My blog entry and my Arab News column on the National Democrats have been reacted to by Reds Care (in two entries, first here and then here) and Achieving Happiness. Both are understandably upset over what I wrote. Both suggest I have endorsed the government’s policy of liquidating its enemies; that the statements are unfair, and counter-productive. In Reds Care, I wrote a reply, which was then replied to, in turn.
I have reviewed my column, and I disagree that it gives grounds for supporting the policy of assassination embarked upon by the government. I do believe that for those who don’t possess the same ideological point of view of the victims, it explains why too many (and I continue to assert, most) turn a blind eye to what’s going on.
But I certainly do not intend to cast aspersions on the personal integrity or patriotism of those who have been killed, or who have adopted the National Democratic cause. What I wrote, according to the two bloggers, slanders the memories of those who died. That was not my intention, certainly not my feelings, and if hurt has been caused, I apologize wholeheartedly.
Political killings are wrong. They must be condemned. There is no justification for them. While I do not believe in the National Democratic approach, I believe those espousing it are sincere, honest and brave. I don’t think they have been given a full and sincere chance to stop running for their lives and prove, unhampered by persecution, to work with the people, and work with others to show how their views might change the lives of the masses for the better.
That they choose both political work according to the rules of the existing order, and to pursue change through revolutionary means, is a choice others like myself disagree with. On the other hand, every option is acceptable in the face of injustice and hunger. Until those who disagree with National Democrats actually address injustice and hunger, revolts will continue because unless there is struggle, there can be no hope. And for those with contending views, there can be no reconciliation and peace if violence is done to those working the masses.
My Inquirer column for today is Independence days. Conrado de Quiros writes that a snap election will restore equilibrium to the country. The Inquirer editorial details the administration’s dishonesty in dealing with the budget.
I’d also like to reproduce, below, an article commissioned for their Philippine Independence Day supplement by the Arab News.
***
A complex achievement
By Manuel L. Quezon III
SINCE 1962 (by presidential fiat, and since 1964 by law), Filipinos have commemorated June 12 as Independence Day, when previously, from 1946, they had celebrated their independence on July 4. The decision to shift to June 12, itself celebrated since 1940 as Flag Day, was a historically valid one. But the decision became encrusted with so much kant, and so conflicting and confused were the motivations for the shift, that since then, it must be asked whether Filipinos really know what they are celebrating.
Scrape away the popular conceptions and a clearer picture emerges. In 1896, Andres Bonifacio and his followers tore up their residence certificates, symbolically withdrawing their allegiance from Spain and proclaiming the Katipunan the government of an independent Philippines. The Philippine revolution thus began, and its main preoccupation was primarily inwards: that is, while independence from Spain was being fought, the main concern of leaders like Bonifacio was to inspire Filipinos to adopt an identity as citizens of a new nation.
By 1897, in a power struggle typical of revolutionary movements, Bonifacio had been supplanted by Emilio Aguinaldo, representative of the provincial gentry as Bonifacio had been an exemplar of the proletariat. With Bonifacio’s fall came the rise of an orientation as much concerned with outward developments as an inward advocacy: the full panoply of statehood, in international terms, became more important than the rather mystical, and mass-oriented, Katipunan, the secret society that had planned, and led the revolution, but which was formally abolished and supplanted by a bourgeois-oriented provisional government.
A negotiated peace with Spain had ended hostilities late in 1897 and Aguinaldo had gone into (he hoped, temporary) exile to plot a reinvigorated independence movement, when the Spanish-American War broke out in 1898. The Americans invaded Cuba; a naval squadron defeated the Spanish naval detachment in the Philippines: the Filipino revolutionaries in exile in Hong Kong were identified, and courted, as American allies. Aguinaldo was brought back to the country, formally resumed the revolution on May 28, 1898, and by June 12 had returned to his native town, Kawit, in Cavite province and proclaimed Philippine independence to the world (recall that Bonifacio had proclaimed independence to his countrymen in 1896).
Apolinario Mabini, lawyer and intellectual and eventually the most important adviser of Aguinaldo, found the June 12 proclamation shockingly provincial and even counter-productive. Among other things, it declared the new nation a protectorate of the United States without having formally negotiated American recognition of either Philippine independence or the government being established by the Filipinos. Mabini attempted to rectify the situation by organizing local governments, which in turn could deputize individuals to represent them in ratifying the June 12 proclamation of independence along more dignified lines, and in turn, ratify a constitution which laid down a formal basis for the leadership of Aguinaldo (hitherto merely proclaimed an “egregious dictator” in Kawit). All this was accomplished by early 1899, when the First Philippine Republic was inaugurated in Malolos, Bulacan.
Filipinos earned the distinction of being the first formally-organized constitutional republic in Asia, the first colony to assert independence in Southeast Asia, and the last Spanish colony to do so in the 19th century. They also had to endure the tragedy of having an otherwise inspiring and potentially solid start to nationhood aborted by American conquest, formally achieved with Aguinaldo’s capture in 1901 and unquestionably asserted by the first decade of the 20th century.
Filipinos, however, didn’t let go of the independence ideal; and they were variously granted, or managed to wheedle out of the Americans, elected provincial government by 1905, a Filipino lower house in the legislature in 1907, a fully Filipino legislature by 1916, and control of the executive with autonomy by 1935 along with a formal commitment to restoring independence by 1946. This was a period of fairly successful nation-building, tragically interrupted by World War II which brought Japanese occupation and liberation by Allied forces: accompanied by the near-total destruction of the infrastructure and carefully-built political infrastructure that had the country confidently poised to resume its independence prior to the outbreak of the war.
