NK Nuke Crisis

Erwin S. Fernandez

Having stayed only for three weeks in Gwangju City, news about the nuke crisis is somewhat making me a little nervous. Back home, in the Philippines, though I haven’t received any call from my parents or emails from my friends, I am pretty sure they, having heard or read about it, might be feeling a bit alarmed. Nonetheless, I still believe there is nothing to worry about.

I don’t only have sympathy but also respect for North Korean people. Sympathy and respect because they have suffered a lot from the brutal depredations of two previous wars with the memories and scars still fresh but managed to withstand the massive pressures from the outside and the calamities that resulted in miseries ranging from hunger to famine. Yet, until when can they maintain the same composure in the face of serious challenges at present?

North Korea in Western press is always painted in bad light. Whether Kim Jong-Il, popularly portrayed as “communist dictator,” was the apparent culprit for the suffering of millions of North Koreans is not for me or anyone, any government or any nation to judge. I reserve this sacred right to the North Korean people who had capably demonstrated their capacity for self-determination in the midst of foreign intervention during the past half-century. This brings us to the raging issue of the moment.

Last week, North Korea publicly claimed having conducted its first nuclear test provoking a storm of protests, denunciations from all corners of the globe wary of an impending war. Others look for whom to blame. Kim Dae Jung, former South Korean president, in a special lecture at Chonnam National University, host of the Asia Culture Academy Youth Workshop, singled out the United States “hostile” foreign policy towards North Korea as having precipitated the crisis. Some called for punitive actions against North Korea. The United Nations Security Council particularly the U.S. and Japan demanded severe economic sanctions. Conservatives issued a declaration supporting the latter’s move and even challenged the Roh government to resign from office and take the alleged responsibility for the current critical situation. The crisis, however, demanded a closer examination than what is being presented.

North Korea, equally valid for other states, has every right to develop its own nuclear program as a defensive mechanism as long as any nation on earth continues to have its own nuclear capability undisturbed and unmitigated. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been in existence for many years now but the nuclear arms race is not yet over. Far from it, it paved the way for the rise of new nuclear powers such as China, India and Pakistan. These countries, beneficiaries of a leaked technology either from Russia or the U.S., supposedly built their nuclear arsenals as powerful deterrent to any military threat by a foreign power. The same holds true for North Korea if one believes Ri Jong-hyok, member of North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly in his address before European parliamentarians in Brussels. Right to defend itself from external aggression is a crucial factor for national survival not only for North Korea but to all besieged governments around the world.

For the past sixty years, the U.S., according to Ri, carried out “severe sanctions and threats” to his country. The latest, as of last year, four days after the denuclearization agreement in Beijing was signed on September 19, the United States Treasury Department cut off North Korea’s financial access to international money-lending and credit institutions affecting even legitimate business transactions. Few years prior to this, the United States invaded Iraq on the pretext of harboring weapons of mass destruction (WMD); arrested Saddam Hussein and effected “regime change.” It was therefore a tactical move on the part of the Kim regime to pursue its nuclear program to stave off U.S. invasion as the war freak Bush administration although having denied such intention was half-secretly known to be mulling over this not-so-remote possibility.

Seoul’s engagement policy toward Pyongyang became a convenient scapegoat to clamor for a change in policy especially the move toward strengthening military alliance with the United States. Rather than defusing the tense situation between the two countries, bringing more troops to Korea might send a wrong signal to the other side putting in jeopardy the hard-earned diplomatic gains and the peace and stability of Northeast Asia. Also, the hurry to “punish” Pyongyang rather than the solution is contributory to the already volatile environment.

The North-South divide in the peninsula, a curious relic from the Cold War, is still a contested object in international power relations. Thus, the struggle for a united Korea is a continuing project to get out from the imperialist game.

[Reedited with the original unedited draft, which was severely mutilated and first published as "Filipino View on NK Nuke Crisis" under the "Student Corner" The Korea Times 7 December 2006 with the full text shown below:

Since I’ve been in Kwangju for only three weeks, the news about the nuke crisis is making me a little nervous. North Korea is always portrayed in the Western press in a bad light.

Whether Kim Jongil, commonly portrayed as a communist dictator, is responsible for the suffering of millions of North Koreans is not for me to judge, or for anyone else, any government or any nation, to judge either.

North Korea publicly declared that it had conducted its first nuclear test in October, provoking a storm of protests and denunciations from all corners of the globe.

Everyone seems to be looking for someone to blame. Kim Dae-jung, a former South Korean president, in a special lecture at Chonnam National University, the host of the Asia Culture Academy Youth Workshop, singled out the United States’ “hostile” foreign policy as having precipitated the crisis.

