Human rights and the whispered threat of neocolonization

Oooh, isn't that a title worthy of a (pseudo)academic!

Anyway, this post comes about after hearing from some guest speakers I invited to my Filipino American studies (FAST) class. Katarungan is a group of volunteers who are tracking human rights violations in the Philippines. When I mentioned this to one of my informal advisors, she honestly could not understand why young Filipino Americans would or should care. From her standpoint, the yearning for Filipino/Filipino American identity should "look forward" and be planted here in America, not in "looking back" to the country from whence we (or our parents) came. And that to intervene in Philippine affairs is simply an extension of America's neocolonist ways--only now with Filipino actors as well as white ones. I don't think it would surprise too many of you to know she is Fil-Am, though some of us might call her "Fil-Fil"because of her accented English and fluency in Tagalog.

Anyway, I didn't invite this group just because I wanted to have the class hear about human rights in the Philippines. I invited them because I wanted to show off community building and activism, and to have the class think about the role that Filipino Americans should play in Philippine affairs (after having read a history of the KDP by Helen Toribio). So I asked the speakers to address the issue of "why should we care?" and "whether we are just being the new colonists by intervening in Philippine affairs."

You can read Redante Reed's thoughtful response here (or look on my blog list, he's An Ordinary Person).

So my thoughts on "whether we are just being the new colonists by intervening in Philippine affairs..."

FIRST, the charge of neocolonialism can be easily dispensed with when you look at the intent: no colonizer, whether old or neo style, ever cared about human rights.

But SECOND, the language of American involvement in human rights (anywhere in the world) is easily reminiscent of the benevolent assimilators who sought to Christianize and civilize the Philippines.

NEOCOLONISTS take over the affairs of other countries not (just) by military might, but through infrastructure building, social programs (like teachers), and trade agreements that favor the colonist. The US did this in taking over the Philippines in 1898 and again in giving the Philippines independence in 1946--independence with strings. One could argue that the ubiquity of American media (film, television, music) in the world today further hegemonizes American pop culture (I don't usually use such academic jargon but hey that word has my name in it) such that any country hoping to make it big must imitate American ways of storytelling, downplaying its own cultures.

But whatever dressing colonists put on it, what they really want is economic supremacy. The US wanted the Philippines for military bases (to protect economic interests) and a stepping stone to future economic riches in China. Portugal and Spain competed for God, gold and glory, claiming lands all over Asia for the ultimate prize of India (which neither got).

But no colonist ever concerned himself with human rights. Magellan didn't die in the Philippines defending human rights, and McKinley and Teddy's war against the Philippines might have been exhibit A at the Geneva Convention's "what not to do" seminar. So intervening to protect human rights is not a neocolonist's goal.

But it could be a neocolonist's strategy. It's the language justifying America's role as the world human rights watcher that concerns me. True, as Redante points out, we in America have the enviable position of being able to speak out without fear of losing our lives, unlike many places in the world. But justifying action on the basis of America's role as a world power (which Katarungan does not do, but other groups do), as a beacon of democracy and human rights (which you might laugh at nowadays, but the fact that we are so concerned about this image shows its priority in our national identity), and because we have the resources and know-how is eerily reminiscent of the benevolent language used by Americans in the Philippines. They sought to Christianize and civilize us--never mind that Filipinos had already spent 300 years under Spain's civilizing and spiritual tutelage. All as a cover of course, for what the colonists really wanted.

When our leaders (in the Administration and in Congress) speak about human rights, and attach conditions on foreign aid, what will those strings be? What might will we use to make our way right? Groups like Katarungan probably won't be in the room when those deals are made, but may unwittingly provide the cover for these hidden agendas.

So what to do? Well, the answer is not "nothing." Katarungan, more power to you. In the marketplace of community activism, of volleying for human and financial resources to do good in the world, social reformers can and should stay focused on their missions while not worrying too much about the unintended consequences of their work. Control is an illusion. All we can do is pray. The serenity prayer is a good one.