America’s duplicity

 

 

The current crisis in Ukraine, or more particularly in the Crimean peninsula, has become a conundrum that is both as old and as new as the issue of self-determination. To the United States and Europe, Crimea is but a smokescreen for Russian invasion.

 

Sevastopol in Crimea is home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet since 1783, thus emphasizing the great strategic military value of the peninsula to the Russians. Crimea has also strong historical and ethnic ties to Russia or to the old Soviet Union before Khrushchev gave it up to Ukraine, and its population predominantly speak Russian as their language.

The Black Sea and Sevastopol, home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Photo courtesy of
Wikimedia.

Now the pro-Russian regional Parliament in Crimea has voted to hold a referendum on whether to secede from Ukraine and become part of the Russian Federation, a decision immediately condemned by the United States and Europe as a violation of the constitution of Ukraine and international law. Ignoring sanctions like suspension of negotiations on wide-ranging political-economic issues, travel bans, asset seizures and cancellation of a planned E.U.-Russia summit meeting, Russia appears to be tightening its grip over Crimea and testing the political will of the West, especially the United States.

 

Whether the proposed referendum has legal grounds is certainly problematic even though Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution provides that altering the territory of Ukraine must be resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum. Reality is not merely a cut-and-dried constitutional issue. Attempts toward secession in other countries have shown that it also requires recognition by other states and a form of negotiation between the seceding territory and the central government.

 

For instance, on the issue of Quebec’s referendum for secession in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that neither the Quebec government nor its legislature has the legal right under Canadian constitutional law or under international law to unilaterally secede from Canada. The court however emphasized that the rest of Canada would have a political obligation to negotiate Quebec’s separation if a clear majority of that province’s population voted in favour of it. This has reinforced the belief of the separatist Parti Quebecois that the people of Quebec have a legitimate aspiration for independence based on the authority of a mandate from the people. Although Quebec’s secession from Canada did not materialize when the Parti Quebecois lost in the referendum, the dream of an independent Quebec continues.

 

Scotland is also voting for independence from the United Kingdom in September 2014. The British government has agreed to hold the referendum and the prospect of a separate Scotland is already dividing many citizens in the UK. In the Philippines, the proposed Bangsamoro nation that was brokered by the Aquino administration with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is about to be tabled in Congress despite attempts by renegade groups like the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) to derail the peace process. The Bangsamoro framework agreement entails carving out an autonomous region for Filipino Muslims in Mindanao that will alter the entire breadth of the Philippine territory. There are those who argue that this is only possible by amending the Constitution. Consider, too, that the referendum to ratify the Bangsamoro law is at least about two years away.

 

While Crimea is an autonomous republic in Ukraine, with its own powers under the Ukrainian constitution, its secession could depend not necessarily on the legal provisions of the national constitution, but also on the mandate of its people as determined through a popular referendum. The United States and Europe could raise their objection on whatever legal or moral grounds but in the end it is the people of Crimea who will decide their fate.

A rally backing Russia in Sevastopol in Crimea. Photo by Viktor Drachev/
Agence-France-Presse--Getty Images.

Instead of conducting the Crimean referendum under duress of Russian military occupation, Russia’s willingness to negotiate with the Ukrainian parliament for a genuine referendum could probably soften Crimea’s impending secession. Just like in the Quebec secession where the Canadian Supreme Court for the first time introduced the concept of a constitutional duty to negotiate, absent any provision in the Constitution or in international law authorizing secession by a part or territory of a state. Or as in the ongoing negotiations between the Philippine government and the MILF for a separate Bangsamoro government, which ultimately aims to establish a separate state within an existing state. In the final analysis, whatever the Crimean people choose—whether to secede from Ukraine or join the Russian Federation—must be respected. Of course, this is easier said than done.

 

The trouble with the United States and Europe which have denounced the legality of the Crimea referendum is their inconsistency and double-standard policy when it comes to the struggle for self-determination of countries or states not belonging to their political bloc.

