Territorial baselines: Be quick but careful

Territorial baselines: Be quick but careful

God must really be keeping close watch over the Philippines and the Filipinos. Territorial baselines bills are pending in Congress—consolidated and passed in the House on second reading last December. But, as revealed by Rep. Antonio Cuenco, head of the House foreign relation committee, action on the bill has been stopped because the Department of Foreign Affairs had told Congress of China’s objections to the proposed law. He also recounted that a Chinese embassy official had informed him passage of the bill would be considered an unfriendly act by the People’s Republic of China.

If the law had been enacted and not frozen for fear that China would take offense, we would have given up “an almost colossal” part of our territory. This is according to Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who takes pride in being an expert in, among other things, international law, and is the Senate foreign relations committee chairwoman.

Santiago has warned that if the Philippines declares itself an archipelagic state, as the pending House bill does, the declaration would contradict the Treaty of Paris which sets the boundaries of our country. The national territory defined in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, she said, is vaster than what would end up as our territory under the archipelagic definition allowed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States. The Philippine baseline law – in Republic Act 3046 and RA 5446 – is based on the boundaries defined under that treaty. Senator Santiago contends that “the Treaty of Paris sets out the International Treaty Baselines of the Philippine territorial sea.” But “the bills pending in Congress will eliminate such limits and thus, the Philippines would lose its boundaries.”

Declaring the Philippines as an “archipelagic state” would be a grave error because under the UNCLOS, the Philippines would end up being entitled to only 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea. This is “an almost colossal reduction from the wider boundaries of the International Treaty Limits under the Treaty of Paris.”

As an “archipelagic state,” Santiago warned, “our zone of sovereignty would collapse. Our internal waters would become archipelagic waters where the ships of all states will enjoy the right of innocent passage. In addition, foreign states would have the right of so-called archipelagic sea lane passage. Ships of all states would have the right of passage and their aircraft would have the right of overflight.”

The Philippines must submit its UNCLOS claims before the UN’s May 2009 deadline—otherwise we lose any claim we have on the Spratlys. But Senator Santiago warns that wrong wordings in any new law could also undermine the established claim of the Philippines on Sabah.

What should the Philippines do now?

The consolidated bill passed in the House in December 2007 would redefine the baselines of the Philippine territory to include the Freedom (Kalayaan) Group and the Scarborough Shoal off Zambales, and extend its exclusive economic zone by 240 kilometers.

Sen. Santiago also warned that a Philippines that is self-declared to be an archipelagic state would suffer environmental and marine pollution from ships freely entering its archipelagic waters.

The Philippines would then have less powers to discipline foreign vessels polluting our seas than we have now as a nonarchipelagic state dealing with ships in its territory.

The Kalayaan Island Group could actually wind up being defined as another archipelago different from the main Philippine islands. Santiago said that under international law the Spratlys could be termed “other islands” (not a separate archipelago) that falls under Philippine sovereignty. Under the UNCLOS, the Philippines as an “archipelagic state” would have to be defined as having two archipelagos—the Kalayaan Group and the main Philippine group of islands.

The bills now in Congress that would include the Scarborough Shoal in Philippine territory could pose problems because international law does not recognize the drawing of archipelagic baselines as a method of claiming territorial sovereignty.”

How should we prove our claim to Scarborough Shoal then?

Use the principle of “effective occupation under international law,” the senator recommends. The military exercises, the construction and use of a lighthouse, enforcement of laws against foreign vessels and nationals that have illegally entered the area, and many other political and administrative acts are proofs that the Republic of the Philippines has been effectively exercising sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal.

Cop-out

Cop-out

The police have changed tack on the Jonas Burgos mystery, and unfortunately for the missing activist and all those who hope to see his abductors brought to justice, the police have moved in the direction first tracked by the military. Now the police see communist rebels, and only communist rebels, as responsible for the crime.

We have serious reservations about the new witnesses presented by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), however. Many of these concern the implausibility of the military’s claims, but the most significant doubts arise from what went before these witnesses were presented.

Military sources that journalists have relied on for years have sworn that a unit of either the Intelligence Service of the AFP or of the 56th Infantry Battalion based in Bulacan were involved in the abduction. A state prosecutor has asserted that six soldiers were behind the disappearance, a claim that earned him the justice secretary’s displeasure. And ever since Burgos was forcibly seized in a mall last April, the leadership of the AFP has acted in a less-than-forthright, suspicion-inducing manner: stonewalling, finding excuses not to appear before the courts, refusing to turn over the results of internal investigations.

For these and other reasons, we find the military’s most recent version of events suspect. Unfortunately, the police now share that interpretation. And they have brought to it their own worst practices.

Let us, using the most recent statements of Senior Supt. Joel Coronel of the Criminal Investigation Detection Group, consider only two of these fatal flaws.

First, an almost total dependence on eyewitness testimony.

Coronel is well within his rights to judge the testimony of Emerito Lipio, a member of the New People’s Army, as providing the most “logical and coherent” picture of the Burgos abduction. That is his lookout. But his complete reliance on Lipio’s belated testimony illustrates the weakness of many, if not most, of the cases our police officers investigate.

They are, most of them, based on the say-so of someone or other. For that very reason, many of them do not prosper in court—the testimonies are eminently recantable.

To be sure, in the Burgos disappearance, Coronel speaks of a pattern he sees in the testimony of other witnesses. “[Lipio’s] statements are consistent with what other witnesses have told us before.”

But his case, as he makes it, depends entirely on these witnesses. He excludes such evidence as the license plates of the Toyota Revo used in abducting Burgos from the mall, which have been traced back to the impounding area inside the headquarters of the 56 IB in Norzagaray, Bulacan. (Why? They, too, were pointed out by eyewitnesses.)

This brings us to the second worst practice. Coronel’s statements remind us, yet again, that the police sometimes have the habit of disregarding the evidence that is right before their eyes.

Coronel, for example, said he found the alleged connection between the controversial license plates and military involvement in the Burgos abduction “really puzzling.”

Now that’s a puzzlement. By any reasonable standard, the fact -- and it’s a fact -- that the plates on an abductor’s vehicle were traced back to a battalion HQ should be considered to mean that a prima facie case does exist to investigate the possible involvement of battalion officers or men in the abduction.

Unfortunately, it would take enormous self-confidence and political will on the part of the police to say that. Thus, the cop-out: Police officers who now choose to give credence only to those witnesses whose testimony favors the military.

Fine-tuning

Fine-tuning

Monetary officials are worried that terrorists could take advantage of loopholes in the Human Security Act to launder funds. Senators, for their part, want to introduce more safeguards in the HSA to prevent the state from abusing wiretapping powers. Law enforcers, meanwhile, have been so spooked by provisions in the new law that leave them no wiggle room for making mistakes that no terror suspect has been arrested so far by the police since the HSA was passed. Instead the cops have left the counter-terrorism battle to the military, not only in Basilan and Sulu but also, it seems, even in Metro Manila, where over a thousand soldiers have been deployed ostensibly to conduct civic operations.