Some people called for punitive actions against North Korea. The United Nations Security Council and Japan put in place economic sanctions.

Conservatives in Korea issued a declaration supporting the latter’s move and even challenged members of the Roh Moo-hyun government to resign from office to take responsibility for the current critical situation.

The crisis, however, demands closer examination. North Korea has every right to develop a nuclear program for its defense as long as other nations continue to have their nuclear capabilities undisturbed and unmitigated.

The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been in existence for many years now, but the nuclear arms race is not over.

The treaty paved the way for the rise of new nuclear powers such as China, India and Pakistan. These countries, beneficiaries of leaked technology from Russia or the U.S., supposedly built their nuclear arsenals to deter military attacks.

The same holds true for North Korea, if one believes Ri Jong-hyok, a member of North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly, in his address to European parliamentarians in Brussels.

The right to defend itself from external aggression is important for national survival not only for North Korea, but also for other besieged governments.

For the past 60 years, the U.S., according to Ri, directed “severe sanctions and threats” toward his country.

Four days after the denuclearization agreement in Beijing was signed on Sept. 19, 2005, the United States Treasury Department cut off North Korea’s financial access to international money-lending and credit institutions, affecting even legitimate business transactions.

Few years before this, the U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretext that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction.

It arrested Saddam Hussein and effected “regime change.”

It was a tactical move on the part of the Kim regime to pursue a nuclear program to stave off an invasion from the U.S.

Although the warmongering George W. Bush administration has denied having such an intention, it was known to be mulling this not-so-remote possibility.

Seoul’s engagement policy toward Pyongyang became a convenient scapegoat amid the clamor for policy change and moves to strengthen the military alliance with the U.S.

The rush to punish Pyongyang rather than to find a solution is contributing to the already volatile environment. The struggle for a united Korea is a continuing project to escape from the imperialist game.]

Imagining Ourselves as Asians

By Erwin S. Fernandez

Global Student Reporter

***

PANGASINAN, the Philippines ㅡ Nowadays, words like "imagine'' and "imagination'' have become so trite that they have become commonplace in discursive practices. Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is a dissertation on the origins and spread of nationalism whose provocative ideas can also apply to the three following concepts ㅡ pan-Asianism, Asian identity and Asian community.

Pan-Asianism seems to be resurging everywhere, particularly after Asian nations, having been freed from their colonial masters, embarked on the twin-processes of decolonization and modernization. Japanese imperialist propaganda on "Asia for the Asians'' in support of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere'' provided at least the seed for pan-Asian solidarity to germinate over the upcoming decades. Japan's defeat of the United States in the Philippines conflict during World War II shattered the myth of Western superiority and invulnerability and thus, became a source of pride and belief in Asia's reawakening from its colonial past.

Japan's rise to power in the global capitalist economy followed by Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan in recent decades was enough reason for Samuel Huntington to posit his claim on the "decline of the West.'' China's latest entry to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 confirmed former Philippine senator and diplomat Leticia Ramos-Shahani's declaration of the "Pacific century.''

The recent election of Ban Ki-moon as the U.N. secretary general, the second Asian to hold the post after U Thant of Burma, is another long overdue affirmation of Asia's growing ascendancy on the world stage.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) composed of eleven countries and established in late 1960s is at present a major regional grouping concerned with economic cooperation. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), although it includes member nations that cross four continents, affirms the growing importance of Asia and the Pacific Rim in global free trade. We can also add the East Asian Growth Area (EAGA) conceptualized in the late 90s, which promotes and encourages free trade in the region.

When did Filipinos acquire their Asian identity?

Although geographically the Philippines is located in Southeast Asia, a U.S. military designated area during the war, after its independence in 1946 it suffered from a schizophrenic character. Colonized by Spain for 300 years and controlled by the U.S. for more or less 50 years, undoubtedly Filipino leaders and policymakers extolled values from the West on the one hand but were also proud of their Asian heritage on the other.

During the late 40s, the Philippines, however, instead of gaining respect from fellow neighbors, suspicious of its Asian identity was derided as merely an American satellite. Claro M. Recto, a brilliant Filipino nationalist and foremost critic of Philippine foreign policy, kicked off the struggle toward decolonization, which called for the reorientation of foreign policy toward Asia.

The successive administrations after Magsaysay slowly adopted Recto's prescription for an independent foreign policy, which during the 20-year rule of President Ferdinand Marcos, culminated in the opening of diplomatic networks with different countries of the world, even with Communist or socialist political systems, finally claiming its Asian identity.

