USS Gridley (DDG-101) arriving in Manila Bay on Nov. 19, 2012, it's named after a navy captain involved in the 1898 Battle of Manila Bay, read his interesting and sad story  


(Image of Capt. Gridley sourced from etc.usf.edu)  


  



(Photo below of the modern-day USS Gridley)


        


This interesting story is recounted by the website http://www.spanamwar.com/Mbaygridley.htm  


"Below is Capt. Charles Gridley's letter to his mother following the 1898 Battle of Manila Bay. The note is interesting for several reasons."  


"First, it is obvious that Gridley is in poor health. He mentions that he is under the awning, aft, and his writing ink is "not handy." His stateroom could have been no more than thirty feet away. The trip to get ink may have been too taxing on him. Within a month, he would be dead."  


"Secondly, it was Gridley's report to Dewey that the OLYMPIA was low on ammunition that caused Dewey to break off the battle and head towards the center of the bay. To avoid having the Spanish understand why he did this, Dewey had the other vessels in the squadron that they were beaking for breakfast. Gridley's report was found to be in error and the lull in the action was truly not needed. In this letter, however, Gridley simply notes that the ships 'hauled off for breakfast' either attempting to perpetuate this myth which was widely reported on in the U.S., or he was not told the real reason for Dewey breaking off the battle."  


The letter:  


"My Dear Mother:  


Excuse pencil, but I am writing on the deck aft, under the awning, and ink is not handy.  Well, we have won a splendid victory over the Spaniards.  We left Hong Kong on April 25, Mirs Bay, April 27, and arrived off Manila Bay at midnight on April 30.  We steamed in with our lights all out, and by daylight we were off Manila, where we found the Spanish fleet, or rather, at Cavite, seven miles from Manila. We attacked them at once, the Olympia leading, and, being flagship, she was of course the principal target, but we (our fleet) were too much for them, and after fighting two and a half hours, hauled off for breakfast, giving them another hour of it afterward. We succeeded in burning, sinking and destroying their entire force.  They were also assisted by shore batteries.  Their loss was very heavy, one ship, the Castilla, losing 130 killed, including the captain.  


"And now as to ourselves.  We did not lose a man in our whole fleet, and had only six wounded, and none of them seriously.  It seems a miracle.  Everybody fought like heroes, as they are.  The Olympia was struck seven or eight times, but only slightly injured, hardly worth speaking of.  


"Stickney, New York Herald correspondent, and a former naval officer, was on board by permission of the department and acted during the battle as Dewey's secretary.  His account in the Herald will be full and complete, so you had better get it.  His reports will go in the same mail as this.  


"We have cut the cable and can only communicate via Hong Kong. The McCulloch will go over in a day or two, carrying Commodore Dewey's dispatches and this mail and bringing our mail I hope. -- I am truly thankful to our Heavenly Father for His protection during our battle, and shall give Him daily thanks.  Manila, of course, we have blockaded.  We can't take the city, as we have no troops to hold it.  


"Give my love to all and accept a large share for yourself.  


"Your loving son,  


CHARLEY."

---

Bibliography:
Stickney, Joseph L., Admiral Dewey at Manila. (Chicago: Imperial Publishing Co., 1899) 58, 61.

What is the real truth about China & Japan dispute on Diaoyu or Senkaku Isles?

My Comments:

I have been asked regarding the controversy over the Diaoyu or Senkaku isles which have caused renewed conflicts between China, Taiwan on one side and Japan on the orther side.

I came across informations from the blog of Harvard and Oxford alumnus, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, and would like to share with you.

Nicholas Kristof laments the position of his country USA for apparently siding with Japan, when he said the preponderance of evidences point to China being correct in its sovereignty claim over the Diaoyu Islands.

Hopefully, both Asian countries can come to a peaceful settlement of this historic problem as soon as possible based on the historical truth, fairness and justice.




Here is the September 19, 2012 article by Nicholas Kristof and scholar Han-Yi Shaw :

---

September 19, 2012, 7:38 pm454 Comments

The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

By HAN-YI SHAW

Han-yi ShawDiaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).

I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute  between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose.

Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China:  the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position.

I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling.

The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war.

This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof

Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan's purchase of the islands could spark an "extremely grave crisis" between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.

Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.

The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.

Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”

My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.

Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.

“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.

Japan Diplomatic Records Office.Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.

“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.

After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.”

The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.

In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”

Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.

Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.

When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.

Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source:  Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.

The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.

Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.

The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”

Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.

The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.

Update: The author would like to include an updated image of the Qing era documents that recorded, “Diaoyutai Island accommodates ten or more large ships”, as mentioned in his blog post.

National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan.Record of Missions to Taiwan Waters (1722), Gazetteer of Kavalan County (1852), and Pictorial Treatise of Taiwan Proper (1872).

Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.

Why Filipinos should know their real history My Comments: William "Billy" Esposo is one of the Philippines' most candid, fearless and sensible political columnists. He is a highly-respected columnist of the Philippine Star. I'm sharing Esposo's thought-provoking column today. What are your opinions about his views? Here is his column, read, share to others and hopefully you can post your comments or email me? AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR By William M. Esposo The Philippine Star 2012-11-11

When we were marking the 40th anniversary of the declaration of martial law last September 21, there were many who expressed their concern that Filipinos – most of them born after martial law had ended – do not know what the country underwent during the Marcos dictatorship. The sight of Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. repeating his mantra that lives were better during the dictatorship heightened those apprehensions.



