ShareThis
by Rodel Rodis
August 1, 2011
This is not just splitting hairs like a distinction without a difference. In his July 19 Inquirer article entitled “The call to boycott Chinese products” (http://opinion.inquirer.net/32863/the-call-to-boycott-chinese-products), Prof. Randy David comments on the call for a global boycott of “China-made products” which he also refers to interchangeably as “Chinese products”.
The call he refers to was initiated by the US Pinoys for Good Governance led by Loida Nicolas-Lewis to protest China’s illegal occupation of the Scarborough Shoal and its creeping invasion of the Kalayaan Island Group in the Spratlys. The campaign is targeted at “Made in China” goods and not at “Chinese products” made in Taiwan.
Prof. David employs the two terms as though they mean the same thing. In one paragraph, he refers to the call to boycott “China made products” and then in the following paragraph, he notes 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 expresses concern 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.”
The irony is that Prof. David’s failure to grasp the fundamental difference between “China made products” and “Chinese products” is precisely what may unleash the very racism he fears.
To counter any anti-Chinese racism that the boycott campaign may “unleash”, the US Pinoys for Good Governance uses the iconic photo of the Chinese man who stood up 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 boycott China call 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 against 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 (http://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 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 disclosed 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.
The idea is to think globally but to act locally. (For more information, visit www.uspgg.org).
The success of the Boycott Made in 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.
(Send 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 415.334.7800).