THERE is nothing more dangerous than hysterical reactions to complex proposals. Pax Silica is a complex proposal. Its proponents hold out the prospect of job opportunities, involving the country in a multilateral deal that holds out the prospect of economic benefits to the country and regional cooperation with friendly countries. We are told that this engagement with other interested countries should free us from crippling dependence on China that has gained inroads threatening even national security through the various circuits of dependence.
On the other hand, we are warned about the environmental costs — water and electricity generation and the depredation of forested areas, we are told. Advocates for Indigenous peoples protest the displacement of Indigenous cultural communities. We are cautioned still by others that agreeing to the deal is yielding sovereignty deleteriously and that whatever the economic benefit the project promises inures only to already wealthy corporations and investors and will hardly make a dent on the average Filipino’s life.
There are some sinister forces at work — and ignoble motives. Because this seems to be an attempt of the Marcos administration to accelerate the nation’s economic development, those who do not want the government to succeed will be against it. There are, of course, serious concerns similar to the concerns we had about black-sand mining. If we trade away our rare-earth metals, will we be able to meet the obligations that intergenerational equity exacts from us — enabling future generations of Filipinos to benefit from the resources in which we are presently set to trade?
What should be clear is that we need information — truthful information and hard facts. We count on our scientists to give us the science, stripped of all political allegiances and partisan antipathies. We expect the proponents of the engagement to dialogue with the Filipinos who will be affected: the Indigenous communities and the other communities that are heavily dependent on the resources that will go into making the hub operational.
There are some sophistries made to pass for arguments. The blanket condemnation of “displacement” is absurd. Our cities arose because native populations were displaced, and while we may rue the colonialism that made our cities rise where once only the palisades of native chieftains stood, the fact is that we have the country of which, in varying degrees, we are proud because of the developments that took place — including the displacement of native populations. The exercise of the power of eminent domain is itself the flexing of the government’s power to displace. The landed are displaced from their estates to allow the landless to own land. The recognition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands can consist in the displacement of persons who have some claim to the land covered by the protective provisions of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act. The crucible to me is betterment: Will the lives of the displaced be bettered by relocating them? When Mount Pinatubo erupted catastrophically, nature caused the displacement of the Indigenous Filipinos who lived on the mountain’s slopes — and the government followed this up with the legal displacement of an established danger zone.
Whatever derogations there will be — if any — from the sovereignty that the Philippines enjoys over part of its territory should be the result of a sovereign decision of the nation, exercised through the government its people elect. As with many things in life, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. Every gain has its costs. It is only in a fantasy world where genies stand to do our every whim without any cost to us, save the effort it takes to rub the magic lamp! And when this topic comes up for discussion, it will be well for us to remember that we have deprived of so much that is ours in less than friendly and diplomatic ways. All we have to do is to ask the fisherfolk on Luzon’s western seaboard how much they have lost to a power that does not bother for our consent!
I am amazed at just how much cacophony Pax Silica has generated. At this time the most reasonable demand is that for facts: for the unadulterated truth. If we do not trust government to be truthful — which is itself an unhelpful position because we do have decent and truthful people in government — then citizen’s groups that have not made up their mind against Pax Silica can help educate the nation. I have no doubt that some will attempt to conscript the Supreme Court in a pushback against Pax Silica. I hope the court declines the importuning to involve itself in what should principally be a question of scientific, social, anthropological, economic and moral study.
Sometimes we conjure ghosts by which to scare ourselves. This has been the case with nuclear energy that would have helped lower the costs of electricity in the country. There are countries in the world that thrive by the comparatively clean energy produced by nuclear plants and facilities. That accidents happen is to state a condition of a broken world and of a fallen humanity, but to make that the reason for refusing to try out what can be promising is to despair about human intelligence. It is to be deleteriously distrustful of our ability to protect ourselves — a veritable crisis of faith in our capacity to steer our own future!
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
