‘Poking the bear,’ seriously?

THERE are only three geopolitical powers; the rest are categorized below them. These are the US, China and Russia. We are in the Asian Century, and to that extent, the United States will have to stop playing global cop because that has led to disasters that caused the loss of lives, innocent lives at that. Destroying a nation is of no import to it as long as its hegemonic control pervades the political, economic and military order.

The US has made several pivots in the global order. There was the time of perestroika, Gorbachev and Yeltsin when it arrogated unto its sphere the tidings of democracy. Then in China after Tiananmen Square, it again highlighted the tenets of democracy. Then came Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” in November 2011. A “vigorous debate has risen about what this means for US foreign policy and American grand strategy. Some experts worry that the pivot seriously weakens trans-Atlantic relations, leaves the Middle East in disarray and dangerously confronts China. Other experts argue that US vital national interests have shifted in the past two decades, that a pivot to Asia is required to address the Pacific Century and the threat of China, and that Asia is, therefore, where US military, economic and diplomatic resources should primarily focus.”

The genesis behind the pivot to Asia was framed as a “strategic re-balancing of US resources and priorities toward the world’s most populous continent, which would likely be the epicenter of the most important global affairs of the 21st century. Having long had strong relationships with Japan and South Korea, the United States sought to have a more comprehensive Asia-Pacific strategy that included engaging more with Southeast Asian nations as a means of containing China’s growing assertiveness in the region. The US wanted to show China that it would compete economically, diplomatically and militarily on its turf. Additionally, the pivot would help disentangle the United States from the Middle East, where it had been bogged down for nearly a decade in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The US intervened in Myanmar and Ukraine and is now embroiled in Hamas-Israel with no end in sight.

Looks like Mr. Marcos Jr. and his staff failed to avoid a monumental gaffe. The bear is not Chinese; it is Russian. It could have been a panda if the elementary mind had googled it. But it did not, and for a leader to say that on the global stage is a huge cringe moment after another sitdown foreign interview that went haywire.

The national animal of Russia is the Russian bear, which is a derivation of the brown bears that are indigenous to the country as a whole. Over the years, the “bear has come to symbolize the good and bad aspects of the Russian people, and that comparison has been taken with a mixture of fondness and irritation by the country’s citizens throughout the years.” The Russian bear symbolizes many things. Popular characteristics include laziness, aggression and an ability to hibernate for long periods. It also “symbolizes strength, endurance and resilience, which are traits that Russian people are particularly proud of.”

China’s symbol is that of a dragon, also known as “long” or “lung” in Chinese. It is the most important animal symbol in Chinese culture. There are several different kinds of dragons in Chinese mythology, all representing different things. In ancient times, “the emperors claimed they were descended from dragons, which is why many crests depicted dragons on them. The five-clawed dragon represents imperial power and dignity. These celestial beings were also considered the patron deity of rain, thunderstorms, typhoons, the sky and the seas. They also symbolized the highest power and transformation and are a symbol of good luck and positive energy.”

The bald eagle has long been associated with authority and sovereignty; thus, the mighty bird was chosen by the United States as a symbol of America.

Two phrases stood out when Mr. Marcos was interviewed by Bloomberg in his latest jaunt. He mentioned the phrase “poking the bear” and “existential threat.” Thus, when he said he was “not poking the bear,” observers knew this was another prevarication with China in the unending twists and turns in our diplomatic relations with the biggest market in our corner of the world.

Mr. Marcos further said there was a need to defend the country’s territory “since the threat has grown.” The threat grew from the time he took office in 2022, and that was because of the grant to the US of certain sites in the country under EDCA, which totaled nine. The first five were in Palawan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Cebu and Cagayan de Oro City. And the additional four are in Gamu, Isabela; Lal-lo and Sta. Ana town in Cagayan; and Balabac, Palawan. Those in Cagayan and Isabela are relatively near Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait. The province of Batanes has also seen some increased military activity: two naval detachment facilities in the area have been spruced up as part of bolstering the country’s territorial defense, in particular, the security of the Batanes group of islands, the Luzon Strait, and other critical maritime areas. These new EDCA sites irked Beijing, which claims that the agreement was made so that Washington could “encircle and contain China,” which would drag the Philippines into “the Taiwan question.” Mr. President, it is not our war!

When a leader calls it an “existential threat” publicly, one could say he was telegraphing things, which is a very strange move for a leader of an independent nation. The signaling of an “existential threat” is in conjunction with invoking the Mutual Defense Treaty, which is said to be an “ironclad” commitment by the US to the country. We have seen what the US has committed to Ukraine and Israel, and there is still Afghanistan to look into.

That said, with “existential threat” supplication, another diplomatic somersault is being made. No leader talks publicly of existential threats, trying to set the stage for an assured response by the United States in case of an attack. We know that invoking the so-called ironclad act is a promise that can only be made if the US Congress agrees to a declaration of war. More than that, Article VI, Section 23 (1) of our very own Constitution provides: “(1) The Congress, by a vote of twothirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.

“(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.”

Last week, we saw the longest bridge in the world, the Danyang-Kunshan Bridge. We were in Shanghai on an educational and promotional trip made by a 100 percent Filipino company, Lin Man Power Technology Inc., the makers of Enertek. The visit was to the SanXing factory at Ningbong to check the end-toend Advanced Metering Infrastructure or AMI. There was nary a conversation on the South China Sea. It was all trade talk about how to learn from SanXing and how to bring such technology to the country. Rounds of maotai were tossed and delicious Chinese food was shared amid smiles, handshakes and invitations for the Chinese counterparts to visit Manila. The team was led by the indefatigable Ms. Jovita Yeo and the visionary NEA administrator Nani Almeda. Looking at them, I see the promise of a bright future for the two nations.

Let us hold on to our Asian values and work using them toward a framework of mutual co-existence. Let’s calm the sea first. “Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.”