In 1999, the United States supported Kosovo’s bid for secession from Serbia while Moscow saw it as an infringement of Serbia’s sovereignty. Kosovo ultimately gained independence in 2008.

Now 15 years later, the US and Russia are at odds again, but they have switched sides. Russia supports Crimea’s right to break off from Ukraine while the United States calls it illegitimate, a showdown that revives a long-drawn debate over the right of self-determination versus the territorial integrity of nation-states.

Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was duly elected, was ousted by a coup. No matter how you describe it, it was a demonstration supported by the West as a protest against a pro-Russian dictator. Yanukovych was seen as anti-Europe when he abandoned a trade agreement with the European Union. After fleeing Kiev and showing up in Moscow seeking help from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian troops took over Crimea on the pretext that they were protecting Russian interests in the region.

 

This double-standard policy was evident during the crises in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The United States supported the public demonstrations and protests against the corrupt and repressive governments of these countries only to cuddle the succeeding regimes which are equally repressive and even more corrupt. American foreign policy plays favourites with repressive and not-so-democratic countries like Pakistan by pouring in millions of dollars in military assistance to fight the Taliban, yet it condemns repression in Iran and North Korea which happen to fall outside its circle of allies.

 

Duality or duplicity in American foreign relations was already evident two hundred years ago when the US forced Spain to agree to a treaty that extended American frontiers. Yet, John Quincy Adams who helped draft the Monroe Doctrine said: “We are friends of liberty all over the world, but we do not go abroad in search for monsters to destroy.” Exactly what the Americans are doing now in Ukraine, in the never-ending Middle East conflict, and in the simmering dispute between China and its neighbours over some islands and rock formations on the China Sea.

 

The United States has used the Monroe Doctrine in authorizing intervention against aggression by other countries, yet at the same time the doctrine espoused neither interference nor meddling in the internal concerns of other countries. The Iraq invasion and the Gulf War are recent examples of the application of the Monroe Doctrine with a little tweak—by involving the support of American allies. Afghanistan’s invasion could also qualify under the umbrella of the Monroe Doctrine except that it was a response to the war on terror, a new twist in justifying American intervention.

 

Last November 2013, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of American States (OAS) that that the Monroe Doctrine was dead. Not really true. While Kerry was apparently calling for mutual partnership with other countries in the Americas, it was essentially in keeping with Monroe’s initial message than with the policies the US government had enacted long after Monroe’s death. Noam Chomsky called the Monroe Doctrine as America’s endearing rationale for declaring hegemony and the right of unilateral intervention all at the same time.

 

Crimea’s future has already been sealed. It will eventually join the Russian Federation despite censure from Ukraine, the United States and its allies in Europe. Sanctions against Russia will probably intensify but in the end will not matter much.

 

Vladimir Putin and the Russian Army are marching ahead towards gradual partitioning of the countries that used to be satellites of the old Soviet regime and picking up one territory after another. Will Putin be able to restore Russia’s superpower status which it lost during the end of the Cold War in the 1990s?

 

It’s still too early to say. The Crimean crisis or the ongoing disputes among other countries elsewhere in the world, however, clearly indicate that at the heart of all these tensions is a much broader conflict. It is not about the quarrel between the smaller protagonists, i.e., between Crimea and Ukraine, or Bangsamoro and the Philippine national government, or between those for or against Scottish independence.

 

This could be what Samuel Huntington called the emergence of a “multipolar” world, where the United States hangs on as the only superpower but must now come to terms with other regional powers who resent interference in their own spheres of influence, whether by the United States alone or with its coalition of the willing.

America’s arrogance

 

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has remained the last one standing among the world’s superpowers. The U.S. is still in a class of its own, economically and militarily. Though more powerful than ever, the U.S. has never been more reviled however.

 

Majority of the people in the Middle East, for example, believe the U.S. war against Islamic terrorism is in fact meant to secure oil or even achieve world domination. The American invasion of Iraq and the consequent grand plan to promote freedom and establish democracy has long been suspected by other countries, including America’s allies, as a convenient smokescreen to control Iraq’s oil resources.

