IN a world run by big business and the military-industrial complexes of first-world nations, the vexed question facing the latter’s poor and insignificant former colonies is how to be sovereign or truly independent among powerful nations that compete for world hegemony.
Neutrality would be an ideal posture as proven by progressive neutral states like Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Thailand, etc. that, though small, were never colonized. These neutral nations are truly everybody’s friend and nobody’s enemy. They don’t waste precious resources on arming a defense force against invaders and when other states are at war they are free to go about their own business.
Unfortunately for the Philippines, we can no longer be neutral by simply declaring it. We have been dependent on the US for a lot, like our economy has been a satellite of the US economy. Also, we have been so sold to the American dream. We are scared stiff or extremely uneasy, to say the least, about cutting the umbilical cord that binds us to Uncle Sam even if we know (or don’t we?) that it comes at the price of a chunk of our sovereignty.
But who would invade us that we should be so deathly scared to cut our military ties with the US? For obvious reasons, on our own we can’t start a war against any of our wealthier neighbors. The only way we can go to war, and possibly be invaded for it, is if the US, for its own reasons, goes to war with China. Our mutual defense treaty would compel us to fight on the US side.
Thus, if China invaded us it would not be for reasons intrinsic to us. It would be because she has to treat an ally of her enemy as also her enemy. With or without the US, she only really needs to intimidate us and being militarily weak we just have to tread lightly in dealing with her.
The question of whether or not we want to be a sovereign country demands a simple yes or no answer. Not “yes but” Senator Bato should not be the reason, not “yes but” we should not befriend China either. There are no ifs or buts if the motive is not political gain but upholding sovereignty. Only by answering with an unequivocal yes can we move on to manage the consequences of our choice as any self-respecting people would.
An unequivocal yes could make us cut our ties with the US, ties that cost us a huge chunk of our sovereignty. But with it goes the decision of how much less of a sovereign arm or leg we are willing to pay, for pay we must, to be a friend of another powerful nation, China.
There is no other way we can be a friend to all and an enemy to none except by walking the tightrope between the US and China. But only an unequivocal yes would make us dare walk that tightrope towards full sovereignty.