Globalization makes the world smaller. As communication and travel become easier and faster than before, the contact among Asians becomes frequent and this facilitates cultural understanding and interaction. However, as Asians meet other Asians, their identity as Filipinos, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese or Indians is emphasized even more, as each asserts to show their respective cultural differences. Being Asian is imagining differences.

[First published in The Korea Times 27 September 2007]

Pangasinan – a dying language?

By Erwin S. Fernandez

I beg to disagree with F. Sionil Jose, the National Artist for Literature who hails from Rosales, a town away from my birthplace, Urdaneta. Pangasinan, he foretells, like the rest of Philippine languages except Tagalog, Iloko and Cebuano, shall die in the near future because it is now on the verge of disuse and eventually extinction. He raises a valid point, however, that Pangasinan speakers must now address.

Unlike the three cited languages, Pangasinan don’t have Liwayway, Bisaya and Bannawag, popular vernacular magazines where one ordinarily finds short stories, essays, poems and other occasional pieces. Thus, there is no proper venue for would-be writers and authors. Or if there had been one, will there be a critical audience or more importantly, will there be writers for readers?

At present, less than one and a half million people speak the language. So who says there is no market for writers? What is lacking is a grouping like the GUMIL (Gunglo dagiti Mannurat nga Ilocano) that will unite writers who, I’m confident, are more than willing to cooperate for the sake of preserving the language. I am pretty sure they are still around in the villages or in towns or cities with dormant energies waiting to be reawakened.

The names of Catalino Palisoc (1865-1932) and Pablo Mejia (1872-1934), only two among the renowned Zarzuela writers, come to mind when we speak of Pangasinan literature. We must not miss Maria Magsano, the educator-writer and suffragist who put up the Silew magazine. In the annals of Philippine vernacular literature, these illustrious names rank among the best in Tagalog, Iloco and Cebuano literatures.

Their generation had to struggle to survive with the imposition of a dominant colonial language – English – but they succeeded for tradition did not easily succumb to the new alien culture. The next generation after them, however, educated in the state university and universities in Manila felt secure with the language of the colonial master. No one can blame them because English became the language in the academe, in the bureaucracy and in print and broadcast media. Not surprisingly, this led to the neglect to a certain extent of our local language.

Quezon, in the 1930s, thought of a national language as basis for national unity. Tagalog was imposed in schools. All over the country, non-Tagalogs had to learn the national language, which during the time of Cory Aquino, it was decided to change its name to Pilipino and at last to Filipino.

Our language, prior to this, had to compete with Iloco. Ilocano migrants settled in the province and ever since, the popularity and usage of the Iloco had far outweighed Pangasinan. Yet, it is not unusual to find people who are bilingual. In my case, we speak Pangasinan at home but we can switch to speak in Iloco if it is warranted by the occasion. In the advent of the Filipino as the national language, Pangasinan has been delegated primarily to the home; hence, marginalized as education and mass media are encouraged to employ Filipino and English.

Thanks to Sionil Jose. He had unwittingly issued the warning. Unless the present generation acts concertedly to preserve it, Pangasinan shall always be in an unhappy position pushed into the periphery of oral and literary avenues.

For the meantime, I shall patiently wait for the inclusion of Pangasinan in the roster of vernacular genre in the Palanca awards.

[First published in Sunday Punch under "Kabaleyan's Thoughts" May 29, 2006]

Diad Dayat na Salitan Pangasinan

Say identidad na too et nanengneng ed karalem na bokabularyo ed sarili ton dila.

Say dilak ya Pangasinan anggano sasalitaen ko ed abung ed apalabas lan duaran dekada et alig toy sakey ya mana-aral ya onlangoy. Siak may toon wadman nid baybay ya dayat. Agkoni sarag so onlangoy paarawid baybay ta nayarin naanor ak. Sikaton sayan panlangoy kod dayat na salitan Pangasinan, kaibak saray maestrok ya abayag lan onlalangoy ed sayan dayat. Sikara Padre Lorenzo Fernandez Cosgaya, Padre Pedro Vilanova tan si Richard A. Benton.

Diad sayan metapora, malinew ya aga magano so pirawat kon onralem so pagkaPangasinanensek. Kaokolan ya makalnan aralen saray salita; nepeg ya talosan so pakatalos da. Sikaton soy gawaen ko et pilien ko tan aralen koy sampluran salitan Pangasinan tan saray pakatalos da kada agew odino simba inggad makapalsay sakey ya diksiyonaryo.