 

Former U.S. President George W. Bush used to say “that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom.” But that is not true. People in the world have always admired the American free society. Everyone wants to be in America as the song suggests in West Side Story. What they don’t like is American arrogance and indifference to world opinion that is inherent in so much of its foreign policy, and which some of the time is also hypocritical and unjust.

 

This is not just a modern-day gripe against America. Early on during the 1950s to the 1960s, it is exactly how countries in Latin America had felt when their people were treated by Gringos sent to oversee American banana plantations or other American interests. There was hostility everywhere against the Americans – not just because of the size, wealth and good fortune of the United States. D. H. Radler called this the American talent for offending people in his article in the 1961 issue of Harper’s Magazine.

 

“With few exceptions, they (Americans) usually manage to make enemies instead of friends,” Radler wrote. “We do this acting as if we are better than anyone else,” he added.

 

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is one fine example of American arrogance. He wanted President Barack Obama to be more bellicose in showing outrage and condemning the recent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and to stop apologizing to the perpetrators of the violence that killed an American ambassador and three of his staff. The “apologizing” stuff was a misleading staple of the Romney political campaign attack for nowhere did Obama apologize for the Libyan incident or in any of his foreign policy remarks in the past.

Violent Muslim demonstrations have spread in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia over film
mocking Islam and its Prophet Mohammed. Photo by Abd Raouf/Associated Press.
Click link to view "Martin Luther King Jr.'s Speech About America's Arrogance,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY82kmlaWH8

Romney like all recent Republican presidential wannabes seems to suffer from the “Tolstoy syndrome.” In the 2007 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Scott Norton described this group of war-hungry individuals as claiming to have a vision but is in fact blind. “They think they know all the answers, so they neither see nor listen. And the consequences of their misrule have been staggering,” Norton wrote. Norton was criticizing the Bush war in Iraq at that time and the belligerent positions of the Republican presidential primary aspirants over jihadist extremism, from the hawkish John McCain to the auditioning fear monger-in-chief Rudy Giuliani.

 

Fareed Zakaria of Time Magazine wrote that the problem with America today is not because it is too strong. But rather the U.S. is seen as too arrogant, uncaring and insensitive. There is a popular feeling that the United States is too obsessed with its own notions of terrorism and has stopped listening to the rest of the world.

 

Our recollection of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq can’t be effaced from our memory during an interview of then Vice President Cheney by ABC News’s Good Morning America. Cheney was reminded that the American public, by a margin of two-to-one, opposed the war in Iraq. Showing his arrogant indifference, Cheney responded, “So?”

 

Mitt Romney’s criticism of Obama’s response to the Libyan incident is not so much different from his friends in the Republican Party. It is perfect arrogance, plain and simple. When criticized afterwards for his inept remarks, Romney would evade very serious question and let his spinmeisters repair the obvious damage by referring to the overall weakness in Obama’s Middle East policy, a tenuous criticism as well.

 

There have always been extremists in the Middle East, before and after the Arab Spring revolution that toppled three long and brutal dictatorships. Through foreign aid, the United States has attached strings to countries that will embrace American values, and reward them for protecting political and religious freedom. But much of the U.S. foreign assistance was either hijacked by the ruling despots to build their personal cache or spent in strengthening their military might. This includes humanitarian aid which hardly went to the people who were direly in need of assistance such as food, water and medicine.

 

To most Arabs, particularly among the youth, the appeal of fundamentalist Islam was intoxicating. Religion became a powerful medium to express their anti-American sentiment. While there was love-hate relationship between these young Arabs and the United States, nevertheless they have also embraced even some American political ideals of liberty and democracy, which became hugely popular during the tumultuous Arab Spring uprising. Even the former radical Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has mellowed and adopted the democratic promise of parliamentary reforms over continuing their violent confrontation with the state. The ouster of Gaddafi was a boon to America for it gave the flicker of hope that democracy was possible in Libya.

Anti-American demonstrations by Muslims have caught fire after killing of
American Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya. Photo by
Hatem Moussa/Associated Press.

