Cold Peace over Cold War

A cold war is always zero-sum; in a cold peace, there’s no winner and no finish line. It’s a lot less exciting, but a lot fewer people are likely to die.

IT seems like a never-ending tale— Filipino fisherfolk driven away. Philippine coast guard vessels chased off by water cannons. One international protest after another, one accusation after a further. The situation at the West Philippine Sea (“South China Sea” in China’s maritime dictionary) is convoluted at best, with a sword of Damocles hanging over its head. Anytime soon, we could be seeing rivets of peaceful transactions welded in these troubled waters, or worse, we might be bracing for assault or military incursion. Recently, calls for the Philippines to embark on a different—or stronger—approach are mounting. And the waiting game for our head of state to command something hardline is as much a tension as an agonizing exercise. Thus far, his policy anent China is touted as a repetitive lackluster response, unless he is already brewing a counter-offensive, but the same is yet inaudible.

The overly eager folks could not hold their tongues. President BBM, in forging alliances with “friendly” countries like Australia, the USA, Japan, and even Israel, has managed to make the Philippines a beneficiary, albeit hearsay at the moment, of firearms, ammunitions, jet fighters, and even a replica of Israel’s all-weather air defense system. Whether the information remains as gossip or could ripen into fruition, it should still strike us ominously. Apparently, the thread between peace and war is thinning out.

The question is, will PBBM ignore China’s aggression, or will he bring the country to war? Notably, the Supreme Court has designated the President as the “primary architect of foreign policy,” (Saguisag et al. v. Ochoa, Jr. et al., GR 212426, January 12, 2016) and the Philippine Constitution clothes him with a “built-in military authority” (Article VII.18). Indeed, a “perceived foreign slight” is for the Commander-in-chief to decide, and the process calls for congressional action but only for purposes of declaring a war “already in existence.” This is found in the Constitution’s Article VI.23 which states: “The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.” As one Judicial Academy lecturer succinctly puts it: “Congress cannot call for initiatory military action, by dint of international law (e.g., Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter) and the Constitution’s Article II.2 (“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy”).

Amid all symptoms of Chinese aggression in the disputed territorial waters, the Philippines lingers on calculated actions and by-thebook responses, thus far. Perhaps noting the saying that hell knows no wrath than an engager scorned, our country ought to choose cold peace over cold war. These two eras are tangibly explained by an international columnist citing a 2019 essay in Foreign Affairs. Says Mr. Michael Hirsch: “Cold war” means openly vying for total dominance, military and otherwise. It means constant internal interference with a rival nation through covert action and living with the ever-present threat of annihilation in a hairtrigger, nuclear-imperiled world. “Cold peace,” on the other hand, means that rival powers generally avoid the use of military force and focus their relationship on nonlethal forms of geopolitical competition. The contest is defined by whoever exercises the most influence within a generally agreed-upon international system. A cold war is always zero-sum; in a cold peace, there’s no winner and no finish line. It’s a lot less exciting, but a lot fewer people are likely to die.

No matter the provocation then, and in spite of the many times the President might be swayed into leading this country to war against China, the choice for what is more of a life-sustaining action ought to be preferred. Corollary to this, my humble opinion is for us to shift our eyes from the natural sphere to the heavenly arena. This should remind us of what King Jehoshaphat of old Israel mulled over as he and his army stood no chance against the herculean armies of the Moabites, Ammonites and some Meunites, as told in 2 Chronicles 20: 1-29 of the Bible.

As documented, the enemies of Israel wanted to take over the land given by God to His people. On the natural and physical range, Jehoshaphat and his troops were too small and weak compared to the forces of their opponents. But instead of sliding down to despair, the king led his army, as well as the women and children to pray for God’s counsel and intervention. And true enough, the Lord assured them, thus: “Do not be afraid. Do not lose hope because of this huge army. The battle is not yours. It is God’s.” (2 Chronicles 20:v. 15-16). And as further narrated, King Jehoshaphat sent out men who would sing to God in praise and worship to march down in FRONT of their army. Not the archers, or sword-wielding men, but praise-singers were appointed to walk in front and lead the army to victory. True enough, they won over their enemies.

The lesson cannot be any clearer. When faced with crisis, or a potent force, threat or any form of aggression, our FIRST defense and BEST offense would be to look to our Abba Father both for wisdom and protection. Many a times, we are overwhelmed by what we see in the natural: a tiny “David” that is the Philippines against a muscular “Goliath” like China; small and ill-equipped coast guard vessels against huge waterpirouetting ships; solid structures manned by numerous armed men versus a rusty Second World War-era ship (BRP Sierra Madre) carrying the Philippine f lag and guarding against Chinese expansion—the same predicament faced by king Jehoshaphat and his people. But these did not stop them from fixing their eyes on the supernatural instead of the natural. And so, they prayed, “no matter the punishing sword or plague or hunger, they will serve God” (v.9). And they chose to sing praises instead of hurling spears.

Truthfully, there can be many experts counseling our President or guiding our authorities. Discussions on the national angle, on the economy and environment, among others, flow freely day in and day out. But the sum of it all ought to be an intentional preference for peace over war. After all, peace is every believer’s default mode, following Jesus Christ’s pronouncement that “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you” (John 14:27). It is about time that we march along this gift of peace and own it.

A former infantry and intelligence officer in the Army, Siegfred Mison showcased his servant leadership philosophy in organizations such as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Malcolm Law Offices, Infogix Inc., University of the East, Bureau of Immigration, and Philippine Airlines. He is a graduate of West Point in New York, Ateneo Law School, and University of Southern California. A corporate lawyer by profession, he is an inspirational teacher and a Spirit-filled writer with a mission.

For questions and comments, please e-mail me at sbmison@gmail.com.