Prof. David employs the terms “China made” and “Chinese” interchangeably as though they mean the same thing. “It would not be difficult to highlight the inferiority of China-made products,” he writes, “whether we are talking of Chinese cars, motorbikes, agricultural and industrial tools, or light consumer goods like household utensils, clothing, school supplies, and electrical and electronic products. Their sole attraction is their cheap price. One should not look for quality, reliability, style or durability in Chinese products…Still, it would not be fair to characterize all China-made products in these terms.”
This is not just a nuanced distinction without a difference because the boycott campaign is targeted at “China made” goods and not at “Chinese products” that may be made in Taiwan or somewhere else outside of China. The target of the boycott is not Chinese restaurants or businesses owned by Chinese Filipinos (“Chinoys”) in the Philippines or Chinese Americans in the United States. It is directed at China owned corporations like the Bank of East Asia in the U.S. that was just purchased by the International Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the largest bank in the world, which is owned and controlled by the government of China.
Prof. David believes that “a call to boycott Chinese products will no doubt catch attention, but it will do nothing more beneficial to our people than perhaps to stimulate discussion on the Chinese threat”. He fears that a discussion about the “Chinese threat” will only “unleash” anti-Chinese racism which he dreads “more than the expected retaliation from our haughty neighbor.”
Unfortunately, Prof. David’s concern for the Chinese is not reciprocated by China which has junked “proletarian internationalism” in favor of a resurgent Han nationalism that is venting its racist animosity against overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in China to punish them because the Philippines isn’t behaving like a compliant domestic helper.
The irony is that Prof. David’s inability to appreciate the significant difference between “China made” and “Chinese” products may unleash the very racism he is concerned about.
The hero of the US Pinoys for Good Governance is the Chinese man who stood in front of the tanks that were on their way to suppress the Chinese students’ protest at Tienanmen Square on June 4, 1989. The Chinese “tank man” is depicted in the group’s posters and flyers as a Filipino holding a Philippine flag with the words “Stand Up to China’s Bullying” in bold letters at the top.
China instigated the Boycott War
Prof. David acknowledges that the call to boycott China is not “a government-supported initiative but a purely consumer-led boycott driven by patriotic sentiments.”
An example of a “government-supported” boycott is China’s ban of Philippine Cavendish bananas last May to retaliate for the Philippine assertion of ownership over Scarborough Shoal which is 124 nautical miles from the baseline of the Philippines and more than 550 miles from China. Another example is the travel ban imposed on the Philippines by China last May which reportedly caused the cancellation of 20,000 Chinese tourist arrivals in Boracay.
A “purely consumer-led boycott” is what Loida Lewis announced at a July 14 press conference in Manila when she called on the global Filipino community to boycott all products “made in China.”
In contrast, soon after news of her Boycott China campaign was broadcast to the world, China immediately retaliated with a nationwide newscast on the government-controlled media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-OuQ5BnzTo) calling on the people of China to boycott the “Beatrice” stores that were mistakenly reported to still be owned by Loida Lewis.
The over-reaction by the government of China to a private citizen’s call for a consumer boycott of China goods is a clear indication that China is deathly worried about the damage that Lewis’ boycott call may wreak on the economy of China. The ruling Communist Party of China clearly fears the power of Filipino consumers more than it does the Philippine Navy.
What a Boycott China campaign may produce
In a speech at the June 22 rally in front of the United Nations in New York, Eric Lachica of the US Pinoys for Good Governance observed: “If even one million of us Filipinos, out of the four million in the United States, will not buy Chinese products just once a month, we will create a huge financial loss on China amounting to almost a quarter of a billion dollars per year.”
San Francisco Bay Area resident Marla Yotoko-Chorengel read about the boycott campaign and promptly sent an email to all her Maryknoll classmates throughout the world and to all her relatives and friends urging them to join the campaign to boycott China products. The email incited a patriotic love for the Philippines that many of those who received her emails never even knew they possessed. Her email and that of Angelina Frey operated like a chain letter that was sent by friends to their own set of friends.
Other Filipino Americans shared materials to enhance the Boycott China campaign. One wrote of viewing a documentary, Death By China (www.deathbychinamovie.com), which provides information about the 50,000 American factories that have disappeared since China began flooding the US market with illegally subsidized cheap products since 2001, about the more than 25 million Americans who can not find decent jobs and the 3 trillion dollars the US now owes China.
People learned that if 200 million Americans refuse to buy just $20 each of China-made goods, the billion dollar trade imbalance would be erased.
They learned that ABC’s evening news anchor, Diane Sawyer, initiated a “Made in America” pledge in 2011 that informed her viewers that if they spent an extra $3.33 on U.S.-made goods, it would create almost 10,000 new jobs in the U.S.
To counter the Boycott China campaign, many products made in China, especially those on the shelves of Wal-Mart, no longer reveal where they were made. Through the Internet, Filipinos learned that to track the origin of a product, the key is to read its bar code. If the first 3 digits are 690, 691 or 692, the product is made in China. If the first three numbers are 471, then it is made in Taiwan.
Balitang America, a popular weekday news show available to the 250,000 U.S. subscribers of the ABS-CBN cable channel, posed the question in its July 19 show: Should Filipinos boycott China-made products in protest against China’s claim over the Spratlys?
The result of the poll was released the following day: a resounding 84% in favor with only 16% opposed. Among those opposed, many simply expressed concern that since China goods saturate the US market, there are no alternatives.
But many who started consciously boycotting China-made goods have learned that there are alternatives to every product made in China. Some may cost more but the quality may be better and would not contain the toxic materials found in many China products.
The US Pinoys for Good Governance is initiating a Global Day of Prayer for Peace in the Scarborough Shoal on August 21 and is inviting the global Filipino community to join in hosting an informational activity in towns, cities, states, provinces, and countries all over the world, inviting friends, relatives, neighbors, fellow workers to discuss China’s threat to the Philippines, to pray for peace in the West Philippine Sea, and to organize a local boycott of China goods. (For more information, visit www.uspgg.org).
Think globally but act locally.
The success of the call to boycott China Products campaign may yet compel China to cease its bullying behavior towards the Philippines. It may be the country’s best hope. That and prayers.
(Please send your comments to Rodel50@gmail.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334