 Writing for The Independent, Robert Fisk wrote that “With the help of our wonderful new technology, it only takes a couple of loonies to kick off a miniature war in the Muslim world within seconds.” Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his diplomat colleagues in Benghazi have paid the price for those provocateurs for choosing to raise the ire of the Muslim world through a deliberately abusive film that denigrated Islam’s prophet. That Muslims around the world are so culturally averse to criticism of their religion is not the issue. It is not the Muslim religion that is on trial, but to allow the work of some crackpot to be used by extremists to light up the flames of anti-Western sentiment just crosses the line.

 

Sometimes America’s arrogance in international relations has also rubbed off on the minds of a few zealots who would behave like they have been bestowed with America’s power, like its allies in Southeast Asia. The Philippine government, for one, has taken the high road in pushing its sovereignty claim over territories in the South China Sea by renaming the sea as the West Philippine Sea, delineating the waters and islands in the sea as part of Philippine territory. President Benigno Aquino III and his foreign policy advisers know full well that such a unilateral move could be taken as provocative and not in keeping with its demand for an official code of conduct between the claimant countries. For one thing, the dispute is not about who has sovereignty over the waters, but the land formations over and under the water which are still unresolved.

 

The Philippine government is behaving as arrogantly as the United States which has recently announced its pivot to Asia and the Pacific as the focus of its new foreign policy and military strategy. Part of the new American initiative are basing rights and rotating military presence of U.S. troops in the Philippines, which by all means is a surrender of sovereignty. Has this foreign policy pivot and military realignment by the United States strengthened the defence of the Philippines? Is this what is prompting the Philippines to be more assertive of its claims in the South China Sea (or in the West Philippine Sea as it prefers to call it), having been reassured of U.S. military support?

 

But as it stands, all claimant countries in the South China Sea are on equal footing. No one claim is superior or more valid than the other. If there is a window for a diplomatic solution of the impasse, the Philippines should stop behaving arrogantly like its former colonial master.

U.S. proxy war with China imminent in the Spratlys

 

Of all the competing claims for territorial sovereignty to the Spratlys, the Philippine claim is the strongest and most compelling.

Based on the criteria of discovery, occupation and settlement, and jurisdictional rights outlined under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), the Philippines can make a more solid case than either China or Vietnam, the two other countries that are also asserting their claims over a potentially oil-and-other-minerals-rich Spratlys.

Filipinos in Toronto rally before the Chinese Consulate, July 8, 2011, to protest
China's encroachment in Philippine territory in the Spratly Islands. Click link to
view :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qTkQSbYmJU (Spratly Islands).

Recent reports that China is shipping a giant oil rig to start drilling in the hotly-contested Spratly Islands have enraged concerned Filipinos, particularly those living in the United States and Canada, to protest on the streets in several cities which observers believe could draw U.S. involvement in the escalating South Sea China conflict.

With China’s recent aggressiveness near the Spratly Islands, the Philippines ran to the United States to invoke the moribund 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty which made it obligatory for one to defend the other, when the latter is being attacked.

The United States government, with its usual diplomatic double-talk, made reassurances that it will not abandon the Philippines should the Spratly conflict further intensify. Senator John McCain publicly exhorted his government to extend stronger diplomatic support to an ally in the face of China’s bullying tactics.

During a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, Secretary Clinton committed to defend the Philippines and emphasized that the U.S. would provide the Philippines with reliable military hardware so it can upgrade its capability to defend its territories in the South China Sea.

U.S. to beef up military response

It must be recalled that when the United States closed its military bases in the Philippines, China declared the whole of the South China Sea in 1992 as a part of its internal waters. The U.S. reaction was ambiguous as it stressed its neutrality on the Spratlys issue. It only changed its posture when the Chinese occupied the Panganiban (Mischief) Reef in 1995, prompting the U.S. to fashion a new type of military response through the Philippine-American Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to justify the presence of American troops conducting joint and combined military exercises with the Armed Forces of the Philippines in its territories.