Indeed, Filipinos are not as updated on their country’s real history, in contrast to their being updated on the latest showbiz scandal in town. Media are partly to blame but the cause of our historical amnesia is not just confined to what media are not telling our people. We cannot fully blame media for not disseminating what we have not really written yet.

Nobody has yet figured out how to teach our real history to our people. The most basic task is, of course, to write the real history and burn all the books that have injected self-serving fiction to favor certain interests. It would be myopic to simply focus on the martial law era. A people will be forever handicapped when their history books are only partially factual with other sections nothing more than pulp fiction.

The problem with our historical narration is that it does not draw Filipino empathy. Filipinos do not relate to what’s presently offered as our nation’s history. Indeed, it’s hard to relate to something that’s partly fact and partly fiction. The human soul naturally gravitates to the truth.

In the case of martial law, we cannot expect our people to internalize historical episodes that aren’t fully disclosed. It’s like watching a movie without an ending to tie up the whole plot as it unraveled. To one who knows the real history of our country, martial law was not as simple as Ferdinand E. Marcos wanting to stay in power longer. The true picture is lacking the disclosure of the bigger force that wanted martial law imposed here – the US.



Marcos couldn’t have imposed martial law if the US didn’t want it. It precisely lasted that long because the US felt that dictatorship was the antidote to the communist threat here and abroad. Marcos merely rode on the US Cold War agenda because it suited his desires perfectly. In the end, just as the communist threat had waned with the end of the Indo-China wars and the Russians being stuck in the Afghanistan quagmire, the US played a key role in ousting Marcos. First, they pressured him to call a Snap Presidential Election and second – they told him to cut clean.

(Photos below: Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos and First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos with USA President Lyndon B. Johnson and USA President Richard Nixon)





Unless Filipinos are taught the underlying forces, be it geopolitical, national or local politics, and economic shifts and so forth, that trigger major national events – they’ll never attain a grasp of real Philippine history. It’s like watching the story of Jesus, except that this one starts when he was already 30 years old. If you didn’t know the origins of Jesus, you’ll be left asking – who’s Jesus, where did Jesus come from?

Marcos shouldn’t escape the condemnation of future Filipino generations but our people must also know that Marcos was not the main player here.

Because our people have not been allowed to know their real history in its full context, we thus become continually vulnerable to further foreign manipulation and exploitation. Because we do not know the real US role in the imposition of martial law here, most of our people are still cheering the US as it seeks to find participation in the energy explorations in the South China Sea. We do not realize that we are cheering the US in their attempt to make our country the frontline of a US-China conflict.

Because nobody is talking about the looming Peak Oil Crisis – that point when supply can no longer service the demand – Filipinos fail to appreciate why the US invaded Iraq when Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack in New York City. It was all about the looming shortage of oil supply. Iraq has the world’s fourth largest oil reserves. Why is the US so hot in now targeting Iran? Iran has just as much oil as Iraq. Are you surprised that the US has been very active in the issues among territorial claimants in the South China Sea?



Some experts are saying that the Peak Oil Crisis might start as early as 2015. In February 10, 2010, British businessmen petitioned their government to plan for the Peak Oil Crisis (Link: http://peakoiltaskforce.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/final-report-uk-itpoes_report_the-oil-crunch_feb20101.pdf). They outlined the need to formulate new policies, form packages of legislation, new technologies and behavior change incentives in order to cope with the oil reality.

Charles T. Maxwell, recognized as the Dean Of Energy Analysts, predicted that by 2020 oil would cost $300 per barrel. Maxwell described the projected rise of oil prices: “Then it goes to $95 in 2012 and $115 in 2013. The following year, 2014, we see the price going to $140 a barrel, followed by $180 in 2015. And then, by 2020, it’s at $300, or roughly $225 discounted back to the present.”

“By 2020, I’m looking for about $300 a barrel, which is closer to $225 a barrel in today’s dollars.”

(Photo of Charles T. Maxwell)



In the UK where they have oil and oil interests in many other parts of the world, they’re already planning for the doomsday scenario. Don’t you think that we, without oil interests like the UK, should be planning at a double pace?

With big challenges ahead of us, Filipinos cannot be expected to rise to the demands of the situation if they don’t know their real history and cannot contextualize themselves in their real history.

Emmy award-winning journalist Chito Sta. Romana on Philippine-China ties, Marcos, Cory, Edjop, Mao & Deng

WILL SOON FLOURISH column by Wilson Lee Flores

The Philippine Star

October 28, 2012

China expert Chito Sta. Romana: “We should be friends equally with the US and China.”| Zoom

Let China sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world. — Napoleon Bonaparte


Emmy award-winning former ABC News Beijing bureau chief and China expert Chito Sta. Romana was a student activist who went into political exile in Beijing starting in the 1970s martial law era.

He studied liberal arts and commerce at De La Salle University, where he was student council president in 1969-70, took graduate courses in development economics at the University of the Philippines, studied Mandarin at the Beijing Language and Culture University and earned his master’s in international relations at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Massachusetts.

Sta. Romana has covered many historic events in modernizing China for ABC News, from the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations, the 2001 US-China crisis over the Hainan plane incident in 2001, the Sichuan earthquake, the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2009 Beijing summit meeting of US President Barack Obama and China President Hu Jintao. He also worked with ABC anchors like Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer and Bob Woodruff when they reported from China.