And yet independence was recognized by the United States in 1946, adding yet another distinction: the first Asian colony to achieve independence, and the first functioning democracy in Asia in the postwar era. Filipinos forget that this was no piddling accomplishment: the peaceful independence efforts had been closely watched by their neighbors, serving as an inspiration to leaders ranging from Sukarno to Ho Chi Minh; and Americans forget that the effort was successful enough to inspire an initial confidence in American goodwill on the part of these same leaders, and even as far afield as Mao Zedong in China. The confidence among Asians in American benevolence and sincerity didn’t last; and in the Philippines it quickly began to crumble.
A ravaged, wrecked Philippines embarked on independence with conditions -imposed by Americans eager to bask in the shared sacrifice of World War II, but unwilling to match its rhetorical sentimentality with measures to rebuild the country. The Philippines would be rebuilt, but assistance from America would be based on the hard-nosed proposition that Americans receive equal access to the Philippine economy. And thus the pride of having its sovereignty recognized ahead of say, India and Indonesia (whose colonial rulers had watched prewar independence efforts with hostility motivated by the fear) was marred by the irony that those -and other- colonized countries achieved a later, but perhaps more authentic, independence.
It is said that President Diosdado Macapagal decided to transfer independence day from July 4 to June 12 in a fit of annoyance. He was merely the latest in a line of Philippine leaders exasperated over American indifference to the cause of Filipino veterans deprived of their benefits since 1946, and other vexations that included disagreements over tariffs and economic assistance. The gulf between the official proclamations of love, devotion, and a shared democratic idealism with the United States, and the increasingly harsh realities of economic and social conditions in the country (despite having defeated a Communist insurgency in the1940s and 50s), made basking in the rapidly-diminishing warmth of America increasingly unsatisfying to a younger generation of Filipinos.
Macapagal’s initial pique, even if true, gave way to the realization that here was a chance to buttress a failing administration by seizing nationalism away from his critics: the country could, in a sense, be reinvented. If the present was bland and lacking confidence, a mythical past could be appropriated. In 1961, Filipinos had commemorated 15 years of independence (a fact); in 1962, they suddenly were told the country could bask in the glory of 64 years of independence (false). The sad end of the First Republic was set aside to prop up the shaky realities of the Third Republic established in 1946: the intervening period that made possible the restoration of independence began to be subjected to an officially-inflicted amnesia ignoring everything in between.
The country then, in Diosdado Macapagal’s time, and now, under his successors including his daughter, could not afford to make historical distinctions in the rush to reconfigure the past. Doing tha was easier and perhaps more emotionally satisfying than the hard, necessary, work of enabling Filipino society and government to evolve to meet the needs of the future. If it was healthy to refocus the attention of the citizenry on the glories and achievements of the Revolution against Spain and those of the First Republic, it was unhealthy -and delusional- to ignore the end of that republic, and the painstaking and equally inspiring effort to insist on independence being recognized by the United States.
Philippine leaders since Macapagal have been in the position of parvenus claiming a heroic past in competition with Filipino Communists and Socialists equally eager to claim that past: the difference lies in Philippine officialdom trying to incense the corpse of the First Republic (ill-fated but bourgeois and cosmpolitan) while radicals try to reanimate the remains of the Katipunan (also ill-fated, but mystical and mass-based). Outside the Philippine equivalents of the intelligentsia, nomenklatura, and their apparatchiks, whether mainstream or revolutionary, Filipinos have been left with bold slogans (“100 years of independence!” celebrated, deceitfully, in 1998, but then “100 years since independence was originally proclaimed!” was too clumsy, and honest, for government billboards) disguising hot air.
And yet -on June 12, 1898, on the balcony of Aguinaldo’s mansion in Kawit, Cavite, was proclaimed, to the world, the independence of the Philippines. That the proclamation read to the public left some things to be desired, only fairly depicted something all colonies aspiring to independent nationhood have come to learn: that independence and sovereignty must be redefined and reasserted as time passes. The other things done that day: the unfurling of the Philippine flag not in battle, but before a joyous, peaceful, public assembly, and the first public performance of a national anthem that would only have lyrics appended to it a year later: were not only the trappings, but in a sense, the substance of nationhood.
The Philippine flag itself was the product of evolution, incorporating colors and symbols from the independence movements and leaders that came before; and it would be that flag that would be forbidden by the Americans, then grudgingly allowed to be hoisted again; and both flag and anthem would rally Filipinos to reclaim their independence from America and fight for native soil against the Japanese. If today Filipinos live under their Fifth Republic, their familiar symbols of national identity were born under the First; and serve as a reminder of the high achievement -and high tragedy- that has characterized their national identity ever since. This marvelously complexity means that June 12, 2006, marks 108 since independence was proclaimed; and soon, 60 years of uninterrupted independence and sovereignty since it was restored in 1946; and just as the country looked back in February to 20 years since it overthrew the home-grown Marcos dictatorship, next year it can look forward to two decades of having a restored, constitutional, democracy. No mean feats, each one; an inspiring tapestry overall.
I read the Inq7 column and this with much interest. Which leads me to ask: when are we going to see a book on history of the Philippines written by MLQ3?
“IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.â€Ââ€â€Dickens.
I just wonder how the opening of a re-write of our history (or a chapter) would read like.
They obviously didn’t read your article well. It just seems like a case of miscommunication. You did not at all and in any way seem like you supported the killing of anyone.