The global war on terrorism in 2001 further gave impetus to American military presence on Philippine soil. China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea is now viewed not only as a security challenge but more of a military threat.

Map of Spratly Islands, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1996. Click link
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgh-ydvXqo&feature=relmfu,
to view "The Meaning of Military Exercises in South China Sea."

It was in this context that many observers interpreted Secretary Clinton’s robust commitment to defend the Philippines in the South China Sea as a clear indication of the U.S. intent to remain and exert a strong military presence in the region.

China, on its part, has asked the United States to stay away from the regional conflict, thus signalling what many have observed as the beginning of a US proxy war with China in the South China Sea, particularly on Philippine battleground.

What is a proxy war?

A proxy war is not really a full-scale war and it works best during a Cold War, when there are no real armed hostilities. It results when opposing powers, such as the United States and China, use a third party like the Philippines as a substitute for fighting each other directly. A proxy war does not necessarily lead to full-scale armed hostilities, especially when two superpowers do not wish to fight each other directly and would not risk an escalation to a bigger and more destructive conflict.

From a strategic perspective, some political observers in the region are viewing the ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea as not just a battle for maritime rights over oil and other mineral resources.

Many affirm that these disputes pose a real test to the emerging regional structure dominated by an ever-growing Chinese influence due to its robust economy, on one hand, and the shrinking U.S. clout in the region, on the other.

Security, in addition to oil, is another incentive in the Spratlys dispute. The Spratlys have long been considered as strategic bases for sea-lane defence, interdiction, surveillance and potential launching sites for land attacks.

The United States has very significant national security interests in maintaining unimpeded transit rights—on the surface, in the air and under the sea—throughout the South China Sea, especially to protect Japan in the event of hostilities. It seems unlikely for the U.S. to voluntarily accede to China’s supremacy over this part of the world without getting major concessions that will enhance its security interests. U.S. involvement becomes even more imminent due to pressures from its allies like Australia, Japan, and South Korea to counter the growing threat of a Chinese hegemony in the Asia-Pacific.

Daixu, a strategic analyst at the Chinese Energy Fund Board, has written that a Sino-U.S. proxy war is absolutely not alarmist. Quoting from the work of the American scholar Wei Lianen, he wrote that “expansion through war is in the nature of the United States….it has been transformed into a belligerent Sparta state.”

Popular opposition to China’s intimidating behaviour toward the other claimant countries in the South China Sea augurs well for American involvement in the regional conflict. It provides the United States with the opportunity and justification to enter into the fray, thus ensuring its strategic economic and military presence in the region.

A study conducted by Rand Corporation has recommended that the U.S. government beef up its military forces in the region and shift its security strategy from north to south. The Rand proposal envisions the integration of the Philippines into a new comprehensive security partnership along with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and Thailand to prevent the rise of a dominant regional power (like China) that could undermine America’s role in the region.

Philippines caught in tug-of-war

U.S. involvement in the Spratlys dispute will further entrench the PHL-U.S. Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and deepen the participation of the Philippines in American military operations in the region. Since the VFA was signed in 1999, several war exercises between the two countries have been conducted in Palawan or just a few kilometres away from the disputed Spratly islands, which Beijing protested as an indirect offense to China.

In August of this year, the Philippines and the United States are meeting to review their little-used mutual defence pact and consider U.S. access to its former military bases in the country. According to many observers, all these can be viewed as U.S. initiatives to revitalize and entrench its military involvement in the region.

Filipino demonstrators march during a protest rally in front of the US embassy in
 Manila,  opposing  joint military exercises. Photo by Francis R. Malasig/EP. Click
link to view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66V8JQRKDxI&feature=relmfu,
" The Balance in the South China Sea."

Loud and boisterous protests by overseas Filipinos against China’s aggressive stance in the South China Sea are playing into the hands of the U.S. government. Global Filipinos are giving the United States a welcome invitation, which if not carefully dealt with, could undermine or short-change the long-term economic interests of the Philippines in the Spratlys.

