd Feb 2000. Web. 6th Sept 2020]
But let’s get back to Germany and Vietnam. How can both nations be in bed with the US?
Here’s a bit of history: “In WWI, the non-interventionist tendencies gained ascendancy. The Treaty of Versailles, and thus, United ‘participation in the League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Senate in the final months of Wilson’s presidency.” [Wikipedia]
To this day, the debate – within America between the non-interventionists and interventionists – remains. Think of Trump’s America First. Indeed, politics can undermine a nation’s values. Think of the lies behind the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Still, self-government has a safety value we call elections, unlike autocracy.
We Filipinos must internalize the nuances between democracy and autocracy and heed Rizal’s admonition: We submit to tyranny because we love it. And if we don’t learn to question our thinking, we can sink more profoundly in the abyss.
But let’s go to another War, WWII, to appreciate the debate between the non-interventionists and interventionists: “The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued on 14th Aug 1941 that set out American and British goals for the world after the end of World War II.
“The adherents to the Atlantic Charter signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1st Jan 1942, which was the basis for the modern United Nations.
“The Atlantic Charter inspired several other international agreements and events that followed the end of the war. The dismantling of the British Empire, the formation of NATO, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) all derived from the Atlantic Charter.
“Many of the charter ideas came from an ideology of Anglo-American internationalism that sought British and American co-operation for international security. Roosevelt’s attempts to tie Britain to concrete war aims and Churchill’s desperation to bind the United States to the war effort helped provide motivations for the meeting that produced the Atlantic Charter.
“The Atlantic Charter made clear that the United States supported the British in the war. Both wanted to present their unity of mutual principles and hopes for a peaceful postwar world and the policies that they agreed to follow after the Germans’ defeat. A fundamental aim was to focus on the peace that would follow, not specific American involvement and war strategy, although American involvement appeared increasingly likely.
“There were eight principal clauses of the charter: (1) No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom; (2) Territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned; (3) All people had a right to self-determination; (4) Trade barriers lowered; (5) There was to be global economic co-operation and advancement of social welfare; (6) The participants would work for a world free of want and fear; (7) The participants would work for freedom of the seas; (8) There was to be disarmament of aggressor nations and common disarmament after the war.” [Wikipedia]
In sum, the human condition doesn’t change. As the banishment from the garden demonstrated, humankind always has the choice between good and evil. And that is why the spirit of creation, i.e., this universe’s dynamism, can’t be taken for granted.
Simply put, we can’t be static in a dynamic world. And the Atlantic Charter is a great example. But nirvana doesn’t descend perpetually upon humankind’s best efforts precisely because of this universe’s nature.
Unsurprisingly, innovation, and global competition defined the 21st century. There will be winners, and there will be losers. But that is why interdependence demands hegemony. The winners must, like the US and the UK did after WWII, conceive a code of norms a la the Atlantic Charter.
That is why the blog speaks of principles, not rules, to define standards of behavior. Laws are great, but they are insufficient to be universal – as the battle between Christ and the scribes and Pharisees established.
Satan will always be in the garden, and we will always have despots somewhere in this world.
Beyond the South China Sea challenge, the blog has raised how “pwede na ‘yan” – or our inability to think forward – set us up to be the regional laggard.
Take agriculture. Economies evolve beyond agriculture if we care to look around us.
Consider: To be a model economic driver, even advanced agriculture and farming in the US must be a subset of a more innovative, globally competitive, and comprehensive agribusiness enterprise.
Or think of the Soviet empire or, today, Russia. Their agriculture is world-class, but they failed to industrialize beyond their military enterprise. And it was a significant factor in the demise of the USSR.
Still worse is our experience. We didn’t forward-look nor forward-think that we assumed a comprehensive agrarian reform program is the be-all and end-all. Look at the coconut industry. We had the largest one yet because of “pwede na ‘yan” and our impunity culture, we failed to move up to the next level.
And we kept to our thinking that the OFW phenomenon was a great alternative to industrialization.
To pull all the previous together, we can recite our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism that we rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.
On the other hand, if America is not exempt from this universe’s dynamism, is America First the answer?
Think of how humankind moved from the Stone Age to the Copper Age. Every transition from one age to the next will test humankind’s wherewithal. Still, given the spirit of creation, humanity is always able to respond to the challenge accordingly. Humankind did no go extinct after the banishment from the garden nor the migration from Africa.
It is not “America First,” that is the answer. It is leadership. And it is in the nuance of hegemony. For example, instead of leading the world to develop a vaccine for Covid-19, the US has abdicated its role.
Think of what would have happened if after WWII – as in post-WWI, the non-interventionists prevailed in America. It is what human development is. And so is metacognition.
The writer is in the New York office of his Eastern European friends as he writes. He personifies American hegemony. He works with them to navigate the treacherous road from communism to capitalism. And in the process, they have become a competition for American enterprises.
Think of Nixon engaging China. The outcome is the best example of “lifting all boats.” Still, as a consequence, China has become a competition for America’s might.
It again dramatizes the dynamism of this universe. It is a safety valve to how hegemony can evolve to something cruel as the past teaches us – i.e., imperialism, or merely a bully.
Consider: The world has moved from the analog world to the digital one. Think of Apple outdoing Sony, with the iPod replacing the Walkman. The world is now into quantum computing and AI. The competition is figuring out how the outcome can be akin to the Nixon model of “lifting all boats.”
And that is why we admire Aristotle. “The very highest human life consists in the contemplation of the greatest goods.”
So, where is Juan de la Cruz?
Where are we as a nation?
Gising bayan!
“Here is a land in which a few are spectacularly rich while the masses remain abjectly poor. And where freedom and its blessings are a reality for a minority and an illusion for the many. Here is a land consecrated to democracy but run by an entrenched plutocracy, dedicated to equality but mired in an archaic system of caste.
“But the fault was chiefly their own. Filipinos profess the love of country, but love themselves – individually – more.” [Ninoy Aquino, Foreign Affairs magazine, July 1968; Stanley Karnow, New York Times Magazine, “Cory Aquino’s Downhill Slide,” 19th Aug 1990.]
“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? Moreover, that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]
“True social reform has little to do with politics. To unmoor ourselves from the burdens of the past, we must be engaged in the act of continual and conscious self-renewal. All men are partially buried in the grave of custom. Even virtue is no longer such if it is stagnant.
“Change begins when we finally choose to examine critically and then recalibrate the ill-serving codes and conventions handed down to us, often unquestioned, by the past and its power structures. It is essentially an act of imagination first.” [David Henry Thoreau; American essayist, poet, and philosopher; 1817-1862]
“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists. [A] nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]
“You have to have a dream, whether big or small. Then plan, focus, work hard, and be very determined to achieve your goals.” [Henry Sy Sr., Chairman Emeritus and Founder, SM Group (1924 - 2019)]
“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” [William Pollard, 1911-1989, physicist-priest, Manhattan Project]
“Development is informed by a people’s worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]
“Now I know why Paul dared to speak of ‘the curse of the law’ (Galatians 3:13). Law reigns and discernment is unnecessary, which means there is little growth or change in such people. When you do not grow, you remain an infant.” [Faith and Science, Open to Change, Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation, 23rd Oct 2017]
“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists, and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]
No comments:
Post a Comment