I wonder if this uproar on their part was just because they didn’t comprehend your writing styke. Perhaps their English was not too sharp (nothing wrong with that at all but maybe you could post a translated version)? Or maybe a it’s just classic case of paranoia (lots of leftists are percieved to be touchy because they are constantly persecuted) and the so called chocolate chip on the Philippine shoulder which makes us constantly defensive?
Carry on man. They should have read the article more closely that’s all.
MLQ3,
I liked your article “A complex achievement”… Philippine political history in one read!
i second anna de brux. a must-read for Pinoys who want to refresh their grasp of their nation’s “independence” this june 12.
btw, i thought that maybe you’d like to read my independence day entry at crimson crux, if you have the time. there, i share a burmese priest’s passionate belief in the filipino people. if a foreigner can believe in us, why can’t we?
thanks, MLQ3. more power.
Hey your “a complex achievement” makes more sense than Joma’s history and a lot more readable too.
A great read and quite an eye-opener. A dissection of history that should be read by our youths. I hope our next generation would not fall in the same trap our current leaders are in.
Just read your exchanges with the reds.
I think I see where your critic is coming from. Communists believe that true democracy and national liberation can only be achieved when a country becomes communist. He could be right or he could be wrong. And that’s the crux of the matter. Communists have to convince more people that theirs is the true way. Short of that, and because they are waging an armed struggle and many people, rightly or wrongly are afraid of them, there is no general outpouring of outrage or sympathy when one of them is killed.
I think it’s clear enough that you condemn the government engaging in extra judicial killings. Your critic calls you on labeling which he believes furthers government propaganda. But he refuses to accept the fact that there is very little sympathy for the communists. People do want a more equitable sharing of the nation’s resources, equal justice or to put it simply, a better life but that desire does not mean the masses support communism. A lot of more has to be done before the great majority of our people will accept communism as the panacea for the justice and inequality we see. If it’s a question of labels then the burden is on the communists to make their label acceptable enough so that people will care when they are victimized. How come Ninoy Aquino’s murder was met with a spontaneous outpouring of outrage and grief? Compare Ninoy and Joma in prison and in exile. Did people care half as much that Joma was also unjustly imprisoned or can’t come home? The fault lies not with the people or with the label. The shortcoming lies with the way they are selling their product.
I have read their blog and what struck me was that they assumed you are left leaning.They or we should not assume anything.
I did too.
What struck me was ina alleco silverio-gargar’s “Bawiin mo na Manolo…, “. I thought her piece was quite touching really.
I found Ina drives her points home (not just the Bawiin mo na) without hostility but with dignity; matter of fact, she has a great sense of humor…. Like when she said (well not exactly with the following words – am writing from memory), “I want to see those who kill activists, line them up near the Ayala building (?) so I can make “pitik” on each one of them.”
I like these comments of MB form Djb’s blog and I will paste it below…
“Democracy is not a finished product. It cannot be exported.
It is a process that is still evolving thousands of years after man started thinking about an alternative to all forms of totalitarianism.
The whole world is a laboratory for democracy and every individual and every society is involved in the great experiment called democracy. One day if and when it is patented, it can be packaged and exported.
and let’s not make the error of equating democracy with capitalism. The American experiment is about that. Other countries are trying to find their way.
Let’s not equate a nation’s economic system with the principle of one man one vote, minority rights majority rule, checks and balances etc.etc
The enemy of democracy is authoritarian or totalitarian tendencies. Some economic systems tend to encourage these negative tendencies away from democracy like communism and fascism in its true Mussolini concept. But monopoly capitalism also known as merger/consolidation etc is also one of those systems that runs counter to democracy.
Let’s get our medicine right before we even think of prescribing it to others” ………………….
I am sure this can relate to indepence and can be compared to the ideology of communism.
MB, di na ako nakapagpaalam pasensya na.
Karl,
This bit of MB work will be a classic. I was truly impressed.
Re Ina’s blogsite: How I wish she hadn’t plastered her main page with all those Mao pics – seemed very odd to see Monsieur Mao sitting there in a Filipino blog.
Anna,
I was impressed by MB too sa Philippinecommentary pa lang at dito ko lang na laman sa blog ni MLQ(a few months back) na columnist pala sya.I remember, even you figured out that he wrote a column long after we’ve been exchanging thoughts with him in the philippine commentary.
Reading “Independence days” is like attending History 1 in UP again, only better and quicker. I suddenly realized there is so much to learn and unlearn about our Philippine “histories”. Yes, I agree with the other bloggers- when is your book due? 🙂
I hope a Mindanawon could write as good Mindanao’s histories too, someday.
kay ginoong carlos celdran, humihingi ako ng pasensya sa ngalan ng mga pambansa demokrata sa hindi namin pagkaintindi sa eleganteng ingles na ginagamit ni manolo sa kanyang blog. pero sa totoo lang, hindi naman po marahil kaso ng miskomunikasyon o kaluwagan ng gagap sa ingles ang pokus ng usapan sa http://redscare.motime.com — may mga puntong pinagbabalitaktakan lampas sa wikang gamit. maaari rin namang hindi mo naunawaan ang pagkakasulat ng mga argumento sa redscare blog.
dear manuelbuencamino, its really an easy life if you aren’t labeled a communist or leftist in this country. but the “better dead than red” mode of thinking also compels a number of people to subscribe to the alternate adage “better red than dead”, and more importantly, there are many people who look beyond labels and focus on the substantive aspects of the many political forces offering solutions to the national crisis.
My message to the Left, the past year I’ve phoned in radio response after Ka Roger speaks specially at the height of protests:
Re-examine your ideological commitment. Let us rise above ideological differences. We don’t need a package of imported ideology. We ,simple citizens, do not support your calls specially when you say you’ll hit the country-side while we rally in the cities.
