ACCORDING to Britannica.com, Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, the founder and leader of Italy’s Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party, 1921), took the name of his party and political movement from the fasces, the ancient Roman symbol of power and authority. The fasces are described as “a bundle of birch rods, bound with leather straps, often with an axe head projecting from the center, representing a magistrate’s power to command, punish and execute.”
Still according to Britannica.com (for brevity):
“Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of the elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: ‘people’s community’) in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.”
Aspects of fascism outlined by Britannica are seen in the narrative of the “Uni-Pink” alliance (i.e., the unholy tactical alliance between the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the political “Yellows” and “Pinks”) pertaining to the position of the Philippines and China in the South China Sea (SCS) dispute. In particular, this narrative makes it obligatory for Filipinos as a matter of “nationalism” to subscribe to their chosen approach of:
1. Affirming the omniscience and omnipotence of the 2016 ruling of the arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA); and 2. Aggressive “naming-and-shaming” campaign against China.
Anyone who does not subscribe to this is anti-Filipino and pro-China.
Nevertheless, Ambassador Rosario Manalo has briefly yet eruditely explained that no legitimate arbitration occurred under the aegis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration based on the standards of international law because China (and the other claimant-states) did not participate.
Vera Files (in “Vera Files Fact Check: PH didn’t ‘handpick’ entire panel in South China Sea arbitration case”) tried to refute Manalo’s point, saying:
“... China’s deliberate nonparticipation in the proceedings did not hamper the arbitral tribunal from hearing and rendering judgment on the case filed by the Philippines.
“Article 9, Annex VII of the Convention (i.e., the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Unclos — VY) explicitly stated that ‘absence’ or ‘failure’ of a party to defend its case ‘shall not constitute a bar to the [arbitration] proceedings.’”
Vera Files further quoted the arbitral tribunal ruling (“Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility”) saying, “... the nonparticipation of China does not bar this Tribunal from proceeding with the arbitration. China is still a party to the arbitration, and... shall be bound by any award the Tribunal issues.”
Despite having referenced Manalo’s interview, Vera Files disingenuously omitted her disclosure in the same interview that in affixing our signature to the Unclos, the Philippines opted out and repudiated the clause that would have allowed arbitration to proceed in the absence or failure of a party to defend its case.
Cambridge Dictionary (from Cambridge.org) defines naming and shaming as “the activity of saying publicly that a person, company, etc., has behaved in a bad or illegal way.” To be sure, the naming-and-shaming policy is a viable option in a buffet of viable options, which also includes the complete opposite of this fractious and hostile approach.
Nevertheless, the McCarthyist part lies in the assertion that those against the naming-and-shaming approach are “anti-Filipino” and worse, “pro-China.” For clarity, McCarthyism refers to the United States senator Joseph McCarthy, who spearheaded a witch hunt against suspected American communists in the 1950s characterized by unfair and unsubstantiated accusations of disloyalty to the nation.
A similar movement is sweeping the country right now under the Uni-Pink alliance. According to one rabid Filipino-version McCarthyist:
“When you hear Filipinos online saying things like, ‘Wala tayong laban,’ ‘Mas malakas ang China,’ ‘Makipagkaibigan na lang tayo,’ or ‘Wag tayo pagamit sa Amerika,’ pause for a second.
“Because very often, those are not Filipino arguments. Those are Chinese talking points, delivered through Filipino mouths and keyboards. Because China does not fight the Philippines with war machines. It fights with narratives.
“China’s propaganda war works by making Filipinos argue against Filipino interests, while China stays quiet in the background. The goal is simple. Confuse, discourage, divide. If Filipinos are too busy doubting themselves, China doesn’t need to fire a single missle (sic).”
Who is to say which narratives benefit China or not? These Pinoy fascists and McCarthyists?
In the same way that no viable mechanism exists to enforce the PCA ruling among sovereign states in the context of the anarchic international system, has the much-touted naming-and-shaming campaign resulted in a slowdown of Chinese efforts to build man-made structures in the SCS? Has it prevented China from seizing greater control over the disputed waters? (Insert cricket sounds).
The undeniable reason why Philippine Coast Guard spokesman Jay Tarriela has been unabatedly and uncontrollably shrieking in mainstream and social media is due to the unrelenting Chinese encroachment in the SCS.
Certainly the naming-and-shaming campaign has made bilateral relations between the Philippines and China strained almost to the breaking point, further doused with gasoline by the statements, for instance, of Senators Risa Hontiveros and Erwin Tulfo, as well as Tarriela directed toward Chinese officials in the country.
There are no guarantees that being more circumspect or even conciliatory toward China would produce better results. Yet, how is that unequivocally anti-Filipino/pro-China when it represents a legitimate diplomatic option in a buffet of legitimate diplomatic options for the Philippines?
How can fostering friendly relations with another country (i.e., “Makipagkaibigan na lang tayo sa Tsina”) be viewed as anti-Filipino?
Is any sane person really disputing the veracity of “mas malakas ang Tsina” as a statement?
“Huwag tayo pagamit sa Amerika” sounds like wise counsel, as it is never good policy to be the lackey of another state.
“Wala tayong laban” is debatable given the complexity of conflict, but not entirely unfounded given the glaring power asymmetry between our country and China.
Frankly, I do not see an iota of treason anywhere. These statements may be categorized as pessimistic but that is oceans apart from being anti-Filipino/pro-China.
Except maybe for the rabid Pinoy fascists and McCarthyists.