The biggest danger in these developments is that the campaign against terrorists will suffer because a new law has paralyzed those who are supposed to enforce it. This paralysis must be avoided. The terrorist threat is real and terrorists never sleep. They bide their time, waiting for targets to let down their guard, and then strike. There are other laws that can be applied in going after those who plan to commit mass murder. These laws are inadequate – precisely the reason counter-terrorism forces sought new tools from the legislature to fight the terror threat. But if everyone is scared to enforce the new law, public safety can be compromised.

A big deterrent to the enforcement of the HSA are provisions – 22, as counted by authorities – that could land counter-terrorism forces in prison for more than a decade and require them to pay fines of at least P500,000 for certain methods of arrest and interrogation. A number of these methods have long been employed in regular law enforcement. No law enforcer wants to serve as the guinea pig in testing the provisions, which are meant to protect the public from state harassment.

There is a common enemy here, and it’s neither lawmaker nor law enforcer. The HSA was passed because legislators recognized the need for it. But the law can use some tweaking. While the HSA is undergoing fine-tuning, the battle against terrorism must not be derailed.

Freezing the ball

Freezing the ball

Here we have a case of agents of the state apparently having engaged in a criminal act. Compounding the offense, their superiors apparently perjured themselves before official bodies in repeatedly denying the men and the unit to which they were assigned had the technical capability to undertake the alleged criminal offense.

Comes the Senate which is proposing an inquiry in aid of legislation that would seek to prevent a repetition of the illegality. The Palace answer? It would not only not cooperate in the inquiry. It would also actively block the investigation by preventing the appearance of officials in the executive department from attending hearings.

The case is the wiretapping which was allegedly mounted by the Intelligence Service of the AFP.

The targets were sundry opposition personalities, one Palace operator (Mike Defensor) assigned to liaise with the opposition and a Comelec commissioner named Virgilio Garcillano. In the course of the wiretapping, the Isafp agents caught on tape somebody who sounded like Gloria Arroyo talking about cooking the results of the 2004 elections with Garcillano.

The administration has been stonewalling and muddling investigations into the "Hello Garci" tapes since Day One (remember Ignacio "I-Have-Two Tapes" Bunye?). We understand why the Palace has been moving heaven and earth to block investigations. If the Garci tapes are authentic, it means Gloria Arroyo stole the 2004 elections and her stay in Malacañang is under illegitimate pretenses.

We were, therefore, not surprised when Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita yesterday said the Palace would invoke EO 464 to prevent people from the executive department from attending Senate hearings.

It’s probably for the best, Malacañang again seeking refuge in an issuance the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. The Senate can again go to the Supreme Court and seek a tighter ruling on when executive department officials can be prevented by the President from attending inquiries in aid of legislation.

The ruling clearly says executive privilege may only be invoked when it involves department secretaries. It also sets specific conditions the legislature has to meet in inviting department heads. But it is also categorical in saying officials who are not department heads cannot be considered as enjoying executive privilege, which attaches to the President by extension.

It will be recalled that EO 464 was issued on the eve of the appearance of Marine Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani and Lt. Col. Alexander Balutan before a Senate hearing into election rigging in the Lanao provinces. The hearing was called as an offshoot of the "Hello Garci" scandal. Gudani and Balutan were subsequently punished for violating a direct order from the AFP chief to ignore the Senate invitation.

The Supreme Court said Gudani and Balutan could not possibly be among the officials who require presidential approval before they can attend congressional hearings.

The way is clear for the Senate to invite all those perjurers from the Isafp and the AFP. So we are perplexed by Ermita’s mention of EO 464. A Supreme Court rebuff is a certainty. We guess the game plan is to freeze the ball until Gloria exits in 2010, which has been the strategy of the Palace since Bunye came up with his I-have-two tapes announcement.

Air Farce

Air Farce

In the battlefield, an attack helicopter goes down, killing the co-pilot. As the MG-520 of the Philippine Air Force was fished out of the waters off Basilan the other day, it didn’t look like the crash was caused by enemy fire. Neither Islamic separatists nor Abu Sayyaf bandits have been known to open fire on airborne aircraft. Air Force officials grounded the PAF’s fleet of MG-520s — all 17 of them remaining — pending the results of an investigation into the cause of the crash.

At least it didn’t look like the MG-520 met its doom after getting tangled in a kite string. That was another helicopter, downed earlier this year. That accident would be funny if it didn’t highlight the pathetic state of the Air Force’s fleet. Other PAF aircraft have crashed due to engine malfunction. An Italian-made trainer jet became so notorious for fatal crashes it was dubbed the “widow maker.” With planes and helicopters like these, who needs terrorists?

The political leadership has long given low priority to defense spending. Part of the reason was that for nearly a century, the country had the US security umbrella to rely on for most of its defense needs. The political order of priorities did not change when US troops were kicked out of the Philippines and the country lost its umbrella. When it finally dawned on political leaders that national defense required naval patrol boats that do not conk out in the high seas because of age or lack of fuel, and modern aircraft and helicopters to support ground and naval forces, the government had to scrounge around for funding sources.

The government is still scrounging to finance a modest military modernization program. In the meantime, troops in the frontlines continue to die in aircraft crashes or walk into ambuscades while armed with dud mortar rounds. How many of the soldiers killed since July in Basilan and Sulu could have avoided death if they had the proper weapons and equipment? It’s time for national leaders to go beyond lip service in promoting the welfare of the military’s fighting men and women.

Superannuated soldiers

Superannuated soldiers

It’s amazing, what one learns everyday. There’s a factoid which recently caught our attention. And our leaders said while it is worrisome, it is not really a serious problem. The average age of our soldiers is 44. But not to worry, according to the AFP leadership, the superannuated soldiers are assigned to office jobs. So there is really no degradation of fighting ability. Moreover, these soldiers need their jobs. Where will they go if not to the ranks of jobless if they are separated from the service?

Here we are again seeing our tendency of grabbing the bull by the tail whenever we are faced with an anomaly that requires correction. For the issue is not about the quality of the fighting men we are sending to the front lines. Or of providing opportunities for those who otherwise could not find a job.

Since the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 1, the defense of the Republic has always been considered the duty of every citizen. The professional armed forces are meant to serve as the cadre organization – that is, the backbone – of a citizen’s army. This is in recognition of the reality that the Philippines, or any modern country for that matter, cannot afford to maintain a huge standing army in proportion to its population.

So how do we ensure that full-time farmers, factory hands and clerks can answer the call in the event the balloon goes up? They are supposed to serve in the military for a short period in their adult life, three years if our information is still current. They gain the skills and the discipline for waging war and, as a bonus, such skills may prove useful when they return to civilian life.

The idea is for the pipeline to have regular batches of trainees at the intake while disgorging those who have already served at the other end. The result is a steady stream of trained men organized into the reserves.

Military service need not even be universal. There is an excess of 18-year-olds and above volunteering to join the AFP. The training program, thus, need not be frightfully expensive.