Chito Sta. Romana has retired and resettled in Makati City in December 2010 and is now a sought-after resource speaker on China. He recently gave Philippine STAR an exclusive three-hour interview. Excerpts:

PHILIPPINE STAR: How long have you been away in exile, ever since you and other student activists visited China before martial law was declared?

CHITO STA. ROMANA: I was away for 37 years, from August 1971 to February 1986. I was part of a Filipino youth delegation invited by the China Friendship Association. Due to the change in the political situation in the Philippines, I was forced to stay in China where I eventually decided to study and seek employment.

You were the Manila regional head of the National Union of Students of the Philippines. Wasn’t the late famous Atenean student leader Edgar Jopson with NUSP too?

Yes, Edjop was my contemporary and we became rivals. I was head of NUSP for Manila, and he was head of NUSP national. We had differences after the big student demonstration of January 1970 in front of Congress.

Was that what I saw in pictures of protesters with a black coffin outside Congress?

Yes, it was a black coffin shaped like a crocodile. That started what was called the First Quarter Storm of 1970, a series of demonstrations against the Marcos regime.

Home at last:After 37 years of being a political exile, studying, then working in China, Chito Sta. Romana is happy to be back in his own country. Here he enjoys relaxing by the fountains of Serendra at The Fort. Photo by MANNY MARCELO

Were your differences with Edjop ideological, because you were then with the left and he was considered conservative due to his Ateneo Catholic background?

Our differences eventually became ideological. I was then the left wing, and he was considered right wing, the moderate group. The issue was the Constitutional Convention or Concon.
Edjop saw the Concon as the way to reform Philippine society, but our position was that we had no illusions about the Concon and that then President Marcos was just going to use the Concon to his advantage.

Isn’t it ironic that I heard Edjop was decried by militant students as “too moderate,” yet he later became a Communist revolutionary and was killed at age 34 in 1982 by the military? What happened?

When Marcos declared martial law, the Concon was abolished, so Edjop got disillusioned. He started to join the underground, because Edjop was sincere.

What was his reaction on learning that you and other student activists like Jaime FlorCruz were in political exile in China?

Sumunod pa siya (He even followed) to China in 1971. He was touring Beijing with his own NUSP youth delegation and we talked. I could already sense then that he was searching. That was our last meeting, it was in an office of the China Travel Service across the Beijing Hotel.

Tianamen Square souvenir shot: Chito and son Norman pose for the camera with huge portraits of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1984.

I admire Edjop. I considered him a friend, and he died a martyr. He sincerely followed his convictions.

Is it true what I read, that during a heated meeting with student demonstrators in Malacañang Palace, then President Marcos called Edjop “the son of a grocer” in a heated tongue-lashing?

Yes, he was called that because Edjop challenged President Marcos to put down in writing that he would not run for president again after his second term. Irritated, Marcos said: “Who are you to tell me what to do, you are only the son of a grocer!” The Jopson family used to own a grocery business in Manila.

Did you also meet with President Marcos personally?

Yes, I had met President Marcos during his several negotiation meetings with student leaders then. It was at least two or three times before 1970. Marcos certainly started out as a promising leader. He knew how to talk the talk such as the need for democracy and nationalism. President Marcos and Imelda were then like the Kennedys of Asia, but the problem was in the second term.

There were controversies about election cheating such as the use of guns, goons and gold. There were also issues before about his sending Philippine troops to the unpopular Vietnam War, supposedly as non-combatants, including among them Fidel Ramos and Jose Almonte.

Do you agree President Marcos was a political genius, though controversial?

Definitely, Marcos was brilliant, but he was not a Lee Kuan Yew or a Deng Xiaoping because his government became too corrupt. He really took care of his family and he forgot about the nation.

Do you think Marcos could have been a Lee Kuan Yew?

With foreign youth delegates in China: Posing for a class picture in 1971 in front of Mao Tse-tung's house in Hunan are Filipino students Chito (seated, 4th from left), Jaime FlorCruz (3rd from left) and Ericson Baculinao (standing, last row, 4th from left).

I thought Marcos had a promising beginning. Even in the early years of martial law, I have to admit there were initial successes. But in the end, corruption and repression did him in. He could have been a Lee Kuan Yew.

What about Marcos’ foreign policy, was he very successful?

In foreign policy, Marcos basically wanted to take advantage of the presence of US military bases here to keep himself in power, but he himself overestimated US support for his regime. That was one of the reasons for his downfall, because the US will only stick with you for as long as you are still useful to US interests.

Who were the other student activists of your era?

Jerry Barican of UP, Gary Olivar who was then a young freshman or sophomore student activist known as the l’enfant terible of UP because he was so brilliant. There was a student leader, but not an activist, surnamed Jardeleza of UP Iloilo who would go to UP Law and into corporate law.
There was Tony Tagamolila, UP Collegian editor in chief, who died a martyr’s death in the underground during martial law. His name is now in the Bantayog ng Mga Bayani in Quezon City, along with that of Edjop and others.

Another student activist was Caloy Tayag, he was a Benedictine priest of San Beda, but he left the religious order and joined the Christians for National Liberation. Caloy was with us in China, then he returned to the Philippines and went underground. He disappeared sometime in 1974 or 1975, becoming one of the martial law era desaparecidos. Up to now, nobody knows what happened to him. Caloy was very curious, very intense and passionate, but he had a contemplative side to him, medyo (a bit) philosophical. He likes to think deeply before talking.