I talked to progressive group leaders. I’ve been asking them ,since 2003, to distnguish their group from the Reds and present a viable option for the silent majoritty to support.
Opportunist Extremists, either Left or Right, can only aggravate the crises.
Sympathy for those who would bear arms to topple government in order to replace it with their own brand of totalitarianism in the guise of egalitarianism? Why should there be sympathy for anyone who goes into a belligerent mode by his own free will? We should all be responsible for our actions. When a person decides to live by the sword, that person automatically accepts the other side of the coin, which is to die by the sword. It’s that simple, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Which is what most Communists, with the cooperation of media, want to do. So, as far as the public is concerned, you made a choice…deal with it.
Incidentally, this also brings to mind the travesty of indemnifying Communists who “suffered” under the Marcos regime. These people made a choice and they should live with the consequences. There shouldn’t be a financial consideration for having made an ideological decision and having suffered for it. It only shows that, in the Philippines, even ideologues are plain mercenaries.
MLQ3,
You seem convinced that the killings are the work of the government. Is this a reliable position to take? Do you actually have the facts on a large enough sample of the killings to generalize? What would the govt gain by such killings. For example, of Sotero Llamas? I only ask because I frankly don’t know who is responsible for them. Yet I am very uncomfortable that everyone seems to assume the killings are political assassinations by the Military against natdems. Do you or does anyone know for a fact that some of this is not the eternally deadly, intensely internal feuds within the communist movement?
Rizalist,
The killings are happening after allegations by the military that activists and communists are involved in the attempted overthrow of the government last February. Couple that with the provocative statements made against the Reds by Gen. Palparan, DOJ Sec. Gonzalez, and other government officials, and you have a situation that points to military involvement in their killings.
Assuming the military is involved, it is an alarming situation indeed. If this is true, then the government is deliberately trying to elicit an armed response from Leftists and Communists, Reds and “Pinks”. Like sheep, don’t you think moderates like us will be forced to toe the line with the Arroyo regime? It worked with Marcos before, it’s not inconceivable that it will work again.
I am really curious as to why National Democracy is analougous to communism in the Philippines? From John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Sun Yet Sun, Chiang Kai Chek, Mao, the founding fathers of the U.S. to present day advanced industrial governments are all basically National Democrats. Joseph Stiglitz described the G-7 countries as a mercantilist club. A Marxist would prefer to use the word imperialist club. (Same thing) Any student of political economy would brand them nat dems. Now if you add the socialist perspectives to that they would become Marxists. His proletariat revolution never came about. His analysis based on sociology continues to be compelling though. You combine that with economics and politics and boy you really have something. Economic nationalism so far has tempered the fatal flaws of market capitalism in the advanced countries so far but has definitely not solved the problem. That is for the future. I believe the rest of the developing economies of the world will have their say in that future.
The E.U. was formed by France and Germany wherein they signed the Steel Manufacturing Agreement promising never to turn their surplus steel into panzer divisions and since then the Huns have never crossed the Rhine with their panzer divisions again.
Abraham Lincoln went to war against the confederate states not primarily to free the slaves (read his first inaugural address)but to preserve the nation. The issue was free trade. The most articulate national democrat in the U.S. Pat Buchanan is also an Irish Catholic and staunch defender of the Irish peoples National Democratic movement the IRA. Sein Fein means ourselves. They are not communists.
Please note that Kofi Anan had put his finger on the problems of terrorism as primarily caused by failure of institutions to address economic, political and cultural inequalities. (Failing or failed states) Weak states allow normal people in government to suddenly become sociopaths and crazies and it is these people ususally that take hold of governments. Most of the Al Qaeda group come from countries where chopping heads is still an accepted from of state policy. All one has to do is take a good look at Al Qaeda and their counterparts in the U.S. government. The U.S. formula of Military Keynesianism is close to running its course.
Everything today in every country must be looked through the tangent of the Age of Empire and their new War vs. Islam and whomever they identify as terrorists.
The crazies are in charge of the White House and death squada are fashionable again. An environment of impunity was intitiated at the highest levels of empire. It is shocking how the press in the Philippines has been isolated from what is ongoing in the world concerning zero tolerance and pre-emptive warfare in an asymmetrical war. The military head of Gauntanamo just declared that the three recent suicides there was an act of war. An Undersecretary of State also declared that it was a PR move on the part of the prisoners. It appears that one of the prisoners was scheduled to be released but they neglected to inform him. Branding and marketing in this age of instant communication is crucial. Both Al Qaeda and the U.S. government are players.
Here in the Philippines we have our own set of crazies that are now the poster boys of the media.
Now we hear talk of The Final Solution coming from the hgoest levels of government against the enemies of the State. The legacy of the Totenkopf Division of the Schutzstaffel is alive and well here in the Philippines. They all started out as private armies (mercenaries) also.
Just recently the NY Times came out with an editorial lambasting the Pentagon for amending their manuals on the treatment of combatants implicitly allowing torture as a policy. This is the same Pentagon that trains and equips the Philippine military. The government has just signed a new agreement that allows for U.S. intervention in non-traditional instances. All of a sudden in the Philippines there is zero tolerance for the communists. It is no accident that John Negroponte also known as the father of Death Squads in Latin America is head of the the National Intelligence Community in the U.S.
Everyone should be made aware that the War on Terror is described by the U.S. military as an asymmetrical war. You shoot first and ask questions later. It is primarily a pre-emptive war. One side decides who the enemy is and unilateraaly decides on the predicate solutions.
The Philippines has continued to be the foot stool for U.S. interests in East Asia.
