Pro-China ‘independent foreign policy’ and other fallacies

It was probably Jordan Peterson who pointed it out: considering that slavery is immoral, and considering further that the continent that had most of its people enslaved was Africa, and considering, finally, that most of the enslavement was done by their fellow Africans, the question now becomes: is slavery more immoral if those doing the enslaving are your fellow people?

A pretty good question when one considers the humongous lies, gaslighting, and fallacious arguments that have arisen because of the West Philippine Sea issue.

And yet, this thought: it’s bad enough for China’s communist government to be spouting such lies and fallacies, even though they themselves may believe it or perhaps believe that such — even if untrue — will ultimately serve their national interests. Yet, how much more contemptible, how utterly loathsome, how profoundly disgusting can it be when it’s our fellow Filipinos doing the lying, gaslighting, and fallacious spouting — all in the ser-vice of either themselves, short-term political gain, or a foreign country?

And yet, here we are.

One such fallacy bloviated ad nauseam by the pro-China propagandists is the strawman argument, which goes like this: “Those that are so passionate about defending Philippine territory actually just want to go to war with China because they hate China.”

But the argument doesn’t make sense because as late as a decade and a half ago, nobody was really critical of China. In fact, for a time, Beijing and Shanghai’s economic leap from sleepy towns to mega-cities was the subject of near unanimous admiration. The only reason China is getting a negative reception nowadays is because it insists on being the international bully. Any belligerency in the Pacific was initiated by it.

Furthermore, no one opposing China wants to go to war. That is why the plea of any reasonable person (and right now the reasonable people are on the pro-Philippine territory side) is for China to regain its senses and ad-here instead to the rule of law, particularly international law.

Which leads to another fallacious argument: “Why oppose China when the latter asserts its territorial claims? This will lead to war.”

This is the fallacy of false dichotomy. Opposing China should not necessarily lead to war. If that were so, then Vietnam, Thailand, and India would be at war with China right now. In fact, the absolutely senseless thing to do is to show weakness, a lack of resolve in defending our country. Why? Because it is precisely that, not opposing the other country’s claims, that actually invite a war. Hence, the dictum: “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

Which leads to this odious fallacy: “If you really are against China, then you and your children should enlist in the military and be ready to fight. If not, then stop saying we should defend our territory.”

This is a “won’t and shouldn’t” fallacy, a form of ad hominem. The point is, just because you are not willing to enlist your children (as example) to fight the Chinese, it doesn’t mean that the policy of defending the national territory is wrong.

In any event, such a defeatist fallacy is neither here nor there. Nearly 80% of our people are willing to fight for our country. Nobody wants a war, but there are some things we have to be willing to do. Frankly, 100% should be there to fight for our country but apparently there are some that are just too corrupted or misguided for that to be possible.

Which leads us to a lie: The claim that the Philippines, by seeking security alliances with Japan, the US, and other Western countries, violates the constitutional mandate to have an “independent foreign policy.”

First of all, “independent” is not what’s really the issue. What the pro-China propagandists prefer is we deal with China alone.

Furthermore, set aside the troll commentators criticizing the Marcos foreign policy simply because they failed to get an appointment with the current Administration. Instead, talk to any of the rabid pro-China advocates and you will soon find out that it is not merely the alliance with the West that bothers them, but the very being and character of the Filipino: an adherence to constitutional rights, with values anchored on inherent human dignity. In short, they hate it that the Philippines is not China (or part of it).

For such people, the authoritarian, collective, Confucian values are what they believe are so inherently superior that the Philippines must simply bow down to it. But this itself is a profound delusion: the fact that China’s economic progress is proving to be ultimately unsustainable is rooted in the fact that it is anchored on a wholly unsuitable metaphysic.

“Independent” is the Philippines freely (as is relatively possible) deciding what its foreign policy shall be. If, to avoid being coerced by China, we chose to align with those countries supporting our claim, such becomes precisely then the very definition of an “independent foreign policy.”

The views expressed here are his own and not necessarily those of the institutions to which he belongs.

Jemy Gatdula is the dean of the Institute of Law of the University of Asia and the Pacific and is a Philippine Judicial Academy lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence. He read international law at the University of Cambridge.