Sampluran salitan Pangasinan (1)

a - (1) Sakey ya artikulon uusaren pian makaiter ya emosyon ed ibabaga singa: A sikayo manaya so angan ditan! Nayarin manpatalos ya negatibo o positibon linawa. (2) Mansuldong ya artikulon onlaktip ed sakey ya salita pian mamalsa ya panklasi. Al., A+ bayag; A+rawi; A+beba. (3) Lanang met ya uusaren ed sagpot na salita no gabay ya onpalet ed ibabaga na katongtong singa Magangana kayo a!

aba - Tanaman (colocasia) ya karaklan ya naanapan ed bansan tropikal ya kalaman na saray pamilyan arum. Iluluto saray lamotda balet diad Bikol saray bolong da et iluluto da ed tatawagen dan laing.

aba-aba - Tanaman ya aliling toy aba.

abaab - Kaor ya nanlapud niyog ya uusaren daray bibii ed panames da.

ababaley - Amayo na ugugaw.

ababues - (1) Tanol na latigo. (2) Maples ya onalis. Al., Ababues ya nanakar si Goria.

abak - (1) Atalo ed sugal, al. Nabak ak ed mahjong. (2) Aksayado, al. Maabak ka ed asukar. (3) Pian oniwas ed panaggastos, al. Siak la so ondalus pian aga ak maabak ed trabahador.

abaka - Tanaman (Musa textilis), alig tan kalaman toy ponti, ya saray katingting et uusaren ya pan gaway lubir.

abakabak - (man-) say panaon ya kaukulan na saray duaran pamilya na manasawa ya aregloen dalay nepeg ed kasal.

abagay - pan-admira ed sakey ya makaiter ya ligliwa.



"Say salita et kawes na kanonotan." Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) Saray Bilay na Umaanlong


Reserbadoy karapatan nen Erwin S. Fernandez

Imelda in Mike, Marcos in Arroyo

This administration hangs precariously on a precipice as the First Gentleman is involved in another scandal yet to be uncovered. His name is obviously another stain that besmirches the besmirched reputation of Mrs. Arroyo. If former Senator Salonga sees Marcos in Arroyo, I see Imelda in Mike.

The parallelism between the latter is not as apparent as the former. Imelda, to others, is seen as the cause of Apo Ferdie’s eventual downfall. Former US Ambassador Henry Byroade remembers how Imelda used to ask for her cuts in deals. Thus, Rafael Salas, one of Marcos’ brilliant technocrats resigned from his post: “It’s very bad. The corruption is unmitigated, it has continued, if not increased in volume, despite the worsening situation.” About Imelda running for 1969, he said: she “will probably ruin the country.”

Now with Mike Arroyo, he is rumored to have deposited a $500 million account in a German bank. In 2004, he allegedly has to do with the diversion of farmers’ fertilizer fund worth P 728 million through Joc-Joc Bolante to spruce up his wife’s campaign funds. He was linked to funding a post-election “special operations” in Lanao. In 2003, Senator Panfilo Lacson identified him as Jose Pidal involved in money-laundering activities. As early as 2001, he was accused of accepting a million dollar-bribe to save a vetoed telecommunications deal. In one of these charges, he filed 11 libel cases against 46 journalists, which he later withdrew.

With all these controversies that he faced, he is known to have one response – to go abroad and hide from media flaks. This time with the ZTE national broadband deal raging in the Senate, he, without delay, took a flight to Hong Kong.

It is not yet clear from Joey de Venecia’s testimony before the Senate hearing of what constituted Mike’s participation in the deal. Did he endorse ZTE’s bid? Was his endorsement necessary for the approval of the contract or was there more to it than meets the eye? Did he receive part of the pay-off? One thing is somewhat sure that Abalos sought a kickback from the contract. What is anomalous is that ZTE, as alleged by Lacson, is banned in many countries because of acts of bribery. Still, we are dealing with these people in a so-called executive agreement, which is still debatable, with Beijing. Corrupt people appeal to corrupt government.

Three years from now, Arroyo’s unprecedented nine-year term ends, which is less than half of Marcos’ authoritarian rule. During these remaining years, we Filipinos must be vigilant. Every contract, every deal, every loan agreement should be watched closely. They are racing against time and so they will use every opportunity to milk the government. There is every reason to believe that this Arroyo government is corrupt because crony capitalism is back with vengeance. If we fail to do so, then we will confront another nightmare as horrendous as the Marcoses.

[First published in People's Digest Newsweekly (Dagupan City) (September 25-October 1, 2007)]