Another activist with us in China was Ros Galang, then a young Manila Times reporter. She was able to return, then went underground, and she eventually died of cancer.

Winter in China:Family man Chito with wife Nancy and sons Norman and Christopher.

Are you still an activist or an idealist now, since I think the Philippines is still essentially semi-feudal in our politics and with so many still in poverty?

Forty years have passed. There’s still something burning… What I want to focus on nowadays is to help our society to know China, whether it’s people in government, NGOs or media. I really want our people to better understand modern-day China. I hope I could be a bridge of understanding, because our diplomatic relations have deteriorated.

Is it true that after the 1986 military-backed EDSA uprising, you almost came back for good but you eventually ended up working for ABC News in Beijing?

It was just a coincidence. I was enrolled in the master’s program for my MA in international relations at Fletcher School, which was administered by Harvard and Tufts universities. My paper was on China’s Open Door policy, in particular Hainan. In Fletcher, I studied international politics, international economics and international law. I attended seminars on Chinese foreign policy and also the UN Law of the Sea.
My plan after EDSA was to come back to work for government, the private sector, or for an NGO, but in late 1987 the situation here in the Philippines was unstable. Back in Beijing in late 1987 or 1988, I decided to freelance for America’s ABC News, then soon after China’s former Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang died in April 1989.

I read Hu Yaobang’s death sparked the controversial student protests in Beijing?

Before his death, Hu Yaobang was ousted from power in China due to 1986 and 1987 small-scale student protests; he was blamed. Hu was originally being groomed to be Deng Xiaoping’s successor. After Hu’s death, the students in Beijing took to the streets to mourn him.

ABC News assigned me to cover it, so my news team and I marched with the students on April 15, but we were there to cover the event as journalists. I was with a camera crew of two people — a cameraman and a sound man.

We walked with the students from Peking University to Tiananmen Square. There were several marches. Those were the biggest scale demonstrations since the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976.

Western media saw the student protests as a clamor for political democracy, but wasn’t it due mainly to China’s economic slowdown and also anger at corruption?

Economic problems were the basis for the protests, like inflation, corruption and unemployment. China was then only shifting from a centrally planned economy to the use of market forces. They were then tinkering with market forces, which led to inflation.

How many people died when the protests were eventually suppressed?

The official estimate was somewhere between 100 to 200 deaths, but the Chinese Red Cross stopped counting at 2,000.

Who was the leader who ordered the clampdown using the military?

Deng Xiaoping was the high leader, but the decision has to be that of the government under Li Peng. He was the premier then, it was Li Peng who declared martial law.

I think it was Singapore statesman Lee Kuan Yew who complained that it took the Chinese government so long to step in and stop the chaotic demonstrations?

The reason is they were divided, between Zhao Ziyang who had replaced Hu Yaobang as the party’s general secretary. Zhao was more conciliatory towards the student protesters, while the hardline faction of the Chinese government wanted a crackdown.

So they later learned their lesson after this June 4, 1989 event. They now have this policy that it is important to nip any protests in the bud, act early at the first sign of protests.

Before the crackdown, I remember reading that Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev visited Deng Xiaoping in Beijing?

At that point, Gorbachev had a summit meeting with Deng Xiaoping, but Gorbachev couldn’t be welcomed at Tiananmen Square because of the student protesters. So it was a big embarrassment. The welcoming ceremony was held at the airport.

ABC News sent a lot of news crews from other countries to Beijing. At any point then, we had four or six news crews covering the historic events in rotations.

Do you think, despite their legitimate anti-corruption protests, the students were actually threatening China’s socio-economic stability?

Some of the Beijing students had banners saying: “Welcome Mr. Gorbachev” and others were asking for glasnost (the current political reforms). The students did not know when to stop. They should have consolidated their gains. Then there was a lull.

ABC News called me to New York and they offered me a job as a news producer, because they said they wanted to expand in China. At that point, looking at the Philippines, which was then unstable, I decided to join them.

Where were you exactly during the crackdown on the protesters on June 4?

I wasn’t in Beijing, I was in New York. I arrived later in June 6 or 7, 1989, when Deng met the martial law troops to congratulate them. I saw it on Chinese TV.

So, can you summarize what really happened at Tiananmen, from your perspective?

First, the students went overboard. Second, the Community party leadership was splitting and it had also already affected the army. Third, there were already calls to overthrow Deng and the party. Then they declared martial law on May 20.

The young Chito Sta. Romana, Ericson Baculinao and Jaime FlorCruz form a gang of three beside a Mao Tse-tung mural:""Thirty percent of Mao's acts were errors, including the Great Leap Forward which became the great leap backward, and the Cultural Revolution."

According to reports, they flew in elite troops from the provinces and the order was “to recover Tiananmen Square from the counter-revolutionaries” with tanks, armored personnel carriers (APCs) and soldiers.

Did your news team win the Emmy award for that coverage?

No, my news team won our Emmy as part of an ABC News special millennium report, not the Tiananmen events. It was fellow former student activist Eric
Baculinao whose team got an Emmy award for the NBC News coverage of the whole Tiananmen story.

