By Kenneth J. Theisen, 5/16/07
The wars conducted by the Bush regime in Iraq and Afghanistan are regularly on the
front pages and on our television screens.
But we hear relatively little about the “war of terror” being enabled by
the Bush regime in the Philippines.
But make no mistake, the killings going on in the Philippines
in the so-called “war of terror” are just as real as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. But just as the deaths
in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with fighting
terrorism, neither do those in the Philippines.
Last month a conference was held in Honolulu, Hawaii.
In attendance were military officers, police officials, diplomats and other
government officials from the US, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, China,
Japan, India and 10 other Asian nations to discuss the “war on terror” in Asia.
Not surprisingly, military commanders from the U.S. Pacific Command were a
large presence at the conference. The U.S.
ambassador to the Philippines,
Kristie Kenney, was one of the conference speakers. She bragged that, “We are actually
winning the war against terror in the Philippines.”
Even though most of the American public does not know it,
the U.S.
military is active in the Philippine islands. American special operation forces
(SOFs) and other members of the U.S.
military are extremely involved in the country and have been so for several
years. The “war on terror” has given political cover to both the U.S. and the
Philippine governments to strengthen ties between their military forces.
Because of its history of oppression starting at the end of the 19th century
with an American invasion of the country and continuing through the Marcos”
dictatorship, the U.S.
military has not been exactly warmly regarded by the Filipino people over the
last two decades. [Marcos was the president of the Philippines who on September 21,
1972 declared martial law to prevent alleged “anarchy and lawlessness, chaos
and disorder, turmoil and destruction” in the words of his martial law
declaration. He was finally driven from power in 1986 by a massive people’s
movement within the country.] The U.S. was forced to close its
military bases and withdraw most of its troops in the latter part of the 20th
century. But the “war on terror” has allowed the reintroduction of U.S. forces.
There are presently about 450 U.S.
troops in the Philippines,
about half of them SOFs.
While the numbers are relatively low as compared to Iraq, the
influence of these troops is greater than at first glance. The U.S. military
has been actively training the Philippine military and police forces through
the “International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. According to the U.S. Embassy in Manila, “IMET graduates populate top AFP [Armed Forces of
the Philippines]
ranks and actively promote close and professional US and Philippine
military-to-military relationships.” Direct U.S.
military assistance to the Philippines
went from $14.6 million in 2001 to $86.5 million annually in 2005.
Ostensibly U.S.
forces are there to help the Philippine military and police forces combat Abu
Sayyaf fighters. Abu Sayyaf is a group of Islamic guerrillas based in the Philippines
which has alleged links to al-Qaeda according to the Bush regime. [Abu Sayyaf
is an Islamic fundamentalist organization based in some of the southern islands
of the Philippines.
Many of the southern islands contain a large Islamic population. Because of wide-spread poverty and actual
discrimination and repression from the central government in Manila, Abu Sayyaf and some other
fundamentalist groups have limited support from some of the population in these
islands. The group has engaged in terrorist actions, but for the most part its
actions have been localized. But this has not stopped the U.S. from using the suppression of Abu Sayyaf as
an excuse to send U.S.
troops to the Philippines
with active collaboration of the Arroyo government.] And while alleged “terrorists” of Abu Sayyaf
have been captured and killed, many believe that this “war on terror” has
strengthened the present Filipino government’s ability to suppress its own
people. The U.S.
is there to train and support the Philippine military and police forces and the
Islamic guerrillas furnish an excuse for this.
The actions of the Philippine government make this clear.
Under pressure from the U.S.
to pass a comprehensive anti-terror law, the government of President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo implemented just such a law this year. The Human Security Act
of 2007 allows warrantless arrests, arbitrary detention, surveillance, and
seizure of bank assets, among other powers. Think of it as the Philippine
version of the U.S. Patriot Act.
