On the Bangsamoro

If it were up to me I'd grant the Bangsamoro outright independence and not mere autonomy. There has just been so much pain and injustice over the centuries. For them, Manila is an occupying power the way the rest of the Philippines saw Madrid, Washington, or Tokyo.

I'd like the peace talks to prosper just like anyone, but I can't see it happening under these circumstances. Too much bad faith. I'm also not sure if MILF are the right people to be talking with-- they have too little control over BIFF/PAGs/lost command/etc. (not to mention ASG) that a deal with them will not really end any of the hostilities (cf. MNLF 1996). It's not like MILF are the sole representative of the Bangsamoro, even if they fancy themselves to be such.

I say just let them go. Give them the vote. Give them the right to self-determination.

Philippines, 1899; Iraq, 2003

One hundred and nine years ago today, on 4 February 1899, Pvt. Robert Grayson of the First Nebraska Volunteers shot a Filipino soldier, whose name has been lost to history, and started the Philippine-American War. Not an insurrection, not an uprising, but a war. A war between a newly industrialised United States, fresh from its defeat of the former superpower that was Spain, and a newly sovereign Philippines, barely seven months after it declared its independence.

A war where America's preferred method of torture-- waterboarding-- was first tried and perfected. A war where America's miltary losses-- in Balangiga and Bud Dajo-- were avenged with the blood of civilians. A war where at least 600,000 Filipinos, mostly civilians, lay dead.

A war which was the fruition of an American president's desire-- his Manifest Destiny-- to spread democracy by the barrel of a gun. A war which America has chosen to forget. A war which America is doing all over again.

Anti-Americanism explained

The BBC is having a series on anti-Americanism to be aired over Radio 4 in the UK. Based to the article, it seems to challenge the concept of anti-Americanism as a reaction to American foreign policy, putting it in the same hate box as anti-Semitism or racism. The correspondent, Jim Webb, "argues anti-Americanism is often a cover for hatreds with little justification in fact". He travels to Paris, Caracas, Cairo, and Washington to study this phenomenon. Too bad I don't get Radio 4 in this part of the world-- it would've been good to listen in.

It is apparent in the article that the series has a benign veiw of America, attributing anti-Americanism in Paris as a reaction to America's "kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness" (i.e., the elitist and cultured French aristocrat versus the egalitarian but uncouth American cowboy). But whatever the etiology of French anti-American sentiment is, what I'm more concerned about is the sentiment as a reaction to American foreign policy-- is it well placed? Webb discusses it early on in the article. After seeing an anti-American protest in London, he observes:

"A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion - or to magnify those indiscretions - while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched. "

What Webb fails to comprehend is that this strong reaction to America's "tiniest indiscretion" is actually an acknowledgement that it is expected to have moral ascendancy. The world demands more of America and is very disappointed when it acts like other thuggish countries.

More than any other country in the world and more than any other superpower in history, America has trumpeted itself as the beacon of democracy and human rights. The British never claimed to spread democracy in India-- it was honest that it's all about expanding the British Empire. America, on the other hand, never owned up to its imperial past, pointing to Manifest Destiny as the reason for denying the nascent Filipino government its independence.

America prides itself in its democratic ideals and its wide open arms to all peoples. It claims to defend human rights and civil liberties, and promises to defend the world against oppressive regimes. And, to a large extent, the world believed that. That is why the world bristles at America's "tiniest indiscretions"-- it cannot claim to defend democracy and human rights and democracy while destroying them with its actions. America has proclaimed itself to be the good guy, the defender of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Its actions have shown us otherwise. That is why there is so much anti-Americanism in the world-- it's a reaction against hypocrisy. That is why America is so easily condemned for its "tiniest indiscretions".

There is one thing the world hates more than murderers, dictators, and thieves. It is self-righteous murderers, dictators, and thieves.

The Big Three

Foreign ministers of China, India, and Russia met recently in Delhi to discuss matters ranging from border disputes and shared rivers to Iraq and Afghanistan. (As always, read about it here)

The BBC headline names the three countries the "Big Three". There are many reasons why they're big. Their collective population, for one, is nearly half that of the entire world. More importantly, though, China and India are re-emerging economic powers (they were dominant centuries ago), while Russia is being re-assertive after decades of post-Cold War humiliation. Combined, this bloc can be a formidable force in world affairs. All three are nuclear powers, and two have permanent seats in the UN Security Council. China is the world's factory, producing nearly everything sold in the West. The IT industry has effectively been outsourced to India, whose engineers now populate US technical universities. Russia is becoming the main energy source for Europe, and has shown inclination to use its petroleum muscle.

It's about time a bloc challenges US dominance in world affairs. This meeting, although by no means binding or policy-setting, is a signal to the US that the three countries can work together and present a unified foreign policy front. These three can "buy" their way into alliances with smaller countries-- China's forays into Africa is a prime example-- and challenge US influence. The US can suddenly find its options lessened and be forced into compromises with the rest of the world. Moreover, small nations that have been at the short end of US foreign policy, like Palestine and the Philippines, can form (or threaten to form) alliances with the Big Three and forge a better deal for themselves.

America, being the sole superpower, gives it a monopoly over world affairs. Without the threat of being unseated it rules roughshod over smaller states, using a combination of incentives and punishments to impose its interests around the world. The Big Three has the potential to challenge US hegemony and soften its barganing stance. On the other hand, the US can provide the necessary counterweight against possible abuse by the Big Three.

In the marketplace of power, competition among the big benefits the small.