Although bloodshed is a human tragedy nobody wants, in retrospect, can we say that Deng Xiaoping was correct because he stabilized China from possible chaos and ensured

I think the verdict is not yet final. I think the students were experiencing genuine sentiments or wish for democracy and anti-corruption, also complaints against inflation.

How would you personally assess what happened in 1989?

My thinking is it’s a case of the student protesters being an irresistible force and the government being an invincible object. But in Deng’s evaluation in the future, this is one of the black marks on his legacy.
After Deng consolidated stability in June 1989, he pushed for bolder economic reforms which, in a sense, answered the students’ demands on the economic side, but it’s still a long way to go on political democracy.

Isn’t political democracy first before economic democracy a dangerous modern-day Western idea, which failed the former Soviet Union in the case of Gorbachev’s glasnost? Wasn’t Deng wiser for pushing economic reforms and liberation of the masses from poverty first, while keeping a tight grip on politics for stability?

Gorbachev was indeed weak on economics. The Russian leadership tried, they wanted a sudden economic transformation which resulted in economic collapse.

Deng Xiaoping was wiser in the sense that he followed the Chinese proverb, which says: “Cross the river by feeling the stones,” which means a gradual shift. Deng started experimenting with bold market-oriented economic reforms first in agriculture, then the special economic zones in the coastal regions, before he started applying them nationally. Historically, Deng Xiaoping was more successful.

I think China’s prioritizing of economic reforms before any talk of future political democracy, wasn’t that the path of other developed nations as well? Britain was under an absolute monarchy during its Industrial Revolution. Germany, France, Japan under Emperor Meiji, South Korea under Park Chung Hee, Taiwan under the Chiang family and Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew; all had pursued economic reforms first before tinkering with political openness.

Except us here in the Philippines… Even postwar Japan prospered under the nonstop rule of the same ruling party the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for decades. Many Asian nations indeed pursued the path of economic progress first before political democracy.

Your fellow student activist Jaime FlorCruz of CNN said you saw the legendary Zhou Enlai in person?

Yes, that was in 1971 at the National Day reception at the Great Hall of the People. We not only saw Zhou Enlai, we had a toast. Mao Tse-tung’s wife Jiang Qing was also there, and the infamous Gang of Four behind the Cultural Revolution.

It was right after the September Lin Biao incident, so there were no speeches in that dinner. Zhou and the other leaders toasted every table. I was 23 years old then and I toasted Zhou with China’s famous but difficult-to-drink fiery maotai wine.

Is it true that Lin Biao attempted a coup?

What we know (is that) Lin was on a plane flying over Mongolia when it lacked fuel and crashed. China authorities said he was on the way to the Soviet Union, that it was a defection after an attempted coup against Mao by bombing his train was discovered. Lin Biao’s daughter supposedly spilled the beans on the plot.

Why would Lin Biao do that, when he was already next in line to Mao as successor?

Lin Biao was more of a leftist. He disagreed with Mao and Zhou Enlai in their policy to befriend US President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Lin disagreed with China’s shift in foreign policy.

Wow, you toasted with Zhou Enlai whom Kissinger said was one of the greatest leaders he has ever met. What about the legendary Deng Xiaoping?

Yes, I have personally seen him. It was around 1973 or 1974 when Deng Xiaoping had just come back to power after an earlier political purge. I saw him in the summer garden soirees in Beijing.

The Chinese people were curious about him. Deng just got back to power and they didn’t know how to react to him, the people were still keeping some distance from him. Deng was greeting the Chinese people and also us, the foreigners.

Your impressions of Zhou Enlai? Theodore White wrote that Zhou spoke Mandarin, French and English well?

The most impressive was Zhou Enlai, mainly due to his diplomacy and his political survival. I think it showed his political skills and his ability to unite others.

Zhou also knew his place and never tried to overshadow Mao, and he was the consummate diplomat who knew how to defend his country’s interests.

Reporter in action: The award-winning journalist with a cameraman.

Have you personally seen the legend himself Mao Tse-tung, the poet revolutionary?

Chairman Mao was then basically always staying in the Zhongnanhai government compound of Beijing. We only saw him at his funeral in 1976. We, the foreigners in the city, paid our respects. We also did that at the funeral of Premier Zhou in the same year.

I read the world’s biggest earthquake of the 20th century in terms of death toll happened in July 1976 in Tangshan City prior to the death of Chairman Mao. There’s an ancient Chinese belief that great calamities are precursors of dynastic change. Where were you during that quake so near Beijing?

Luckily for us, we were in Hunan province when that earthquake happened on July 28. We were not immediately allowed to go back to Beijing. We only returned after Mao died on Sept. 9, and I saw some people were still sleeping out in the streets of Beijing because of their fear of aftershocks.

A lot of student activists of your generation idolized Mao Tse-tung, but after the Cultural Revolution and his mistakes were subsequently revealed following his death. How do you assess him now? How will history judge Mao?

Seventy percent of his acts Mao did very well and 30 percent of his acts were errors — that is the assessment of his peers.

The Chinese Communist Party’s judgment was that Mao’s contributions were: he won the war against the Japanese invaders, won the revolution against Chiang Kai-Shek and he founded the People’s Republic. He was like China’s Abraham Lincoln. His errors included the Great Leap Forward (which became the great leap backward) and the Cultural Revolution.

In exile during the cultural revolution

You were exiled in China during the height of the cataclysmic ultra-leftist Cultural Revolution. How was your life then? How did you spend your days?