But even Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno
has denounced the war on terrorism in the Philippines. In an April 2007
speech he stated, “The war on terrorism has inevitable spillover effects on
human rights all over the world, especially in countries suspected (of) being
used as havens of terrorists.” He
criticized the Philippine government for taking legal shortcuts to allegedly
battle terrorism. “These shortcuts have scarred the landscape of [human] rights
in the Philippines.”
He was critical of the U.S. “The threats to our national
security and human rights will be aggravated if we have a state weakened
internally by a government hobbled by corruption, struggling with credibility,
battling the endless insurgence of the left and the right, and by a state
weakened externally by pressure exerted by creditor countries, by countries
where our trade comes from, by countries that supply our military and police
armaments. A weak state cannot fully protect the rights of its citizens within
its borders just as a state without economic independence cannot protect the
rights of its citizens who are abroad from the exploitation of more powerful
countries,” he asserted.
In echoes of what has transpired in the U.S. after 9/11 he
stated the, “quickie solution is to unfurl the flag, sing the national anthem,
and issue the high-pitched call to arms for the military and the police to use
their weapons under the theme “victory at all costs…To put constitutional
cosmetics to the military-police muscular efforts, lawmakers usually enact laws
using security of the state to justify the diminution of human rights by
allowing arrests without warrants, surveillance of suspects, interception and
recording of communications, seizure or freezing of bank deposits, assets and
records of suspects”The apathy of those who can make a difference is the reason
why violations of human rights continue to prosper. The worst enemy of human
rights is not its non-believers but the fence-sitters who will not lift a
finger despite their violations. Sooner or later, they will find that they who
default in protecting the rights of the many will end up without rights like
the many.”
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has become a key ally of
the U.S. in its “war on
terrorism” in Asia. She even sent a Filipino contingent to Iraq. But her
government has used this alliance to strengthen her power and to wage a war of
terror against her own people. Extrajudicial killings of those in opposition to
her regime have multiplied since she came to power in 2001. Activists,
students, labor leaders, journalists, and others have died and disappeared on a
regular basis. State terror, enabled by the U.S., has reigned in the country.
The government spends money on war and preserving it power
rather than on its people. Earlier this year the Philippine government
announced that it will spend about $200 million to purchase attack helicopters
and other military equipment for the “war on terror.” By U.S. standards this is
small change. But the World Bank, led by Bush ally Paul Wolfowitz, recently
reported that 15 million people in the Philippines survive on less than $1 a
day. $200 million could help alleviate this poverty.
According to Karapatan, a prominent Filipino human rights
organization, since Macapagal-Arroyo assumed power more than 850 people have
been killed in extra-judicial killings. Some 200 leaders and activists have
“disappeared” and are feared dead. More than 50 journalists have been murdered.
Amnesty International issued a report stating its concern over “continued
violation of human rights in the country.”
The IBON Foundation, a Filipino research think tank has
stated that, “The pattern of assassinations and political persecution of
activists, members of people’s movements, and leftist leaders in the
Philippines has become an urgent international issue. While killings and
summary executions are not rare in the Philippines, this trend of political
assassinations intensified in 2004 during the national elections, and has
continued in the last two years-making it possibly the worst period for human
rights violations since the Marcos era.”
Ironically, despite all the documented human rights
violations the Arroyo government has applied for an extension of its membership
with the United Nations Human Rights Council which will be heard on May 17,
2007. But then the Bush regime routinely criticizes other countries for their
human rights violations despite launching two wars in violation of
international law, practicing and condoning torture, spying on its own people
through the NSA surveillance program, and providing military assistance and training
to governments such as that of the Philippines which routinely suppress their
own people. So why should the Arroyo
government be any less hypocritical than its patron, the Bush regime?
And do not expect the U.S. government to withdraw its
military support for the Arroyo government because of the human rights
violations. It is likely as resistance
to the Arroyo regime builds within the country that the U.S. will actually
strengthen it ties to the government.
The U.S. only withdrew its support for Marcos shortly before he was
overthrown. In his many years of dictatorship,
Marcos” strongest support came from the U.S.