Everything we have said above is nothing new. The puzzle is why AFP leaders have all but forgotten their lessons during their plebe year at the PMA.

And while we’re at it, while the AFP is neglecting the basics, why is the PNP divided into "commissioned" and "non-commissioned officers," following military practice, when it is by law a professional and civilian organization?

More on this some other time.

Wasted lives

Wasted lives

If the government is thinking of the greater good of Mindanao and the country, it had better call off the all-out offensive that has been launched by its hawkish generals in Sulu and Basilan. If it has to go after the Abu Sayyaf bandits that killed 14 Marines and beheaded 10 of them, it should conduct small, commando-type operations instead of set battles. Decades of encounters with Moro separatists and bandits have shown that conventional warfare does not work well in Mindanao.

Church and political leaders, civic and women’s groups have lamented the waste of lives in Mindanao. The latest to die on the government side were 10 Marines and five junior officers who, reports said, were mowed down “like sitting ducks” by the Abu Sayyaf after they ignored their guides’ advice on what trail to take.

What is strange is that, as disclosed by an Army officer on condition of anonymity, the encounter was “considered part of their training in close-quarters combat” and “was just a test mission.” What? Are the generals playing with the lives of soldiers, sending them on “test missions” to find out which tactic will work against the Abu Sayyaf? If this is true, this is the height of callousness and insensitivity on the part of these desk-bound generals.

Many lives have been wasted in the all-out offensive against the Abu Sayyaf. And most of the victims have been soldiers in the flower of their youth. Their deaths bring to mind what US President Herbert Hoover said about war: “Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die. And it is the youth who must inherit the tribulation, the sorrow, and the triumphs that are the aftermath of war.”

Actually, no one wins in a war; everyone is a loser. The casualties lose their lives or some of their limbs. Wives become widows; children are left orphans. Their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters all grieve for them. The world of the soldiers’ families is turned upside down.

An all-out war is bad not only for the families of the soldiers, but also for the regional and national economy. Senators last week said that an all-out war could cost the government P1 billion a month. Think of what P1 billion could finance to improve the lives of the people in Sulu and Basilan, two of the most underdeveloped places in the South. One billion pesos could pay for more low-cost houses, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and livelihood programs.

Joseph Gloria of the Social Watch Philippines-Mindanao last week said that the all-out offensive in Sulu and Basilan is further setting back the eradication of poverty and other Millennium Development Goals in Region 12. He added that in a conflict, the most affected are the children because when wars erupt, people take refuge in the nearest schools and deprive the children of places for their education.

Already, 15,000 people have been “affected” or “displaced” by the hostilities in Sulu and Mindanao. The government officials’ terms -- “affected” and “displaced” -- do not fully convey the depth of suffering and fear of uncertainty that the people affected by the war are feeling. Truly, as writer Arthur Koestler once said, wars consist of only 10 percent action and 90 percent passive suffering. And it is mostly the women and the children, aside from those who die and are maimed at the front, who greatly suffer.

As of last week about 9,000 soldiers had been committed to the all-out offensive in Sulu and Basilan. Nine thousand soldiers going after what -- 150 or at most 200 -- Abu Sayyaf bandits reinforced by some rogue guerrillas belonging to the Moro National Liberation Front. The imbalance of forces is very overwhelming in favor of the government, and yet up to now the encounters have resulted only in the massacre of young officers and soldiers. Clearly, the situation shows again that conventional warfare, set battles will not turn the tide in Mindanao.

It is not too late to de-escalate the hostilities. If the Marines have to avenge their slain and beheaded comrades, so be it. But limit their activities to surgical operations that will not affect entire islands. Macho warriors cannot forget the Old Testament maxim of “a tooth for a tooth” and “an eye for an eye.” And it is always easy for generals who stay in the comfort of their airconditioned war rooms to wage war and play with the lives of their men. But the morally courageous stand is to call for the reduction of hostilities and to work for peace.

Stopping the bloodshed in Mindanao

Stopping the bloodshed in Mindanao

Dozens are believed to have been killed as govern-ment troops and Muslim extremists clashed in a town in Basilan. The military described the fighting as a close-quarter battle the intensity of which usually results in high casualties. At least 16 of the dead were government soldiers, and four of them were officers.

The hostilities flared after several tense weeks of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation in Basilan between government forces and Abu Sayyaf fighters believed to be reinforced by Moro Islamic Liberation Front guerrillas. The military had been holding back to allow the police to serve warrants on Abu Sayyaf and MILF members suspected of having killed and beheaded 10 Marines early last month. As expected the suspects could not be found, much less arrested, and the police stepped aside for the assault to begin.

There is no doubt the soldiers were only too eager to engage the enemy and avenge the mutilation of their comrades, hence the fierceness of the battle. The insurgents were finally forced out of their camp, but not before a helicopter gunship providing air support for the troops was brought down by ground fire and one of its pilots killed.

The battle in Basilan will not be a quick one. We expect hostilities to be drawn-out, and casualties to be high. As usual the biggest victims will be the civilians, many of whom have fled their homes ahead of the fighting. The President had reminded the military to keep collateral damage to a minimum, but that is easier said than done; bullets and bombs do not discriminate.

There is no belaboring the justification for the offensive in Basilan. An atrocity has been committed; the perpetrators must be punished. The overriding concern, however, is that the fighting in Basilan could spread to other flashpoints in Mindanao. In Sulu the Armed Forces is already hunting down another group of Abu Sayyaf who killed about two dozen soldiers in two ambuscades. That offensive would definitely be stepped up.

The Abu Sayyaf has time and against shown its capacity to strike somewhere else whenever its forces are pinned down in a particular area. Following that strategy the extremists will most likely launch terrorist attacks in Zamboanga City, General Santos or even Davao City to try to ease the pressure on its beleaguered fighters in Basilan and Sulu.

Containing the conflict within the two fronts should be foremost in the minds of our generals. In the meantime civilian authorities must explore new directions to bring peace to Mindanao.

Over the weekend, Speaker Jose de Venecia proposed an ambitious plan to spur economic growth in Mindanao over a five-year period. Under the Speaker’s “mini-Marshall Plan,” the government would ask the US, Australia, Japan and other countries with a stake in the Mindanao to put up a $1-billion fund to build roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. The government itself would raise $500 million as a counterpart fund.

It’s an ambitious project, but at this point, any initiative to stop the bloodshed in Mindanao is worth looking into.

Combat Joe

Combat Joe

The other day, an Agence France-Presse journalist photographed American soldiers spearheading a convoy of Philippine Marines in Sulu. The accompanying story suggested the controversial context in its very first sentence: “Heavily armed US Special Forces troops were seen leading a military convoy Tuesday in Indanan town, Sulu, where security forces are fighting Muslim insurgents.”

The story went on to say: “The American troops were part of a convoy of Philippine Marines hunting members of the Abu Sayyaf.”

The day after, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) issued a series of statements that, in effect, contradicted the evidence of the photographs.