I was there during the final years of the Cultural Revolution from 1971 to 1976. We were touring China as a visiting delegation. The Chinese students went to the rural farms, so we couldn’t meet our peers. Of the Filipino students in the trip, five of us remained.

We volunteered to work with the Chinese people. The Chinese were very considerate, so we were only scheduled for half-day work, but it was already tiring for us. So we spent our time in half-day Chinese language study and half-day work. We had a language tutor. We also spent some time teaching English.

Is it true that other foreign students in China then went with you to work in the farms and that some Iranian students even had lipstick and high heels while harvesting? How were the other foreign students handling it?

Yes, those Iranian classmates were in heels and lipstick doing summer harvests in the farms, so it was quite a scene. They were royalty sent by the Shah of Iran regime to study Mandarin in Beijing.

There were European students from Cambridge University in UK; there were Germans, Swedes, Dutch, Finnish and others who were very good in classical Chinese but they couldn’t speak contemporary Mandarin. The Chinese joked it was if these Europeans just stepped out of the Ming Tombs, due to their mastery of classical Chinese.

There were many Vietnamese students and we were studying when Saigon fell in 1975, and I remember we were at the school cafeteria congratulating them for the end of the Vietnam War.

What colorful memories do you have of your fellow foreign students studying Mandarin?

The Africans were the most happy-go-lucky. They drank a lot of alcohol and danced a lot on weekends. The Albanians were interesting, they were fond of the Beatles’ music and kept playing loud music.

The North Koreans all dressed the same way. When a North Korean in the cafeteria ordered milk, all other North Koreans ordered the same too. They really had tight discipline. They moved in groups. I remember the North Korean students all had a pin of their leader Kim Il Sung on their upper shirt pockets, close to their hearts.

There was no e-mail, social media sites or texting then. How did you communicate with your parents and kin?

It was hard to communicate. Our letters were coursed through the US, Hong Kong or abroad.

I read that during the Cultural Revolution, there were a lot of political purges and even violence? Were you terrified?

Good morning, America: Chito with colleague Diane Sawyer and his wife Nancy

How could you not be terrified? There was an atmosphere of fear. They’d tell us there were still class enemies around, that we had to be careful always, even when going to the Friendship Store. But nothing untoward happened to me during that period.

Did you see any fighting or political purges?

We just saw the political wall posters in the train stations, but we didn’t actually see any actual clashes… You know, up to now, the music of the revolutionary ballets the White-Haired Girl and the Red Detachment of Women, we could still hum the songs. We saw them so many times, because those were the only entertainment then.

Back home, was it true you had an identical twin brother who was arrested during martial law in the Philippines due to your activism?

I have a twin brother Nelin. When martial law was declared, a warrant of arrest was served at our home during that first night. My parents answered the door and told the arresting officers: “Chito is not here, he’s in China. Who do you want to arrest?”

It turned out the arrest warrant was for Nelin. My twin brother used to be a former Christian La Salle brother novitiate, but he had left and then he was active with the progressive Christians. He was also with Senator Jose Diokno’s civil liberties group.

So your twin brother Nelin was jailed?

He was detained together with Ninoy Aquino, Jose Diokno, Chino Roces, Louie Beltran, Amando Doronila, Ramon Mitra, Jr., Concon people, etc.

Martial law’s top enforcer was Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile. Various people tell me that Enrile’s new book should be in bookstores’ “fiction” category due to allegedly inaccurate tales? Your comments?

Some parts of the Enrile book are controversial. I think the debate will definitely continue, though the editor is my good friend, and it’s certainly not his fault if there are inaccuracies; it’s due to the author, Enrile.

I believe people in power or close to power should be encouraged to write their memoirs in order to explain their historical roles. President Marcos, Ninoy, Cory, Diokno and others, it would have been more interesting if they had authored memoirs.

By the way, why is your twin brother’s name Nelin? Was he named after Russia’s Communist revolutionary Lenin?

No, it’s his nickname because his full name is Leonardo Sta. Romana. He was named after our paternal grandfather who was a farmer and educator. Our parents are from Nueva Ecija.

Where in Nueva Ecija province? I read that General Antonio Luna was assassinated by Emilio Aguinaldo’s presidential guards outside the church in Cabanatuan City?

We’re from Cabanatuan and our home is just 15 minutes from the church and plaza where General Luna was killed. That plaza is now called Plaza Lucero, named after our maternal grandfather Senator Santiago Lucero. My real name is Santiago, I was named after him and Chito is my nickname.

Was Marcos similar to President Aguinaldo, both strong leaders but with their share of controversies? Aguinaldo rivals Andres Bonifacio and Antonio Luna were killed in controversial circumstances.

It’s hard to compare Aguinaldo with Marcos; in my opinion, Marcos exceeded him.

What do you think was the biggest shortcoming of President Marcos that led to his fall?

I guess Marcos stayed too long, and he became too corrupt.

How do you assess President Cory C. Aquino?

Cory was the icon of democracy. She restored the democratic system that existed before martial law. She brought back freedom of speech, freedom of the press and free elections, but her problem was how to consolidate the military and political stability. Ultimately, the challenge also was economic development.
Did you get to meet President Fidel V. Ramos, and how do you assess him?

I met FVR several times in China because of his state visits and later for his joining the Boao Forum. Ramos is very interested in China’s economy. He wanted to transform the Philippines using China’s economic experiences and he was able to push our economy forward.