Need to assert national sovereignty

During the Philippine celebration of Independence Day last June 12, Vencer Crisostomo, chairman of the national youth group of Anakbayan, denounced Philippine president Noynoy Aquino for begging for U.S. intervention in the Spratlys dispute. The youth leader said, “Their script is predictable: on the grounds of China’s bullying, we will ask for help from our supposed long-standing ally, the U.S. First, we will be given more arms, then more U.S troops, and then eventually the return of U.S military bases.”

“We should assert our national sovereignty on our own terms, instead of allowing ourselves to become the battleground of a U.S proxy war with China,” Crisostomo added.

The trajectory of Filipino protests against China, therefore, must be redirected, not against China’s show of military muscle in the region, but against its continuing refusal and arrogance in refusing to recognize the claims of the other nations, and its bull-headed objection to a multilateral settlement of the conflicting territorial claims. China’s intransigence is the cause of the present stalemate. Absent China’s cooperation, however, the disputes will remain for generations and this could engender a de facto military occupation by whoever has the military wherewithal.

Promoting a multilateral solution

At the same time, the protests should also target American entrenchment of its military goals and operations in the region. Continuing U.S. presence will only exacerbate the tense atmosphere in the South China Sea, which could potentially trigger a military confrontation in the region.

Instead of hyping up the Spratly Islands conflict by issuing provocative and agitative statements, the Philippines can take the lead in promoting a peaceful and multilateral resolution of the Spratlys dispute by the Southeast Asian nation-claimants, without U.S. intervention.

A tale of two disasters

When a country’s organized crime networks open their hearts to assist victims of a catastrophic disaster, you start to wonder what’s wrong with this story. Rather than bringing the worst of fears or threats from their usual depraved criminal behaviour, the dreaded Japanese “Yakuza” groups are delivering tons of relief goods to the victims of Japan’s recent cataclysmic earthquake and tsunami.

After the tsunami struck, March 11, 2011. Photo by Alfianhashim.

Reuters reported that Yakuza gangs have been sending trucks from the Tokyo and Kobe regions to deliver food, water, blankets and toiletries to evacuation centres in northeast Japan, the area devastated by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami which have left thousands of people dead and missing.

According to Manabu Miyazaki, author of several books about Yakuza and Japanese minorities, “"Yakuza are dropouts from society. They've suffered, and they're just trying to help other people who are in trouble."

Yakuza gangsters are said to even a have a code of giving, which they call “ninkyo.” Members of the Yakuza gang observe this code that values justice and duty and forbids allowing others to suffer. And the Yakuza is avoiding the spotlight regarding their relief work.

Not to glorify the Yakuza by any means, but compared to the looting and violence in New Orleans that followed Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, this speaks volumes about the enormous difference between Japanese and Americans in coping with natural crises or disasters.

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina left, some residents of New Orleans who remained in the city started looting stores in search of food and water that were not available to them through other means. There were also reports of carjacking, murders, thefts and rapes in the city, although many of these reports were found inaccurate due to the confusion. Then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco had to temporarily deputize members of the National Guard and other federal troops to quell the looting and rioting. The governor said: "They have M16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will."

Hurricane Katrina, 2005. Photo by Fwootamala.

While it looked like war began in the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina savaged the city, the scenes of the tsunami-struck coastal towns after Japan’s massive March 11 earthquake recalled the devastation of World War II. Yet the Japanese response was one of calm and fortitude.

To date, the havoc caused by the twin natural disasters of earthquake on a 9.0 Richter Scale and a devastating tsunami is not over yet and the Japanese remain under threat of radiation from the three reactors at the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station that suffered partial meltdowns. The final toll is expected to surpass 20,000. More than 190,000 people remained housed in temporary shelters. Total damage of the earthquake and tsunami is estimated at more than $235 billion (U.S. dollars).

The flooding of New Orleans made Katrina the most destructive and costliest natural disaster in the history of the United States. Katrina’s total damage is estimated at more than 80 billion U.S. dollars. Many have been uprooted and are still living in temporary settlements. Even in 2010, debris from the powerful hurricane remained in some coastal communities.