“I was informed that the reason for the mission of the [American] troops is that they are going to conduct site survey in areas where there will be humanitarian assistance and Balikatan activities,” AFP spokesman Lt. Col. Bartolome Bacarro told reporters.

Bacarro should tell that to the Marines, as the saying goes. The idea that American troops would conduct, in the middle of a major military offensive, a “site survey” for military exercises to be conducted next year is preposterous. The fighting in parts of Sulu is for real; would these American troops put themselves in harm’s way simply to scout for locations for war games that are still several months away?

Bacarro’s explanation lacks the very plausibility that will allow the public to suspend its disbelief. (Note that even he had distanced himself from the explanation, portraying himself as merely the recipient of information: “I was informed that ...”)

It is precisely because of these lame excuses that the AFP’s official denials do not carry much weight. More than at any other time since 1986, the AFP top brass today seems to want to manage all information coming out of its camps.

Sought for comment, a spokesman of the US Embassy in Manila had a slightly more plausible, because more generic, clarification. American troops in Sulu were “not involved in any combat roles,” the spokesman said, but they will “fire back if fired upon.”

“Our role is to advise and assist the Philippine military. This is the main focus of our anti-terror campaign,” he added.

But the notion that these highly trained American troops were not actually going into battle, that they are prevented from doing anything except to “fire back if fired upon,” is not a reassurance -- not if they are deliberately thrust into situations where they will be fired upon.

In Camp Aguinaldo the following day, Bacarro described the limits of US military involvement: “technical intelligence, training for soldiers and civil-military-related activities.”

Yes, but what were those heavily armed GIs doing at the head of a convoy in Sulu, in the middle of a major campaign?

In all likelihood, the real answer is: The war on terror has allowed the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration, the AFP leadership, and military units from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia to get away with many sins of omission and commission. The three countries at the forefront of the war on terror maintain intelligence units in parts of Mindanao, in those areas where the deadly Jemaah Islamiyah has been known to operate -- the last two without benefit of a visiting forces agreement. The United States itself, through the cover of the Joint Special Operations Task Force, has been able to do much more than its limited role implies. Case in point: The US troops sighted on Tuesday belonged to the Task Force which oversees the conduct of military exercises involving Philippine and American troops in the country.

War games in the middle of a war? Tell that to the Marines.

Fire the generals

Fire the generals

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Amnesia, not amnesty

Amnesia, not amnesty

It had the familiar sweeping quality of Speaker Jose de Venecia’s pronouncements: an “all-encompassing” amnesty for, as one news report put it, “all enemies of the state,” filed “soon,” in order to “unify the nation.” No halfway measures for this five-term leader of the House of Representatives; it’s all or nothing.

But in this case, it’s nothing. The proposed amnesty is so ambitious it is bound to fail. It includes all insurgents, as well as (possibly, De Venecia hinted) deposed President Joseph Estrada. The reaction from Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, the ex-president’s co-accused son who is now, in one of history’s ironies, Senate president pro tempore, is one index of the difficulty the bill will face. His father is not an enemy of the state, he said.

To be sure, De Venecia is conscious about the limits of the proposed amnesty. “This is a wide-ranging, all-encompassing amnesty to cover all insurgents and all those who have committed political crimes against the state,” he said over the weekend. The protective mantle, in other words, reaches only those charged with or convicted of political crimes.

But De Venecia has more, much more, in mind. “This will create the beginnings of real national unity. The next president will have [fewer] tasks [on] his or her hands and at the same time it will complete a legacy for all of us.” All this legacy-speak makes sense, however, only if Estrada is included in the amnesty’s scope.

The plunder charge Estrada is facing cannot be considered a political crime (although we will, yet again, hear the case described as politically motivated, regardless of the finding, when the Sandiganbayan issues its decision in the next several weeks). But the status of Estrada’s alleged crime does not faze the ever-practical De Venecia. The former president can be included in the amnesty, he said. “Let it come normally. Let it be a consensus of all.”

It is less difficult to include Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who is facing coup charges before a regional trial court.

Far be it from us to argue against a policy proposal merely because it is difficult to implement or because it is certain to meet determined resistance.

De Venecia, in fact, argues from the relative successes of recent history. He pointed, for instance, to the example of Sen. Gregorio Honasan, one of a legion of coup plotters who were granted amnesty in 1995. Honasan himself the other day acknowledged the advantage of “six years of uninterrupted political stability” -- referring to the term of President Fidel V. Ramos, the ex-general who promoted amnesty as a policy and forged the peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front.

But that was then, and today’s circumstances are radically different.

In the first place, the 1995 amnesty was supposed to prevent future military adventurism. But the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, which the government initially alleged was masterminded by Honasan himself, shows us that success on the amnesty front has been relative indeed.

Secondly, unlike in the early 1990s, the Armed Forces of the Philippines is in the middle of a major offensive against Abu Sayyaf terrorists, in Sulu and Basilan -- an offensive that necessitates taking action against “lost commands” or rogue units of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Moro National Liberation Front. Any appeal for amnesty at this time is not only in poor taste; it is demoralizing for government troops who are in the thick of the fight.

Not least, those who availed themselves of the amnesty in 1995 showed remorse for their actions, or at least acknowledged their wrongdoing. Even if, by some legal or legislative sleight of hand, plunder is redefined as a political crime, we still have to hear Estrada acknowledge that he did wrong.

If it becomes “the consensus of all” to include Estrada in the general amnesty, then this proposed policy is nothing more -- and nothing less -- than a prescription for amnesia.

In other words, De Venecia’s “wide-ranging” formula as it stands is the legislative equivalent of saying, “Let’s forget everything.” That way lies continued political immaturity.

Probe this bloodbath, Secretary Teodoro

Probe this bloodbath, Secretary Teodoro

BUSY as he is with the campaign on the new Abu Sayyaf depredations in the southern Philippines, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro should take time to ask his generals about the Black Saturday shootings in Parang, Sulu, that killed eight soldiers and a civilian four months ago.

To this day, neither the Armed Forces of the Philippines nor the Department of National Defense has released an official report on the killings that began at 2:30 a.m. in an Army camp housing Charlie Company of the Philippine Army’s 35th Infantry Battalion in Barangay Silangkan, Parang.

On April 8, the Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Ernesto Torres Jr., reported the mass killings as a “shooting incident,” a catchall phrase that could mean anything. He denied that one of the soldiers had gone on a shooting rampage.

A day later, the AFP chief of staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr., hinted that “animosities” among the troops may have triggered the shooting, but refused to go further. He said the investigation was in progress.

Since then, we have not heard from the general or his spokesman. The military has not released a single report on the investigation. The public remains in the dark about the mass killings.

The silence has raised speculations and theories about the mysterious deaths. One explanation said a troop had run amuck. Another theory posited that a civilian was refused enlistment and had vented his resentment on the soldiers. The NPA or MNLF could have attacked the camp, went another story. It was reported that a drinking binge preceded the bloodbath. An overnight guest, a woman, is said to have been present at that party.

The public does not even know who headed the investigation. Was there a cover-up? Was there an effort to pass off command responsibility? What’s the big reason for the secrecy?