What about ex-President Erap Estrada?

Yes, I also met Erap in China when he was still vice president. He had voted against the US military bases, he has a nationalistic streak and he upheld an independent foreign policy for the Philippines. In that sense, officials in China were watching him closely.

Erap successfully promoted better China ties, but his government didn’t last long enough. I think Erap was very keen on learning China’s poverty reduction success.

Is it true what Western experts say, that China’s government has liberated the biggest number of people from poverty and in the shortest period in human history?

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund said that China has successfully reduced the poverty rate of its people from 85 percent of the population to 15 percent from 1980 to 2009 — using their international standards of measure. That translates into half a billion people freed from absolute poverty; it’s really a remarkable achievement.

What about ex-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, have you met her?

Actually, I’ve met GMA once or twice during her state visits. She’s very interested in China and for our country to have close ties. Unfortunately, bilateral ties got involved in corruption cases which affected the development of those ties. If there was no element of corruption, we could have benefited more. I think she had a problem with the US, then she made a swing towards China. We need good relationships with both China and the US.

What about President Noynoy’s father Senator Ninoy Aquino. Did you ever meet him?

I knew Ninoy when I was a student leader. He was a very articulate and very political character. He was also a journalist before. Ninoy was quite a character, an engaging character. He talked about a lot of things, and it was hard to predict what he would do next. He was definitely a politician of the highest order. And in politics, it matters how one dies, and to his credit, he died a martyr’s death.

I forgot to ask if you ever met Cory personally?

I met Cory at the wake of my late younger sister Chona. My mom Celina Lucero Sta. Romana and our aunts also went to St. Scholastica College like Cory, so they were either classmates or schoolmates. Cory was then preparing for her state visit to China, and she asked me questions.

Cory was obviously a very intelligent woman. She asked me general and specific questions about China, from its weather to its political system. She was very curious to understand China and its economy. She asked about Deng Xiaioping and his reforms.

I recall that after retracing her Cojuangco ancestral roots in Hongchiam village in Fujian, south China, she had a high-level meeting with Deng Xiaoping?

Cory and Deng met in Beijing. In fact, when Deng was starting to smoke a cigarette, he politely asked her if it was okay for him to smoke. Cory said it was all right, but she said that during her Cabinet meetings, smoking was not allowed; so Deng smoked only one stick and refrained afterwards.

It was in that meeting of Deng and Cory that he proposed shelving the sovereignty issue over the Spratly Islands and he proposed the pragmatic idea of engaging in joint or common exploration for resources. He said: “We should let our future generations handle that issue, because they will be smarter than us.”

Your assessment of President Noynoy Aquino?

I’m surprised at the extent of his popular vote in the 2010 election, it shows the overwhelming desire of the people to get a government that is clean and honest. His win was also the result of the impact of his mother Cory’s death, the “Cory magic.” If he could continue on his path of upholding clean government, it’s possible we’ll have the makings of an economic take-off — if he could sustain it.

What about President Noynoy Aquino’s handling of our diplomatic ties with China, do you think he doesn’t fully understand the changing realities there since he has never been there except once during his state visit last year? Or maybe it’s his foreign affairs officials who do not understand China?

I can only speak in general terms. His political advisers and his staff have asked my advice about China. I think a deeper understanding and broader advice are needed. Any problems I think basically result from a lack of understanding.

The ideal foreign policy for our country is to be friends to all and enemies to none. Just because we have a strategic alliance with the United States doesn’t mean China should be an enemy, because even the US itself has very friendly diplomatic and economic relations with China. The US and China are economically so intertwined, the Americans are not interested in any conflicts with China.

Your recommendation of having strong ties with both the US and China, that’s also the policy of our many Asian neighbors.

All our ASEAN neighbors maintain strong ties with both the US and China — not making enemies with either — even Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore. All of these countries handle their diplomatic ties with China very well.

We really don’t need to be confrontational with China. If we want to assert our sovereignty, do it in a non-confrontational way but through diplomacy. You should clearly separate the sovereignty issue on one side, and rebuild our diplomatic and economic ties with China.

So you mean it’s best not to keep arguing with China about the islets issue in public, at every international conference or via the media?

The problem is, if you put the sovereignty issue front and center always, the public in China and the public in the Philippines will look at each other with mutual hostility.
In their social media at the height of the sovereignty dispute, their netizens in the social media were asking others not to buy our Philippine bananas.

With diplomats in Beijing:Then Ambassador to China Sonia Brady is flanked by Chito and Nancy Sta. Romana , Jaime and Ana FlorCruz and cameramen Claro Cortes of Reuters and Gamay Palacios of ABC.

We need to compartmentalize the sovereignty issue and not always debate with China officials about it in all our meetings. If you publicly challenge them on issues they consider as “core issues,” like sovereignty, they’ll push back.

Next month, China is electing its new leaders led by Xi Jinping as the expected new president. How do you assess him and the next set of leaders?

Xi Jinping used to be the Communist Party leader in Fujian and Zhejiang provinces, in Shanghai City — all of these are eastern, coastal and export-oriented regions at the forefront of economic reforms. He has the makings of a pragmatist leader, but he is not yet a Deng Xiaoping or a Mao Tse-tung, so he still needs to consolidate power.

I still think China is at a crossroads, whether to proceed on the existing path of peaceful development, or to take a path of more nationalism. What the party congress will show next month is prioritizing peaceful development.

