The revolutionary found- ing leader of the People's Republic of China was aware of the racialist attitude of his own countrymen.

"What has come to light in various places in the last two or three years shows that Han chauvinism exists almost everywhere.The problem in the relations between nationalities which reveals itself in the Party and among the people in many places is the existence of Han chauvinism to a serious degree and not just a matter of its vestiges."

This was tackled in an inner-party directive drafted for the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, March 16, 1953. What was to be done?

"Education must be assiduously carried out so that this problem can be solved step by step. Moreover, the newspapers should publish more articles based on specific facts to criticize Han chauvinism openly and educate the Party members and the people."

"Han" is the Chinese brand for their race, "Han chauvinism" is a form of Chinese racism, and now that China is a more powerful nation, the tendency of stronger states to bully the smaller ones can parallel the inclination of the majority nationality within a territory to intimidate the ethnic minorities.

Mao himself warned his cadres thus, "We must never adopt an arrogant attitude of great-power chauvinism and become conceited because of the victory of our revolution and certain achievements in our construction." ["Opening Address at the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China," September 15, 1956]

Then again, "In Commemoration of Dr. Sun Yat-sen," November 1956, Mao predicted that "in the year 2001, or the beginning of the 21st century, China will have undergone an even greater change. She will have become a powerful socialist industrial country."

"But we must be modest.In our international relations, we Chinese people should get rid of great-power chauvinism resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely."

It is 2008 A.D. and do we now see this Han great-power chauvinism at work in the Spratlys?

Mao's heirs, especially the Hu-Wen Administration, have to be admonished that the combination of totalitarian governance, state-led capitalism, burgeoning population and pent-up demand for territory is a prescription for war.

Macapagal.

The former president of the Philippines surveyed political systems three decades after his term. He evaluated Deng Xiaoping's "Four Modernizations" and its predecessor. "Maoism was a disaster in material terms.(It) led to impoverishment and even hunger for many." [Diosdado Macapagal. Constitutional Democracy in the World. Manila: Santo Tomas University Press, 1993, p. 351]

In his appraisal, he showed pragmatism. "When the Chinese speak of opening, the West ought not to expect an opening of the system. Democratization does not mean the Communist Party is relinquishing its leading role." [p. 272]

How can we now apply Macapagal's review of China?

Mahan, A.T., Captain, United States Navy

He was a proponent of naval power at the time when the Cubans and the Filipinos were winning their national liberties via armed struggle. To him the Americans listened, seeing clearly the wrangling among the European powers and the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean.

How should USA position itself? Where? Rivals? Mahan's answer:

"It is a question for the whole civilized world and not for the United States only, whether the Sandwich Islands, with their geographical and military importance, unrivalled by that of any other position in the North Pacific, shall in the future be an outpost of European civilization, or of the comparative barbarism of China.

"It is sufficiently known, but not, perhaps, generally noted in our country, that many military men abroad, familiar with Eastern conditions and character, look with apprehension toward the day when the vast mass of China - now inert - may yield to one of those impulses which have in past ages buried civilization under a wave of barbaric invasion. The great armies of Europe, whose existence is so frequently deplored, may be providentially intended as a barrier to that great movement, if it come." ["Hawaii And Our Future Sea Power," Letter to the editor, New York Times, January 31, 1893]

As it turned out, the Philippines, possessing the greater strategic and geopolitical value, was occupied by the Americans beginning in 1899, and its geo-economic role remains in the 21st century.

Like Spain, the US coveted the Philippines for its utility as a springboard to China, among other reasons. Its characteristic as an unsinkable base for naval and other operations and its proximity to the Asian mainland makes our Archipelago a pawn and prize for the Eagle and the Dragon.