The policy in Iraq is zero tolerance wherein they brought free fire zones to free to fire on any Iraqi zone. Recently a pregnant woman being rushed to a hospital took a wrong turn and was shot to death. Hundreds of mistakes in the name of war have been committed. (Collateral Damage)
Editorial
Degrading America’s Image
*
Published: June 6, 2006
For more than seven decades, civilized nations have adhered to minimum standards of decent behavior toward prisoners of war  agreed to in the Geneva Conventions. They were respected by 12 presidents and generations of military leaders because they reflected this nation’s principles and gave Americans some protection if they were captured in wartime.
It took the Bush administration to make the world doubt Washington’s fidelity to the rules. And The Los Angeles Times, reporting yesterday on a dispute over updating the Army rulebook known as the Field Manual, reminded us that there is good reason to worry.
At issue is Directive 2310 on the treatment and questioning of prisoners, an annex to the Field Manual. It has long contained a reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which covers all prisoners, whether they meet the common definition of prisoners of war or are the sort of prisoners the administration classifies as “unlawful enemy combatants,” like suspected members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
Article 3 prohibits the use of torture and other overt acts of violence. But Mr. Bush’s civilian lawyers removed it from the military rulebook over the objections of diplomats and military lawyers. Mr. Bush has said he does not condone torture, but he has also said he would decide for himself when to follow the ban on torture imposed by Congress last year. Removing the Geneva Conventions from Army regulations gives the world more cause for doubt.
Article 3 also prohibits “outrages on personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” (Remember the hooded man, the pyramids of naked prisoners?) The Pentagon says the new rules require humane treatment, but that is not much comfort, since the Bush team has shown that it does not define humane treatment the way most people do.
There are other aspects of Article 3 that this administration probably finds inconvenient, like its requirement that governments holding prisoners subject them to actual courts “affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The hearings at Guantánamo Bay hardly meet that description.
It defies belief that this administration is still clinging to its benighted policies on prisoners after the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the killings at American camps in Afghanistan and the world’s fresh outrage over what appears to have been the massacre of Iraqi men, women and children in the village of Haditha.
In Foreign Territory
The New York Times
Published: June 12, 2006
The U.S. Senate plans to begin consideration this week of the defense authorization bill for the coming year. One distressing section of the package would reauthorize the Pentagon to arm and train foreign militaries, something it was first authorized to do for 2006. Although the money involved represents only a $200 million piece of the half-trillion-dollar Pentagon budget, it marks the continuation of a dangerous militarization of American foreign policy.
Traditionally, the authority to train and equip foreign forces was the territory of the State Department. Arming a foreign power that does not respect human rights invites disaster. So Congress requires the State Department to verify that a government meets certain standards of human rights and democracy before it can receive assistance.
But no such restrictions impede the Defense Department, and the danger is more than theoretical. Six of the 10 African nations the Pentagon proposes to train and equip this year (Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Tunisia) have poor human rights records.
Washington has little control over how recipient countries choose to wield their newfound might, so train-and-equip programs must be kept under strict observation to ensure that they adhere to necessary guidelines. But the Pentagon is notorious for not operating transparently, and the congressional committees that are supposed to oversee Pentagon spending are unlikely to spare much attention for such a small piece of the overall military budget.
Congress should return these programs to State Department supervision. If it cannot summon the will to do that, it should at least mandate that the programs financed by the Pentagon conform to the same democratic and human rights standards that apply when they are run by the State Department.
The U.S. Senate plans to begin consideration this week of the defense authorization bill for the coming year. One distressing section of the package would reauthorize the Pentagon to arm and train foreign militaries, something it was first authorized to do for 2006. Although the money involved represents only a $200 million piece of the half-trillion-dollar Pentagon budget, it marks the continuation of a dangerous militarization of American foreign policy.
Traditionally, the authority to train and equip foreign forces was the territory of the State Department. Arming a foreign power that does not respect human rights invites disaster. So Congress requires the State Department to verify that a government meets certain standards of human rights and democracy before it can receive assistance.
But no such restrictions impede the Defense Department, and the danger is more than theoretical. Six of the 10 African nations the Pentagon proposes to train and equip this year (Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Tunisia) have poor human rights records.
Washington has little control over how recipient countries choose to wield their newfound might, so train-and-equip programs must be kept under strict observation to ensure that they adhere to necessary guidelines. But the Pentagon is notorious for not operating transparently, and the congressional committees that are supposed to oversee Pentagon spending are unlikely to spare much attention for such a small piece of the overall military budget.
Congress should return these programs to State Department supervision. If it cannot summon the will to do that, it should at least mandate that the programs financed by the Pentagon conform to the same democratic and human rights standards that apply when they are run by the State Department.
I was surprised that Redscare took exception to your claim that most Filipinos don’t care that Leftists are being killed. I find the public’s reaction to these killings unjustifiably muted, but then again, maybe he’s right in pointing out that those who do care just don’t have the means to speak out. For his sake, I hope it’s not just a case of self-deception. On the part of the ‘middle’, however, the continuing lack of concern and even occasional rationalizations on this matter is a scandal.
JCastro
The operative word there is “Assuming.” What if you were to assume differently? That’s the trouble with us. We assume the worst and base all our reactions on that wrost-case assumption. In the meantime, rational queries like Rizalist’s are dismissed with bad supposition and sweeping generalizations, instead of being answered squarely.
