Reaction Paper.docx

A. Introduction Rays of a Setting Sun: Recollection of World War II by Eliseo B. Rio is a very eloquent account of Col. Rio’s experiences during the war that broke out in December 1941. Then a young PMA Cadet set to graduate the following year, Rio was deployed into the frontline of the battleground when the Japanese troops bombed Camp John Hay in Baguio City. Although untrained and unprepared for combat at that point, the story told of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) officers’ character and strength that eventually led the country to freedom from the Japanese occupation – three (3) years, nine (9) months, and three (3) days later. His account of events included that of conditions in the frontline, their defeat due to lack of food and medicine, the death march in Bataan and how he escaped it, and about the time he decided to join the guerillas, against his father’s wishes, in order to keep up the fight. Fear to bravery. Col. Rio wrote about how, at first, he grew conscience for aiming shot at another human being, a Japanese pilot then attacking them. Towards the end of the book, he made mention of having the resilience to kill every single one of his enemies – if that was what it took to end the war. Not out of vengeance for what has transpired up until that point, but out of a sense of duty and desire to protect the land. It thrusted Rio and his comrades into leadership, from one capacity to the next. His account of living and experiencing the war, fighting through a lack of training and weaponry, responding to adversaries, and stepping up to ever-changing leadership assignments, was admirable. From reading his narration, Filipinos did not take the war sitting down. As a country, our people fought, showed resilience, and won. And the Philippines and the US have since enjoyed a long-standing friendship, us being a formidable ally of America. But for the first

time since the Second World War, we have a President who refuses to bow any longer to the greatest military force in the world, standing by the conviction that we are an independent nation capable of standing on our own two feet. With the acceptance of US military assistance easing up and the tension with China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea building up again, what once brought us through the victorious end of the war – leadership and nationalism – will again, most likely, bring us through the nation’s present threats.

B. Body During yesterday’s interview with RT, a Russian international television network, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte stressed, “I have nothing against America. We’re perfectly alright. Trump is my friend. But my foreign policy has shifted from what of that proWestern. I now have this working alliance with China and I hope to establish a good working relations with Russia. Why? Because the Western world – EU and everything – they have this double talk.” Addressing the US, he said, “If there is anything to gripe for, it is me griping for. Why did you invade my country 50 years ago? Sat on this land and lived off of the fat of the land? And you expect me to be happy? You treat me as if I am your colony still? You must be kidding. Why would I allow it? Why would I allow you to treat me as if I am your representative here, as a colonial governor? We are an independent country. We will survive. We will endure. We can go hungry. But this time, I want my country treated with dignity.”

Now just late last week, China warned President Duterte of a looming war between China and the Philippines should the latter force the issue on South China Sea and proceed to extract gas and oil in the Reed Bank, an area within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the West Philippine Sea. President Duterte raised the United Nations (UN) ruling with his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping. A few months ago, the UNbacked arbitral court trashed China’s claims over the disputed territory. Now what can the government do? There are actually several options but the two main ones are: (1) Bring the open threat of war to another arbitral tribunal and have China comply with the UN ruling; and (2) ask for damages from China for every delay they are causing for the Philippines to exploit what is rightfully the latter’s. Basically, avoid war at all costs and continue to fight for the territory in accordance to the Constitution and the international laws surrounding it. But what if the threat of a war materializes over time? Then we need to battle the enemy with conventional tactics. However, we are presently not in a capacity to fight tooth and nail against a force like the communist China. And because we will, in no way, stand down again to bullying from another nation, it is imperative that we renew and strengthen alliance with the US, a country with whom we have a mutual defense treaty with, and a country that holds no claims over the disputed territory. With President Jinping’s recent statements, it is power politics that is obviously at play here. Much like when Japan wanted to dominate the Western Pacific region after the fall of the Manchu Dynasty in China. It wasn’t because the Americans bullied the Japanese for far too long. But that the Japanese wanted to expand their territory and project themselves as the greatest nation in the world. So they bombed Pearl Harbor and then

Camp John Hay in the Philippines, intending to intimidate and occupy. “Japan wanted to expand its influence politically and militarily in order to secure access to raw material reserves, food, and labor.” (Wikipedia, Second Sino-Japanese War) The sentiment of nationalism is birthed when one group intends to increase its power or influence over another. And when nationalism is in action, it brings about leaders at the forefront of it all.

C. Conclusion Leadership and nationalism were what won us our freedom from the Japanese decades ago. According to a Harvard Business Review (HBR) article, “To Win the Civil War, Lincoln Had to Change His Leadership,” great leaders deliberately work on three areas. They wisely manage the present, selectively forget the past, and purposefully create the future. They are anchored in purpose and values. They let go of old values and beliefs that no longer serve them or their organizations. And they adopt new ones so they can step-change in their leadership. In December 1941, young PMA cadets found themselves at a turning point. Their camp was attacked on what was supposed to be a glorious day for them all. They did not have enough arms. They were untrained for combat. They assumed that their ally, the US, was invincible. No one prepared them for the war and they had honest fears about death and survival. But they improvised and stepped-up into leadership posts they didn’t even feel capable of in the first place. They were unwavering in their fight for freedom.

Nationalism, leadership, and war. With the Duterte administration, what we are seeing is without a doubt, a new kind of leadership with a new kind of nationalism. But it’s still something, that even sans an armed war, is very relevant to our times.