We have not been told the identities of the fatalities. They remain nameless to this time. We hope the families, at least, were notified. We hope the bodies were given proper burial.

Truth must be told, the guilty punished, and the innocent cleared. We owe the victims and their families justice. Responsibility for the massacre must be located and the episode closed to the satisfaction of everyone. Military honor and tradition will remain tarnished if the Black Saturday Massacre is not fully explained. Clearing the air should be part of Secretary Teodoro’s priorities.

Action, finally, in Darfur

AFTER four years of procrastination, after more than 2.1 million people have been driven into camps, after an estimated 200,000 died from the combined effects of war and famine, and after hundreds of women were raped, the United Nations has started moving to protect civilians and prevent further deaths and destruction in Sudan’s vast, arid western region.

On Tuesday the UN Security Council authorized up to 26,000 soldiers and police officers for Darfur. The mission will take over peacekeeping from 7,000 ill-equipped African Union troops.

The resolution, unanimously adopted, authorizes a UN-AU operation to protect civilians under siege and to ensure the free movement of humanitarian workers. While the resolution acknowledges Sudan’s sovereignty, it allows the use of force for self-defense.

The resolution supports the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement signed by Khartoum with the main Darfur rebel groups more than a year ago. Two of the other negotiating rebel factions refused to endorse the deal.

It urges Sudan and rebel groups to commit themselves to a permanent ceasefire and to join peace talks under AU-UN auspices.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon described the resolution as “historic and unprecedented” and said the mission would make a “clear and positive difference.” Ban has made Darfur a priority since taking over as UN chief last January.

US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad urged President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to extend “maximum cooperation” but warned that if Sudan does not comply, Washington “will move for the swift adoption of unilateral and multilateral measures.”

If fully deployed, the mission will be the biggest peacekeeping operation in the world. The troop strength will depend on the willingness of UN members to contribute troops, police and materials.

The Philippines should make a contribution to the humanitarian mission and contribute troops to the peacekeeping army.

Peace in Darfur, Sudan and the African continent is in the interest of the Filipinos. Providing troops, supporting pro-Darfur resolutions at the UN and helping end repression anywhere will help advance our democratic ideals and promote world peace and prosperity.

What is happening to the Armed Forces?

What is happening to the Armed Forces?

uring the last years of the Martial Law period, former Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez was ambushed by unknown gunmen on a dark evening in Quezon City. As he was being rushed to the hospital, Quezon City police chief Brig. Gen. Tomas Karingal attended to him. As Pelaez lay in a hospital bed, seriously wounded, he whispered to Karingal, “General, what is happening to our country?”
Today, many of our countrymen, among them retired military officers, are asking Armed Forces chief of staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon: “General, what is happening to the AFP?”
* * *

It has been a terrible month for our Armed Forces. Never in its history have so many soldiers lost their lives in so short a period of time against an enemy with whom we are supposed to be holding “peace talks” under “ceasefire conditions.” The most shameful aspect of these incidents is that our soldiers were ambushed—bushwhacked is another term used in similar situations. One would think that after the Basilan massacre, our fighting units would be more alert and combat-savvy.

How did we get to this sad and sordid state of affairs in the Armed Forces?

Let me advance a few thoughts that may help us see beyond the mistakes and shortcomings of small unit commanders who unfortunately bear the brunt of the disastrous incompetence and negligence of their military superiors.

First, we have a highly politicized Armed Forces.

The AFP is not the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It is the Armed Forces of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (AFGMA). Every officer who makes it to star rank and who aspires for high position in the military organization must, first and foremost, indicate a sense of personal loyalty to her over and above loyalty to country and people. As Sunday’s Inquirer editorial put it: “The AFP is her praetorian guard and like the imperial bodyguards of ancient Rome, what matters most is personal loyalty to her more than efficiency, honesty or even honor. And like the Neros and Caligulas of the past, she has maintained that loyalty by studiously ignoring all criticism, by being lukewarm to genuine reform; instead, she lavishes her generals with praise, showers them with promotions within the service, and heaps them with civilian appointments upon retirement.”

During the Marcos era, we had the controversial indefinite tenure of general officers. Today, we still have the revolving door policy which has seen the appointment of eight AFP chiefs of staff in the six years of the Arroyo administration. She failed—for some reason not known to the public—to sign into law a bill passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives in November last year, providing for a fixed term of office for the AFP chief of staff. That bill also provided for a two-year term for the major service commanders—Army, Air Force and Navy. It was one of the reforms advocated by former Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz. Unfortunately, he left just as his innovations were moving into high gear.

After Cruz left, we had President Arroyo serving as defense secretary. She was followed briefly by ex-Philippine National Police chief Hermogenes Ebdane who was moved from the Department of Public Works and Highways to Defense. Norberto Gonzales, of “Venable” fame, took over for a few weeks and now Gilbert Teodoro, a bright young technocrat, has just been installed in the Defense Department.

The rigodon in this critical Cabinet office reminds me of a most embarrassing episode at Southern Command two years ago. At that time, Maj. Gen. Samuel Bagasin was supposed to take over as Southcom chief. At the very last minute, Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan, the AFP deputy chief of staff, who was retiring from the service in four months, was named officer in charge (OIC) of the most important unified command of the AFP. Adan was later replaced by Maj. Gen. Gabriel Habacon, who had less than a year before retirement.

Were all these frequent changes necessary for the good of the organization or in the best interests of the nation? Or were they more to advance the personal agenda of the commander in chief?

When military personnel are raised in an environment that provides a premium for kowtowing to politicians, when officers are being moved around in a game of “musical chairs” which takes into account mainly the interests of politicians, the armed services are bound to suffer from a decline in their level of professionalism. This translates to a less effective fighting force and is reflected in the casualties suffered on the field of battle.

Second, Esperon was appointed chief of staff in July 2006. Even without the investigation report on the “Hello Garci” scandal in which he and three other generals were implicated, he was designated Army commander. When the Mayuga Report on the “Hello Garci” controversy was completed, its summary—not the whole report—was released under the most unusual circumstances. No copies of the summary were made available to the media and today it remains one of the most closely guarded documents in AFP history.

When Esperon was appointed chief of staff, the Inquirer editorial noted: “It [Esperon’s appointment] will not enhance the prestige of the Armed Forces, nor inspire confidence in the senior officer corps.”

A few weeks after his installation as AFP chief of staff, NPA rebels in Valencia City, Bukidnon carted away some 40 high-powered firearms from a military camp without much resistance from security forces in the area. At that time, Esperon dismissed the event as a “minor incident.” A former Army commanding general expressed astonishment over Esperon’s cavalier treatment of the matter. The Army commander viewed it as a dereliction of duty on the part of the unit commanders and called for court martial proceedings.

Nothing happened. With his remarks, Esperon sent out the wrong signal to the officers and men in the field. Now we are reaping the bitter fruits of complacency and negligent leadership.