Rizalist: the evidence is, of course, anecdotal, not least because the government doesn’t seem inclined to be particularly concerned. at the very least, gen. palparan is one scary guy -and the goings-on in his command are pretty scary. more than one politically-active person i’ve talked to, and these are people by no stretch of the imagination friendly to those being murdered, has recounted how officers and soldiers visit civilian officials, inform them that they have people under surveillance, make veiled warnings about expecting results, and then organize “anti-communist” rallies that are far from spontaneous.
i was told one baranggay captain visited in this manner told the soldiers, “this is not the way to deal with elected civilian officials,” and he was right. at the same time, the officers and men doing the visiting speak of palparan in glowing terms.
of course it’s possible that some of the killings are internal liquidations -but the killings are so extensive they require us to ask -first, can’t government prevent such killings? and second, the intimidation being real, and the killings at least in palparan’s command so obvious, what if it spills over to become afp policy?
The middle’s attitude is: “You made your bed..then lie in it.” The majority of Filipinos are aware of the Communist tactic of using the sword and the shield. They are ruthless when on the attack. But when they get bloodied, they use the shield of media and human rights. This is the very tactic Jose Maria Sison and Boy Morales envisioned when they created the National Democratic Front and other umbrella organizations. Fortunately, the people see through this sleigh of hand being attempted by the Communists.
And Rizalist is correct. There is no proof that government or the military has a hand in the killings of Communist front leaders. It is all propaganda and assumptions. For the longest time, the Communists denied involvement in the Plaza Miranda bombing. Years later they were proven to have carried it out. Infighting within the Communist organization has often resulted in their killing their own. This was proven to have happened in the late ’70’s. And more recently, we have had the killings of Kintanar and others which were carried out by the Communists themselves. With such a bunch of ruthless brigands and cutthroats, anything is possible. The majority of the people do well not to be drawn into hostilities that they have nothing to do with nor want to have anything to do with. It is only to the interest of Communists and their front organizations to draw the public in.
The lack of concern for the killing of a fellow human being because of differences in ideology is one of the defective characteristics of today’s middle forces. It reveals just what sort of belief system a lot in the middle share about issues concerning justice and human rights. As an excuse, the left has often been accused of trying to use the institutions of democracy for its own purposes, but considering current events, this is a red herring. The ones who are actually guilty of hijacking democracy are the members of the middle via Gloria Arroyo and her [tacit] supporters. Today, it is the middle who is abusing both the ‘sword and the shield’.
I despise the Arroyo government for allowing the political killings to remain unchecked and for major crimes to be committed on any, I repeat, any citizen of the republic.
I’m not left leaning, not a nat dem, not a socialist, not a “red,” etc. but one need not be a communist or a leftist sympanthiser to denounce this government of liars, thieves and cheats for being extremely diabolical; one need not be a left-leaning ideologist to call for the head of vicious Palparan. Palparan, a junior Pol Pot in the making if he could have his way, has no place in a civilized society. He does and says these atrocious things for all the wrong reasons – they stem from a sense of inferiority complex (from the time he was a junior officer) because he is not a PMAer and wants to prove that he is as good if not better. He is under-educated so lives by the dogma that might is right. I know this odious fellow…
If by opposing this despicable government, I am tagged a “leftist”, why, I won’t even give Gloria and Palparan a sideward glance – to me, they are merely power greedy parvenus who should be hanged from the highest lamp post by their toes at the earliest opportunity.
Plaza Miranda, the paranoia over the “Zombies” and the brutal mass murders that resulted from it, Romy Kintanar, Arturo Tabara. Lately, perhaps Sotero Llamas. The Communists will not stop killing until they achieve their sinister end. Which is to grab total and abolute power for themselves. In the meantime, they use squid tactics and hide behind umbrella organizations while their armed component goes on murdering thousands of Filipinos. And because the public won’t be fooled, their sympathizers blame the apathy of the middle class. Apathy because the Filipinos don’t want to be taken for a ride by agitprop? Preposterous.
Of course, there are still others who may not share the same ideology but, for personal reasons, will strike a pact with the devil at any cost. These people have their own personal agenda. But the public is now smart enough not to fight their battles for them. And in frustration these provocateurs call the public apathetic.
Carl,
You are absolutely right! No conservative education, political pedigree, distinct intelligence, convent or Catholic breeding could ward off the devil when power and money beckons…
Gloria and husband are living examples of people who, for persoanl reasons and agenda struck a pact with the devil and the leftists at any cost to go over and beyond their real station in life. Mike Arroyo wasn’t rich contrary to belief – whatever his family had had been divided if not squandered before the political mana got to them while Gloria, whose pedigree may indeed count a president of the republic, in terms of real social class distinction would be considered a parvenu.
So, just like the Communists that you deplore, Gloria and her band of terribly petit bourgeois social and political parvenus will not stop killing people of any political denomination until they’ve firmly entrenched themselves in power and stuffed their pockets with money that they looted and continue to loot from the coffers of the state with shamelss impunity.
A significant portion of the public, though smart, fought the battle to enable her and her minions to commit a coup d’état because they thought she was of a better mould. Fortunately, there are those who did so have now discovered that Gloria is not worth the ground they walk on… She is and will remain a miserable, ugly duckling for she is morally and physically depraved.
(My profound apologies to the petit bourgeois class who by their station in life may feel slighted by my remarks – to them I say, (borrowing from MLq3°), that is not my intention; that the class is not a problem because at the end of the day, inherent distinction between “petit” and “petit”: there are a vast number of our compatriots of the petit bourgeois class who distinguish themselves in that they are neither social nor political parvenus like Gloria and her minions; they are people who will not sacrifice their inherent moral class for a Gloria’s petit hand out….)