I also think Xi Jinping, the next leader, has to show that he has the courage or the ability to defend China’s national sovereignty when it is challenged. He needs time to consolidate power, before he can leave an imprint of his personality.

So do you think our Philippine politicians should minimize antagonistic actuations towards China in order to boost the pragmatists in the Communist party leadership and not to boost any hardliners?

We have to deal with China in ways that will encourage the pragmatic and moderate policies, the reformist approach to problems both domestic and international. For if we use the brinkmanship or confrontational approach with China, it will only strengthen the hardline position.

For the sake of our Philippine national interests, it is better to use wise and smart diplomacy. We can see the examples in our neighbors Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and even Vietnam, how they carry out their diplomacy with China so well.

Isn’t it impressive that a one-party state like China can institutionalize an orderly transfer of power and set term limits, unlike other socialist dictatorships?

The opportunity for new leaders led by Xi Jinping to crop up, it’s due to Deng Xiaoping’s having instituted term limits. It was Jiang Zemin who first followed this, then President Hu Jintao. This will be the fifth generation of leaders, but the retired leaders can still influence behind the scenes.

So it was Deng who modernized China economically and ensured political stability, while Mao Tse-tung was the great yet flawed founder of the People’s Republic?

No doubt Chairman Mao was a successful strategist and revolutionary who built the foundations of a new China. His problem was in building a socialist society. He was clear in his admirable vision of an egalitarian society, but (as for) how to build a modern society, he was too utopian.

Like in Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” the problem was he used methods that were too rash and too extreme. In the case of Deng Xiaoping, he knew. He didn’t use Mao’s methods, nor those of Stalin, nor those of Gorbachev.

Do you think some Western criticism that China totally has no democracy is too simplistic? I read they’re trying to modernize their party via reforms?

I think in China now, there is inner party democracy happening first; they’re now electing their leaders within the ruling party. They’re experimenting, but definitely it’s not going to be a Western-style political democracy.

Throughout your nearly four decades of exile in China, what were your worst crises?

When my younger brother passed away in 1975 and when my father died in 1977, I was away and couldn’t be present at their funerals.

Another crisis for me was when my Philippine passport expired and I couldn’t go to the Philippine Embassy because there was a pending case against me and other student activists on allegedly “inciting to sedition.” I couldn’t travel overseas.

What was the first thing you did upon returning? Where did you go?

I went home, to our old house in Mandaluyong. They had a welcoming party, and I was very happy to be back.

Was returning home to the Philippines your dream during your many years in political exile?

Yes, after the fall of Marcos and even after I stayed on in Beijing to work for ABC News, I came home every Christmas.

Have you read the famous ancient poem by the Tang Dynasty poet Li Bai about his looking out the window at the moon every night and thinking about his hometown? All Chinese kids study and memorize that poem.

Yes, I knew that poem and it always reminded me of home. I took a class in classical Chinese poetry, and studied the great Tang Dynasty poets like Li Bai and Du Fu.

What are lessons we in the Philippines can learn from China’s “economic miracle” of the past three decades?

The key to national progress is to have a coherent vision, so if P-Noy just continues with his “tuwid na daan” or “straight path” policy, that will be good for the Philippines.

We should also learn from China’s bold opening up to foreign investors and technologies. But the Chinese don’t open up indiscriminately, they know how to choose where to open up and how to protect their national interests; they know how to strike a balance.

Another lesson from modernizing China: good leadership is the most important key ingredient for national progress.

Any other recommended ways to improve our problematic diplomacy with China?

We have to learn to deal with China. If we assert sovereignty on one side, let us continue to still push forward our diplomatic, economic and cultural relations, too; we shouldn’t mix up both sides.
In diplomacy, not just public diplomacy, we also need quiet and private diplomacy. When Asians deal with each other, “face” is important for the Chinese and for East Asians.

If you were president of the Philippines for just one day, what would you want to change?

I would want to change our China policy, but now it’s going in the right direction. I hope that our country will have a more truly independent foreign policy, so that we can be friends equally with the US and China, and gain economic benefits from both. I want to change and improve our China policy, because that’s my forte and expertise.

What about our laws?

Oh my God, that’s tough. Being a journalist, I am for the passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, because we need that for good governance and for fighting corruption. I am also for changing the Cybercrime bill.

Can you share details of how your news team won an Emmy award?

We won the Emmy for our millennium telecast during the New Year’s Eve (celebrations) of 1999. ABC News had a worldwide 24-hour newscast. We were reporting from Shanghai with its spectacular fireworks; we also did TV reports on the origins of fireworks in ancient China. That won us the award.

You’re highly educated academically, and in experience, you were an idealistic student leader before. Will you someday run for public office?

No. My only desire is to share what I know about China, and to reach out to the decision-makers to promote mutual understanding and friendship between our two countries.

Philippine STAR columnist Boo Chanco wrote that you and Oishi/Liwayway boss Carlos Chan are the most ideal diplomatic negotiators for China. Your comments?

I don’t seek any government position, but I’ll help in any way I can. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) diplomats are capable. I’m willing to do whatever is asked of me.

* * *

Thanks for your feedback! E-mail willsoonflourish@gmail.com or follow WilsonLeeFlores at Twitter.com, at Facebook and http://wilsonleefloresjournal.blogspot.com/.