Third, when President Arroyo ordered the Army commander, Lt. Gen. Romeo Tolentino, to move his headquarters to Zamboanga City and closely supervise operations there, she was administering a slap to both Esperon and Tolentino.

Esperon’s resignation should now be on the President’s table. If he resigns, he would be remembered as a man of honor and decency, an officer worthy of emulation by the officer corps and by the graduates of the Philippine Military Academy in particular. It is the chance of a lifetime to show that a sense of delicadeza is still very much alive in his person.

‘Killing Fields’

‘Killing Fields’

VISITING the Killing Fields museum in Cambodia, one is both appalled and mesmerized by the almost two million skulls and skeletons of ordinary Khmers or Cambodians, aged at least 14 years at the time of their murders, sickeningly piled on top of one another. In response to the massive genocide committed by communist forces led by French-educated Saloth Sar, also known as Pol Pot, the United Nations established a national prison center to house the top leadership of Khmer Rouge while awaiting prosecution to be apparently initiated through an international criminal tribunal. Unfortunately, after more than 30 years after the start of the national massacre on a scale that former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says is still almost impossible to comprehend, the trial of these ruthless Khmer Rouge leaders has not even commenced. Only a single communist leader has been apprehended for the genocide.

Cambodia has already marked its 30th anniversary of the dubious liberation of Phnom Penh by the Khmer Rouge, which then embarked in a national experiment of utopian social engineering supposedly to create a singular and unified proletarian class. The socio-political experimentation, however, left more than a fifth of its population dead and the rest of the nation mourning the decaying corpses and broken bones of their relatives that continues to haunt them today.

But Pol Pot and many of his chief lieutenants have already died while many of those responsible for the genocide are aging. Kang Kek Leu, also known as Kaing Guek Eav, is the Khmer Rouge chief executioner Duch, and director of the Tuol Sleng torture prison. He was the first to be even arrested eight years ago; there have been no arrests ever since. He just recently became the lone inhabitant of the national prisons created by the UN International Criminal Tribunal. It is anticipated that other top regime leaders will soon be arrested, which may include Khmer Rouge Head of State Khieu Samphan, Deputy Chairman Nuon Chea, and Foreign Minister Ieng Sary. Although these murderers have denied their leadership roles to the butchery claiming unawareness of the killing fields occurring in distant zones under the command of more junior communist cadres, Kang Kek Leu is the link, the middle person, or the joint nexus anticipated to “explain the decision making for the killings and the chain of command and responsibility” from Pol Pot to the top leaders down to the senior officers then to the junior cadres.

The international community seeks a closure to the evils of the national massacre but this can only be attained by sending the message that crimes against humanity, of such massive degree, committed with impunity, shall never be tolerated and those responsible for such universal atrocities and gore must be punished. Many Cambodians may have no direct recollection of Pol Pot or the massacres in their country and may even wonder if the money is better spent on irrigation or drinking water rather than for the initiative of a protracted, tedious trial that may raise renewed violence and bloodshed throughout their volatile nation. But many do clamor for justice.

Unfortunately, however, the great vanishing tribunal to end the impunity of the worst genocidal criminals of Asia is now a global embarrassment, with America contributing nothing to the effort to hold those genocidal terrorists accountable. While America aspires to pursue the globalization of democracy, the world’s tyrants and genocidal terrorists are escaping their deserved punishment because America has not even contributed a single cent to the effort to prosecute and to bring to trial these mass murderers that have committed the worst crime since Adolf Hitler. If America refuses to act, will the Association of Southeast Asian Nations take the cudgels for the ordinary Asian? Or is respect for human rights and dignity of its individual citizens just a myth that may never see fruition, especially in the lands of tyrants?

The enemy with a blurred face

The enemy with a blurred face

Suddenly, the military has found itself fighting Muslim militants on two fronts. In Basilan, a Marine-led offensive is under way to hunt down the killers of 14 soldiers, some of whom were decapitated and mutilated. The suspects belong to a combined force of Abu Sayyaf and Moro Islamic Liberation Front fighters who had engaged soldiers “trespassing” in MILF territory.

In Jolo, government troops are ranged against Abu Sayyaf and Moro National Liberation Front guerrillas who killed 26 soldiers in two ambuscades last week.

The new surge in fighting puts in sharp perspective the minefield the government must negotiate in its quest for peace in Mindanao. It had signed a peace covenant with the MNLF and was putting the finishing touches to a separate pact with the MILF. Now its ties with the two separatist groups are being strained to the limit.

Those ties were never strong in the first place. The treaty with the MNLF has been shot through with violations by both sides. The truce with the MILF has been broken so many times, despite the presence of foreign observers.

If we look at the problem hard enough, we will realize that it is not politics or religious fervor that has fueled the conflict in Basilan and Jolo. Simply put, it is the company the MILF and the MNLF keeps. The two groups have been cozy with the Abu Sayyaf for the longest time. In Basilan, the MILF considers the Abu Sayyaf family, in the literal and figurative sense. Their members are interrelated either by blood or marriage, or live in the same communities. This closeness forges a strong alliance; the MILF’s enemy is the Abu Sayyaf’s enemy. In Basilan the common enemy is the military.

Relations also run deep in Jolo between the MNLF and the Abu Sayyaf, which is why the army has not been able to finish off the terrorists who have made the island their sanctuary. The offensive in Sulu was mounted long before hostilities in Basilan broke out last month. But the fugitives, who include two foreigners wanted for the 2002 Bali bombings, remain elusive, and the Armed Forces has been accusing the MNLF of harboring them.

The military had been treading cautiously in Basilan, allowing a fact-finding team to come in and determine the individuals involved in the atrocities before unleashing 5,000 troops to seek out and arrest the culprits. The team reported that Abu Sayyaf members beheaded at least six of the soldiers, but could not say who mutilated the other four.

In Sulu, the ambushes, which the military acknowledges as one of the heaviest casualties it has suffered in the war against Muslim militants, has drawn swift reaction.

The President ordered the Army chief to Sulu to personally take charge of operations there. Mrs. Arroyo has clearly identified the enemy as the Abu Sayyaf. “We cannot allow terrorists to hold the South hostage to their agenda of mayhem and blood sport,” she said.

Without mentioning the MNLF by name, the President added that she also seeks peace “with those with peaceful intentions.”

It could be the President’s way of warning the MNLF to stand down and let government forces deal with the real enemy, the Abu Sayyaf. We hope her message gets through.

Reckless warmongering

Reckless warmongering

Yet again, we face a vital test of institutions. The beheading of Philippine Marines in Tipo-Tipo continues to foster a justified outrage, and keeps on producing shocking, even damning, allegations of incompetence on the part of the armed forces. First, there were questions concerning the ammunition provided the troops. Then, more recently, there emerged the equally shocking allegation that the Marines were unable to receive assistance, for lack of a common radio frequency between the men on the ground and the pilots sent to lend them air support.