It does not require anything more than basic human decency to condemn the killings of the leftists. Our history shows that no one group has a monopoly on atrocities or squid tactics. The right, the left and even the middle forces has its civilized and murderous elements. If our community is to remain livable, its members who claim to be civilized should not tolerate any form of violence or injustice whatever its motivation.
FIRST, I agree with Anna in toto as regards her last comment.
SECOND, I despise and condemn all political killings whether the perpetrators be government-sponsored or be they the handiwork of communists killing those who do not share their beliefs.
THIRD, allow me to share this thought from Mr. Renato Constantino: “Whenever a new idea is espoused, protectors of the status quo immediately pounce upon the exponents as subversives. If we wish to assure our democracy a truly working existence, we must not be afraid to place all advocacies — from the lunatic fringe of the right to the left-wing infantilists — within the framework of civil liberties. We proclaim our belief in freedom of thought, yet we act as if any leftist advocacy is illegal and we label anything new as subversive. What we forget is the fact that when advocates of change are allowed to present their viewpoints, society is not necessarily called upon to believe in their wisdom. Society, any democratic society, is merely called upon to grant these advocates their good intentions. The advocates of the new must be credited with the same good will as the holders of power. They too, may be working for the general good. To treat them as mere conspirators is to beg the argument and to squelch any debate. To respect the good faith of these advocates does not mean to agree with them. We must deal with their argument on its own merits, not attempt to discredit them by invective. To call them the enemies of democracy is to behave like the Romans who condemned the Christians as atheists simply because they worshipped in a new way.”
FOURTH, has anyone here read and understood in full the books of Marx, Lenin or Mao? If you haven’t, better rethink your positions and examine from a distance if what you are critical about is not mixed up with bias and prejudice borne out of influence from the “Cold War” syndrome of the 70’s or from local Palparan propaganda version 2006. I’m not an ardent supporter of communism or even socialism per se. I’m for liberal democracy. But if you look closely, some of their proposals for substantive change are worth taking a second look.
CVJ, I concur…
I mean, I agree with Anna as regards this comment of hers:
“I despise the Arroyo government for allowing the political killings to remain unchecked and for major crimes to be committed on any, I repeat, any citizen of the republic.
I’m not left leaning, not a nat dem, not a socialist, not a “red,†etc. but one need not be a communist or a leftist sympanthiser to denounce this government of liars, thieves and cheats for being extremely diabolical; one need not be a left-leaning ideologist to call for the head of vicious Palparan. Palparan, a junior Pol Pot in the making if he could have his way, has no place in a civilized society. He does and says these atrocious things for all the wrong reasons – they stem from a sense of inferiority complex (from the time he was a junior officer) because he is not a PMAer and wants to prove that he is as good if not better. He is under-educated so lives by the dogma that might is right. I know this odious fellow…
If by opposing this despicable government, I am tagged a “leftistâ€Â, why, I won’t even give Gloria and Palparan a sideward glance – to me, they are merely power greedy parvenus who should be hanged from the highest lamp post by their toes at the earliest opportunity.
Go Anna! Let’s kick Gloria out!
Pity the poor sods who are so obsessed with Gloria Arroyo. Objectivity isn’t their concern. Nevermind if the class struggle has been going on for decades.
As for squid tactics, it is gratifying to note that a sympathizer admits that the Communists have murderous elements within their ranks.
MLQ3,
Why are my comments the only ones awaiting moderation? Am I still welcome to share my thoughts here? Hope I’m wrong.
bystander, no clue. as a general rule, comments with links get held up for moderation by the software. perhaps if you comment with links a few times, it tends to automatically put you on hold. but nothing to fear, no problem with your comments or commenting.
Carl, your view is interesting. What internal problems would make it ideal for the CPP to both publicly purge local leaders, and how have they managed to pin the blame on the AFP? Is Palparan merely a bogey created by left-leaning media?
Bystander, what amazes me is the extent to which people can still get taken in by Cold War rhetoric. It’s as if the Berlin Wall never fell. I don’t know about Mao or Lenin, but i think it still pays to study Marx for his insights on Capitalism.
“MLQ3,
You seem convinced that the killings are the work of the government. Is this a reliable position to take? Do you actually have the facts on a large enough sample of the killings to generalize? What would the govt gain by such killings. For example, of Sotero Llamas? I only ask because I frankly don’t know who is responsible for them. Yet I am very uncomfortable that everyone seems to assume the killings are political assassinations by the Military against natdems. Do you or does anyone know for a fact that some of this is not the eternally deadly, intensely internal feuds within the communist movement? –RIZALIST”
Res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself, DJB.
1. If these are merely the results of internal feuds between and among leftists, why commit them at such a time/period when they are fighting one common evil enemy in the person of Gloria and her minions? Why give the government a reason to pin the blame on the leftists themselves?
2. Do you have to actually investigate each and every killing/murder of activists to convince yourself that indeed these political killings are being perpetrated by the government? Looking back, do I have to have personal knowledge or at least conduct a personal probe to satisfy my intellect that it was Marcos or any of his sympathizers who ordered the assasination of Ninoy Aquino? Or the 10,000 human rights victims perhaps? My gosh, DJB. We are not in a court of law where strict application of the rules of evidence is a condition sine qua non to obtain a conviction. That will come later. We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.
3. When GMA, DOJ Gonzalez, NSA Gonzales and her generals started to blame the Left and label them as destabilizers and as part of the imagined conspiracy to oust them from power, the political killings increased. In areas where Palparan was assigned, there is not an instance where no activist is killed. Even for the failure of government to abate these killings, blood is already in their hands.