A deluge of resentment and accusation followed Hurricane Katrina, pointing to the massive failure of leadership and institutional competence, not only with the inability of the U.S. government to effectively respond to the crisis, but also the lack of preparedness of the local, state and federal levels of government. Pundits have raised doomsday scenarios, including warnings of what could happen if next time terrorists were to attack the United States by surprise. There is an entirely different narrative in Japan. Although doubts are now being raised about the safety of nuclear reactors, there is a feeling of self-restraint on the part of the Japanese government and the Japanese people in general.

Post-tsunami Japan is one of voluntary self-restraint as if that is the proper code of behaviour. From compensating for shortages of electricity or rolling power blackouts to cancelling cherry blossom-viewing parties and fireworks festivals, self-restraint is practised everywhere. Even politicians running in local elections have agreed not to campaign aggressively but instead have limited their appearances and calls to voters at home.

The Japanese behave differently from the Americans because it is inherent in their culture to show calmness, forbearance and poise in the wake of adverse circumstances beyond their control. They call this “gaman,” something missing in the American ethos. Gaman is considered a virtue in Japanese culture, which is why they seldom complain about anything which ordinary people like us gripe about.

The culture in the West, like here in America, is to speak out to get things you don’t like corrected. Americans criticized George W. Bush for his failure of leadership during the Katrina crisis. This is something unheard of in Japan in the wake of its most recent disaster.

The ability to gaman in Japan is a sign of maturity. Japanese learn from childhood that it’s better to suffer in silence, to be able to bear discomfort. To Americans, there is much less incentive to gaman. The cultural factor at work in America can be summed up in this phrase: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” If you don’t mention your concerns, nobody will notice them. But if you squeak – make some noise – someone will surely pay attention and do something about it.

Two nations, two of the richest and most industrialized in the world today, but with highly different ways of getting things done. Or to be more exact, two ways of coping with disasters, natural or man-made.

According to a British report, major disasters like the Japanese earthquake and tsunami or Pakistan’s floods are likely to become more frequent; thus, governments must plan for an uncertain future. The report said that the recent natural disasters were not an aberration but an indication of new future mega-disasters.

The big problem with natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods is that they often come at the least expected time. Climatic disasters like hurricanes and cyclones are also increasing in severity and destruction. Typically, the poor are the worst hit for they have the least resources to cope and rebuild.

Just imagine if both an earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan last March 11 were to batter the Philippines. We’re not that far from Japan and we have been hit by earthquakes, tsunamis and tropical cyclones before. Already, the meltdown of the Fukushima reactors has caused worries that nuclear radiation from Japan could possibly reach the Philippines. With very little resources and ill-prepared for disasters, the entire Philippine archipelago could be hit hard by giant tsunamis from either the Pacific Ocean or China Sea which both surround the country.

Typhoon Ondoy - Philippines. Photo by pmt2009.

The Philippines is disaster-prone as super typhoons have devastated the country before. In 2009, super typhoons Ondoy and Peping exposed the country’s lack of preparation to cope with disasters. There were even reports that then President Gloria Arroyo had used up the government’s more than $18 million-emergency fund earmarked for calamities and disasters for her foreign travels. A law was passed by the Philippine Congress in May 2010 that called for the development of a comprehensive national disaster risk reduction and management plan which is now in the back-burner of the present Aquino government and still awaiting to be implemented.

God forbid any disaster of doomsday proportion from happening. The Philippines is ill-prepared and Filipinos don’t have gaman in their culture like the Japanese. All we have close to the Japanese ethic of gaman is our attitude to entrust the course of our lives to God as in “Bahala Na,” leave everything to “Bathala,” or God, in Pilipino. Although in this secular age, many aver that the phrase also translates to “Happen what may,” an attitude that tests the fates, meaning that even with volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes Filipinos as a nation will survive and prevail. And we hope, like the frail bamboo, will endure.