The Marines want revenge. By all accounts, the public is largely foursquare behind the soldiers. We recall an observation made by a TV executive, some months ago. With regard to news and current affairs, the public hates news of the fighting in Mindanao: ratings show that when shows cover that topic, viewers switch channels. The public would much rather keep the fighting in Mindanao out of sight—and out of mind.

But nothing gets public opinion heated up than the massacre of soldiers, and nothing brings out a residual patriotism in the public than a military offensive in Mindanao. And it is very easy for the national leadership to pander to—there’s no other word for it—such chauvinism by letting loose the dogs of war.

This is why we say the country faces a vital test of institutions. The Marines, sent to rescue a hostaged Italian priest, apparently stumbled onto territory jealously guarded by rebels, who engaged the Marines in a firefight and butchered them when the soldiers were subdued—because their ammunition was defective, their command-and-control ineffectual, and their search-and-rescue proved a suicide charge.

The question is whether a military offensive should proceed on the basis of a bungled operation. Perhaps the public doesn’t care why the soldiers died, and only, that they did—and that the rebels must pay. However, the public ought to care that the soldiers, who died bravely, also died senselessly: and that more soldiers’ lives will be squandered if the military doesn’t get a grip on the causes of the massacre in the first place.

The causes are two. First, the rebels in Mindanao are either disunited (with factions talking peace while others are trying to goad the military into renewed hostilities), or plain insincere about the peace talks, valuing the protection of their territorial enclaves more than the peace process. Second, the armed forces, because of poor generalship, and inefficiency verging on the criminal, are incapable of mounting effective operations, which include supporting troops tasked with missions on the ground. All this, despite the active assistance of allies in the fight against groups like the Abu Sayyaf, once a bandit group but which has now armed itself with a pan-Islamic, radical ideology.

The same intellectual ferment that produced the First Quarter Storm also gave birth to the concept of a Bangsamoro. President Ferdinand Marcos’ delusions of being the conqueror of Sabah resulted in the Jabidah massacre, revolt in Muslim Mindanao and the bloodiest fighting in the country since World War II. The Tripoli Agreement of 1976 established a brittle peace with the Moro National Liberation Front.

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front split off as a more radical offshoot, with dreams of a Bangsamoro more patently religious than the fairly secular MNLF. But the MILF has been torn by a further radicalization: dreams of an Islamic state covering the region. The MILF has flirted with the Jemaah Islamiyah, which has a larger goal, represented by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda: to restore an Islamic caliphate. The Abu Sayyaf belongs to this radical, pan-Islamic regional movement.

Human Rights Watch recently reported that since 2000, more than 1,700 civilians have been killed or wounded in terror attacks, mainly in Mindanao. This is more than the casualties in terror-related activities in Indonesia, or Morocco, Spain, Turkey, or Britain. And yet, our institutions have overlooked a central question: unquestionably popular a military solution might be, among Christians (particularly in Mindanao), the Filipino Muslim voice—particularly those clamoring for peace—has been not only largely drowned out, but also ignored. Yet, who can doubt that a lasting victory against terrorism, and a just peace, are impossible without their support?

Challenges facing Teodoro

Challenges facing Teodoro

The Philippines has had as many civilians (12 in all) as military men among its 24 defense chiefs since it became an independent democratic republic in 1946. This 50-50 ratio is not a revealing measure at all of whether the concept of civilian supremacy over the military in Philippine democracy is working.

By next month, former Rep. Gilberto Teodoro of Tarlac, takes office as defense secretary, after serving out three consecutive terms in the House of Representatives. He takes over from Hermogenes Ebdane, a dyed-in-the-wool military man, who once headed the Philippine National Police and was among those who joined then Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Angelo Reyes in withdrawing military support from the government of President Joseph Estrada in January 2001. Ebdane, a core loyalist to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has been shuffled back as secretary of public works in the first Cabinet-level revamp following the disastrous defeat of the Arroyo administration in the May 2007 Senate election.

Teodoro becomes another civilian defense chief following the resignation of Avelino Cruz Jr., a lawyer in the Villaraza law firm and erstwhile political ally of the President. His appointment follows a key recommendation of the Feliciano Commission, which held an inquiry into the causes of the 2003 Oakwood mutiny led by a cabal of young officers. The Feliciano Commission reiterated the recommendation of the Davide Commission, which conducted an inquiry into 1986-89 coups during the Aquino presidency, to appoint a civilian as secretary of national defense. It said, “Beyond the need to institutionalize the supremacy of civilian authority over the military, the appointment of persons who have not had long and deep ties to the military, and who have not held positions in the military establishment that itself needs to be reformed, is essential if a reform program is to succeed.” Although military officers acquire civilian status upon retirement, the Feliciano report said, “they are likely to bring the rigidity of hierarchy, seniority, camaraderie and other aspects of military culture into the office of the DND that would obstruct reform.”

Teodoro’s appointment has been received with approval by a broad sector not only because it sustains the principle of civilian supremacy over the military but also because of his legislative experience, his credentials as lawyer (and a bar topnotcher) and his relative youth.

There is another significant aspect in his appointment. He is known to be a protégé of his uncle, Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., founder of the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), a key ally of the President and component of the Lakas-CMD-dominated majority coalition in the House. In the May 2007 election, the NPC retained its block of 27 seats in the House, against the 90 held by Lakas-CMD and 47 by the President’s Kampi party.

Teodoro’s appointment to the defense department cannot simply be seen as the resealing of the President’s alliance with Cojuangco’s NPC or as a political reward for his support during earlier attempts to impeach her. The appointment represents a departure from the pattern of Cabinet appointments of the Arroyo administration as well as that of previous administrations in the post-Edsa People Power period from 1986. During that period, most Cabinet appointments came from mainly bureaucratic and technocratic sectors, none of which represented political constituencies based on regional bailiwicks. Teodoro’s appointment marks the return of a Cabinet recruitment that draws on a political base made up of the NPC’s constituency.

This factor gives Teodoro a platform to exercise autonomy instead of acting like a rubber stamp of the President. From this perspective, his appoint should be welcomed for its potential in initiating not only reforms in the military establishment but more so in asserting civilian control over the military that has become a hotbed of coup attempts and politicized military interventionists in politics.

As a man of the law and as a political creature of representative democracy, Teodoro brings with him into the defense department the kind of political culture needed to curb the rise of military assertiveness in the execution of President Arroyo’s total war that seeks to crush the communist insurgency by the end of her term in 2010. Teodoro enters the defense department at a critical juncture when he is expected to play a critical role in implementing the Human Security Act that takes effect on July 15. The issue that faces Teodoro is whether he would use the defense department as a counterfoil to the hardliners in both the Cabinet and the military, who are eager to use this piece of legislation to crack down on Leftwing activists operating inside the legal system. Will Teodoro be their compliant tool or will he make a difference in curbing the repressive tendencies of the ultra-Right forces in the Cabinet and the military establishment?

Even before the formation of the Antiterror Council that is mandated to implement the Antiterrorist Act, two anticommunist hardliners -- Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita (a former martial law general) and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez -- have already preempted it by calling on the courts to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army, and the Abu Sayyaf. Their call came even before Teodoro could take office in August. The hardliners’ call seeks to turn back the clock to 1992, when the 1957 Anti-Subversion Act was repealed, legalizing the communist movement.