4. We have an Administration whose leaders have lost all morality and decency in their insatiable lust for power. So killing leftists — the weakest link of the anti-Gloria movement (they know that even some of the anti-Gloria middle forces abhor them) — won’t bother their conscience. What would the government gain from these killings? They are being set as grim examples to those whould oppose them that they will suffer the same fate if they continue to mess around.
Oops.. thanks for the explanation MLQ3.
“MLQ3,
You seem convinced that the killings are the work of the government. … –RIZALISTâ€Â
I was at a rally held up by the police/military phalanx at Morayta where a stage was set, program held, speeches delivered. When Satur went upstage holding a doc, angry at gov’t attempt at his arrest, the police/military men started hissing ‘komunista’. I was mingling along between the two sides, and non-chalantly I laughed and even smiled broadly in my amusement at the utter ‘simple-mindedness’, almost childishly naive, instinctve reaction of some hissing police guys to Satur who in his passionate speech fell short of admitting,” I am a communist, and proud of it,, and ready to die for it,” for which the Red crowd might have felt “bitin”. I laughed inwardly, smiling broadly, profoundly amused at the whole scenario. I was there in the midst, smack in the middle of a phalanx of pre-programmed zombied brainwashed robocops on my right and on my left, a crowd of Red-flag-waving, ‘Red wine’ intoxicated, indocrinated militat demagogues herding the hungry, homeless, beat-up desperate folks who couldn’t care less who Mao was nor what Marcos did.
Point is, in the middle, we’re lost, no one to lead, nowhere to go. We lost it, we missed the boat. The season for change, for an honest-to-goodness revolution, has passed. Now are the days of reckoning: what have we learned? done? what’s up ahead?
Those in the middle should take the lead. Sadly, most of them, afraid to lose the privileges and perks accorded them, are more than willing to kiss the ass of the fake President. They find it more convenient to dance with the music, Cha-cha even, so long as they remain untouched in their comfort zones!
The left cannot take the lead. More so with the right. So much bias has been levelled against them that every move they make is almost always reacted to with raised eyebrows.
Bystander, why not? In Latin America, the Left *is* already taking the lead. Many of the countries in that continent are either ruled by the moderate left or the hard left. With our discredited Middle and a Right that has nothing to offer to the majority, that is also bound to happen over here once enough people come around. Not necessarily a bad thing, imho.
“We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.”
Thanks for clearing that up!
cvj, bystander,
Left-lead or right-lead ‘revolutionary councils’, and in between, were hardsell ‘promo offerings’ at the people-power-coalition-patasikin-si-gloria-rally ‘revolution’ tiangges last year. It was ridiculous. I chided a progresibo socdem leader for starting the ‘revo-council’ ball rolling again onstage at Ayala, “People won’t buy it. Who would/should/could appoint whom?” You hear same ‘promo package’ from extreme left to extreme rigt, from Satur to Abat, but what’s inside each package are mortal enemies in the jungle of real-politics. But for the ‘patalsikin si gloria’ expediency, incompatible political creatures just converge without really being ideologically reconciled much less united.
3Q 2003 caucus of ‘midddle-left’ socdem, I told a member that 1) there is a power vacuum
2) it was/is for the silent majority to move in to, if it does not, extremists opportunists will try to move in to that vacuum.
3) they must present a clear and specific political agenda that can galvanize and mobilize the people,
upto now this had been what we are looking for, Q3 2003 was the ‘last two minutes’ when a powerful people’s movement should have been galvanaized, 2004 is the year of the Revolution that never was, it was instead the year of Gloria’s ‘fait acompli’, when the deed was done, by sheer cunning and iniquity GMA had moved in to the power vacuum,
what now, unto the breach? (?)nto the breach.
“We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.â€Â
Thanks for clearing that up!
micketymoc said this on June 14th, 2006 at 9:57 am”
–So what’s your point micketymoc?
“Bystander, why not? In Latin America, the Left *is* already taking the lead. Many of the countries in that continent are either ruled by the moderate left or the hard left. With our discredited Middle and a Right that has nothing to offer to the majority, that is also bound to happen over here once enough people come around. Not necessarily a bad thing, imho.
cvj said this on June 14th, 2006 at 2:33 am”
Theoretically, anybody could lead be they from the Left, Right, Middle. I’m speaking, however, from a practical point of view. In a country like the Philippines where perception is equated with reality, the general public’s perception of the Left has always been an antagonistic one. With that kind of environment, it would be hard for the Left to convince the moderates or the indifferent middle class.
Juan makabayan, i agree the idea of revolutionary councils is a non-starter as it should be. the left has to sell its ideas during elections just like every other political candidate. Forget the middle, it did not hold so it no longer counts.
Bystander, point taken, the left needs to discard some of its tired old dogma and do some updating in light of recent history. Nonetheless, if it can be done in Latin America, it’s certainly possible here. Without a run-off, a youngish ex-military type running on a leftist platform may capture enough votes among the poor just like what almost happened in Peru (but they had a run-off).
cvj,
in latin america, particularly Nicaragua and El Salvador, liberation theology, complementing the communist ideology, played a key role before, during and after the revolution. similar but not same is the scenario here. liberation theology was rejected subsequently by pope jpII. the institutional church is a formidable political swing factor. cbcp’s statements are ‘on the ball’, calling on the lay to be involved, participate and ‘the gifted and the called’, to lead. cha-cha is gma’s central agenda, aside from the senate, only the church can block it. gma will go for it, maybe succeed for a while but ultimately the church will prevail. good if gma backs off, better if she gets off, steps down, while she still can manage a proper exit. apparently the context is not just political.