DURING my days with the New People’s Army, I was taught two kinds of opportunism in the conduct of people’s war. To refrain from openly arousing the masses to take up arms for fear of losing their support for the revolutionary movement is Right Opportunism. On the other hand, to lead the masses on the course of armed struggle without first educating them on the necessity of the revolutionary struggle is Left Opportunism. Either way will end in disastrous results for the revolution.

What is the correct line?

Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. (For at least the first three decades of the national democratic movement, the spelling of Mao’s name was “Mao Tse Tung,” giving rise to the acronym “MLMTT.”) The combination of the revolutionary thoughts of the great teachers of the proletarian struggle had been encapsulated in a large booklet titled “Gabay sa mga Kadre,” the basic guide for cadres for resolving day-to-day issues of the revolution. The method prescribed for this was called IPO (ideological, political and organizational). For a decision to be correct, it has to be ideologically (I) in accordance with Marxism-LeninismMao Zedong Thought, politically (P) an expression of the aspiration of the masses, called mass line, and organizationally (O) in conformity with democratic centralism.

The above-cited context of opportunism is called to mind by the current intensifying dispute between the Philippines and China over the West Philippine Sea. From the looks of things, the United States is winning the war of narrative, with its mouthpieces enjoying a heyday lambasting China as the aggressor in all platforms of the media. How villainous really China is pictured when a massive vessel of the China Coast Guard is ventilated in the media water cannoning a small boat carrying provisions for the Marines guarding the BRP Sierra Madre on Ayungin Shoal. The World War 2 vintage Navy ship had been ordered grounded on the atoll to serve as a Philippine military outpost — a symbol of the country’s sovereignty over the contested area.

A source claiming to enjoy the confidence of the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines discloses that the grounding of Sierra Madre in 1999 was not without the knowledge of China but had been tolerated by then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin out of consideration of the friendly and neighborly relations between China and the Philippines.

China knew from the very start that the grounding of BRP Sierra Madre was an assertion by the Philippines of sovereignty over the reef, but China still allowed it. The reason given is that Jiang did not wish to tarnish his friendship with Joseph “Erap” Estrada. Now, aren’t those shades of Opportunism of the Right kind? Look at the disaster it has created. With the escalated tension brought about by the water cannoning China did of the Philippine Coast Guard resupply boat, practically the entire Filipino populace are enraged. Amboys in the Philippines are practically already celebrating victory in their campaign of demonizing China. Pity Chinese Ambassador Huang Xilian for having to bear the brunt of undoing the disaster caused by the incident. One town in Palawan has declared him persona non grata.

At the 9th Manila Forum, Huang disclosed that the US and its allies like Australia, Japan and South Korea are coordinating in this effort to draw a wedge between China and the Philippines. Certainly that is obvious. But in the first place, would this situation have come about if China had not allowed it to happen? That is, from the very beginning, the honorable recourse would have been a gentle reminder to Erap to remove the Sierra Madre from Ayungin Shoal because that is China’s territory. My source informs that Jiang Zemin did remind Erap that but also chose to rely on Erap’s promise to comply. This is where China made a mistake. MLMZT mandates this basic doctrine: concrete analysis of concrete conditions. It was quite evident that the Philippines must be into its own binge of occupying “vacant lots” in the South China Sea. Unlike in real estate, where informal settlers are tolerated by landowners to occupy portions of their properties on the implicit understanding for them to recover possession of the same at any time they please, in the Ayungin Shoal dispute, ownership of the atoll must be judged on one single proof — possession.

Who is in possession of Ayungin Shoal?

Clearly, it is the Philippines.

With the intransigence that President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. displayed in his assertion of not yielding “a square inch of Philippine territory,” it seems quite obvious now that China’s one remaining recourse is to embark on a forcible recovery of possession — war.

My source flares up in arrogance: “They want war, go ahead.” That’s short of saying, “Who are you to match Dong Feng 21, China’s nuclear missile which experts claim to be unstoppable even by China’s archenemy United States?”

That brings the issue now to the perennial pitfall of opportunism. It is always the case that in an effort to correct a kind of committed opportunism, the offender swings to the other kind. In this instance, China’s mistake in 1999 of having allowed the Philippines to exercise possession of Ayungin Shoal — an opportunism of the Right Kind — is now seemingly sought to be corrected by swinging to an opportunism of the Left Kind — war.

Steeped in the strict principles of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, China must be expected to stand by this triad of proletarian doctrines in bringing closure to the Ayungin Shoal impasse.

In this respect, the 9th Manila Forum held at the New Era University last August 22 was a most welcome relief. Both Association for Philippine China Understanding Chairman Raul Lambino and Ambassador Huang Xilian, the main keynote speakers in the event, were unequivocal in assuring that war is never an alternative for dialogue in the South China Sea dispute.