Will Teodoro make the defense department an instrument to enhance control of civil authority over wayward generals blamed for the wave of extrajudicial executions of political activists? Much is expected of him.

Foreign aid

Foreign aid

Denials, recriminations and reassurances have filled the atmosphere since word got out that the US State Department had requested for a smaller allocation for the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and the International Military Exchange Training (IMET) programs to the Philippines. ABS-CBN Interactive had reported that the department had publicized the cuts on its website.

The website showed that FMF aid is recommended for reduction to $11.1 million in fiscal year (FY) 2008 from $29.7 million in FY 2006.

The State Department also proposed to slash IMET aid from $2.8 million in FY 2006 to $1.5 in fiscal year 2008.

It also plans to reduce its International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) program to the Philippine National Police to $1.1 million in FY 2008 from almost $2 million in FY 2006.

The Foreign Military Financing is used to pay for the procurement of military equipment from the US, including surplus from the US military stockpile.

The International Military Exchange Training program pays for the cost of sending and training foreign military officials, including Filipinos, in the United States.

But the cuts are still in the drawing board, according to US Embassy spokesman Matthew Lussenhop. “We don’t even have the budget for 2008…We are talking about fiscal year 2008, which in the US starts in October,” he explained. He assured us that American aid would continue regardless of numbers.

The fact remains, as the website shows, that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice wishes to tighten the tap on military and police aid to the Philippines. We don’t need Sen. Rodolfo Biazon to tell us why.

The State Department report on human-rights abuses around the world, released and updated annually, continues to be harsh on the Philippines and other developing countries. In its 2006 report, released on February this year, the department detailed numerous excesses committed on civilians by the Philippine military, police, auxiliary forces, national and local prisons and the courts.

The FMF. IMET and INCLE funds to Manila are a pittance compared to the billions in foreign aid that Washington, D.C. gives a select club of countries each year. Will our military and police really suffer if we lose the dollars altogether? Are we better off without US military aid?

After all, Defense Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor has assured us that “the amount is not as important as the relationship (between the two countries). The relationship is more important.”

He could make the same comment about much of the military hardware that Washington has donated to Manila since the 1950s. The aging ships and aircraft have added to the problems of our military because they were close to obsolescence. They have not strengthened our efforts at achieving self-reliance.

The US government allocates yearly about $23 billion in foreign aid to about 150 countries. The US Congress determines how much goes to the beneficiaries, using recommendations from the State Department which, together with the US Department of Defense, administers military and security-related programs. The bulk of the money goes to a few favored allies, leaving the rest of the world to compete for the scraps.

Foreign aid to Manila will ebb and flow depending on our strategic importance to America. At this moment, we hardly register on its national-security radar even if President Bush considers Mindanao an important outpost in the war on terrorism.

Ten wrong and unpopular legacies

Ten wrong and unpopular legacies

A YEAR ago, when the President had some of the weakest approval ratings, the Chief Executive said: “When history looks back, I’d rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular.” Thus spoke President Bush.

Last March Sen. Ralph Recto said, “I’d rather be right than popular.”

So it was that one of GMA’s punch lines last Monday was one of the oldest clichés in the book. The hitch is one can be wrong and unpopular too to a wised-up citizenry.

1. A year ago, GMA spoke out in favor of Charter change, which was wrong, unpopular and unconstitutional, but she put behind it the prestige of her office. That is one of her legacies.

2. We have a new abomination, the Human Security Act, another legacy confirming why Bismarck said two things people should not see being made: laws and sausages. Awful. Looking at it, I can better understand why Churchill said that “[t]he quality of a nation’s civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of its criminal laws.”

2.1. The new Act is criminal in nature. Its uncanalized invasion and destruction of privacy, the cherished right to be let and left alone, is another horrid legacy to remember GMA by.

3. Human-rights violations in the form of abductions and extrajudicial killings are another legacy. The SONA star last year was Gen. Jovito “Berdugo” Palparan, last heard to be still looking for some appointive or elective job. GMA realized soon enough that he represented another garbage of a legacy.

3.1. Holmes said even a dog knows when it is being kicked or stumbled over. Now, when Chief Justice Rey Puno convened a summit meeting on extrajudicial killings, GMA was slapped hard indeed. She had made the unprecedented meeting necessary.

4. GMA critics say another legacy is we are now seen as No. 1 in corruption. Her defenders mumble we are only No. 2.

5. Another legacy is that she is seen to be a captive of the military and of alien interests. She is only as strong as they want her to be, with the trade-off being survival. Did Tru­man brag?

5.1. It was said that government agents abducted the wife and three teenaged kids of the leader of the kidnap-for-ransom gang to force the release of Fr. Giancarlo Bossi. No probe was ordered. Fearing the military and police, she showed the same chilling callousness when abduction was mentioned by Garci.

6. Her subservience to the military and police is exceeded only by her genuflecting to the Americans, Italians and other aliens, doing for them what she would not do for Pinoy victims.

To solve kidnappings, we can well offer money the way the Americans make it work in Mindanao. Else, we can have JayJay Burgos’ name changed to Giuseppe Bur­gossi, to get results.

6.1. In the case of JayJay, when Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco named certain suspects from the military, Injustice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez fell all over himself to relieve him.

7. Another legacy is the low to which she has dragged the electoral process. An egregious choice was that of Comelec Chairman Ben Aba­los, universally distrusted save in his own household.

8. Opening the country wide open to foreign interests completes our enslavement. They come while our people in the millions leave as their investments benefit but a few of our own plutocracy who are very wealthy to begin with. When the region prospers, we cannot help but improve too.

9. Dysfunctional families, fornication and indiscipline all over, and a fake educational system are among her souvenirs.

9.1. Our environment is degraded. The DENR is now a way station for one biding his time to get another post. Lito Atienza lusts after Local Government or Tourism but there is no vacancy. DILG Secretary Ronnie Puno was the one who bragged that to rescue Fr. Bossi, the key was “sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander.” Sounds too much like raping the rapist.

This is the same imaginative fellow who in the Ducat caper saw the incompetent policemen behaving like the Kestone cops. His remedy: throw the remote control monitor at the TV. Angie Reyes for Energy? Naming people with no obvious qualification for the jobs concerned is another sorry legacy.

10. The problem has been GMA is only tough when it comes to ensuring her survival. Abbe Sieyes, asked about his role during the Terror, answered: “I survived.” Is that all? What a legacy as she presides over the liquidation of all the values we held dear, integrity, competence and delicadeza.

We hope our nation will survive, and it will, and finally have a leader who will be right and popular, the opposite of GMA. In a democracy, we can reject Gloria Arroyo’s legacy based on Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive.”

She is unpopular for a reason. She is often wrong too. Her legacy is a society sans values and is in a state of moral rot.

Backing away from the edge in Basilan

Backing away from the edge in Basilan

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.