by Renato Reyes, Jr.

While the nation welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court ordering the actual land distribution of Hacienda Luisita, the SC decision presents several problems and challenges for farmers and advocates of land reform. The decision highlights the limitations and problems with government’s land reform program CARPER.

1. The SC decision ordered the compensation of the owners of Hacienda Luisita. By “owners”, we mean them Cojuangco-Aquino family. They will be compensated for the 4, 335 hectares that will be distributed to the farmers. If each hectare is valued at 1,000,000, the Cojuangco’s will receive P4.3 billion. The government will advance a certain amount, and the farmers will have to pay the entire amount through an amortization scheme. No less than President Benigno Aquino III stressed the importance of “just compensation” for the landowners. He also invoked CARPER as the basis for this “just compensation”. What is unjust in this scheme is that the vast estate was unjustly acquired by the Cojuangco’s through a government loan from the GSIS. In short, public funds were used to acquire the estate with the condition that land would eventually be distributed to the farmers. Furthermore, the farm workers have paid for the value of the land through their sweat and blood, working on the estate for several decades without receiving any of the supposed fruits of their labor. Over the years, the Cojuangco’s got richer and the farm workers were mired deeper in destitution. There is therefore nothing just in paying the Cojuangco’s P4.335 billion which will come from public funds and the pockets of the long-exploited farm workers. The farmers demand that the land be distributed for free.
2. The SC decision did not rule that the Stock Distribution Option scheme was unconstitutional. Only Chief Justice Renato Corona supported this opinion. It would have been a landmark victory for thousands of other farmers nationwide if the SDO itself, this loophole in the agrarian reform program of the first Aquino regime, was altogether junked. The SDO has been abused by big landlords who wanted to evade land reform and actual land distribution. Instead of actual land distribution, farmers are swindled through shares of stock.
3. The SC decision exempted the 500 hectare land purchased by RCBC. This is controversial because RCBC knew that the land in question was the subject of an agrarian dispute, yet it entered into a transaction with the Luisita management to acquire the land. They claimed that they were “innocent purchasers” but facts will reveal that RCBC , Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (a subsidiary of HLI) and Centennary Holdings had interlocking directors or officials. There is also the land conversion order which reclassified this supposedly agricultural land. The HLI management of course earned a hefty sum from this sale.
4. The SC decision exempted more than 1,000 hectares of land from the coverage of land reform.  Farmers and their lawyers have challenged the basis of this exemption and have pushed that land reform cover at least 6,443 hectares.
5. The P1.3 billion payment by management to the farmers from the earnings of land sale (RCBC, SCTEX) will still be subjected to a lot of accounting wizardry. This amount can still go down if HLI shows that it spent the money for legitimate corporate expenses and taxes.

This is not a victory for CARPER. Quite the opposite, what happens in the next few months will show that CARPER will make genuine land reform even more difficult, nay impossible.

It now lies with the collective struggle of the farmers to ensure that their legal victory will truly be beneficial for all farmer beneficiaries.

by
Roland G. Simbulan
University of the Philippines

Grande Island, Subic, Sept. 12 –  It is drizzling Monday afternoon, the ocean water in Subic Bay is choppy all around Grande Island which on the google map seems to guard the entrance of Subic Bay from South China Sea. At least 25 ships, mostly commercial and container vessels float on the waters inside the Bay. A large tanker, with the markings NYK Hinode, floats near the Hanjin Heavy Industries Shipyards. More than 20 years ago when Subic was still the United States’ largest naval base outside U.S. territory, such a scene was unthinkable. For Subic, and Subic Bay for that matter, was an exclusive enclave for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. 7th Fleet that operated in the Western Pacific. Commercial and civilian vessels were then not allowed inside Subic Bay.

Unthinkable before, because the very spot where I am standing at Grande Island used to be off limits to Filipinos. Grande Island back then was exclusively for the “Rest and Recreation” of U.S. military servicemen. Now, Grande Island is a Filipino resort with classy hotels seen clearly from the shorelines of the communities around the bay.  From Grande Island, one can see huge orange and white cranes and floating drydocks of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) ready to service visiting ships to unload their cargo and container vans or to repair commercial vessels from all countries of the world.

September 16, 2011 this year, marks the 20th anniversary of the historic rejection of the bases treaty, or to be accurate, the non-concurrence by the Philippine Senate of the proposed treaty that was to extend the U.S. bases for another 10 years after the expiration of the 1947 RP-U.S. Military Bases Agreement. That was a historical feat because it marked the shutting down and dismantling of the largest U.S. overseas military naval and air force bases that were located on Philippine soil since 1901. And the U.S. was still back then,  unquestionably the strongest economic and military superpower in the world. Filipino nationalists consider that day as historically significant because it marked the end of 470 years of foreign military base and troops’ presence on Philippine soil, which began during Spanish colonization and extended almost permanently during the American colonial period and beyond Philippine independence in 1946. It was a proud moment for the Philippines that many people in Japan, South Korea and in many places where there are still foreign military bases and foreign troops, want to learn from and replicate.

This is why Filipino nationalists and the nationalist movement in general have long considered foreign bases presence as antithetical to independence. They were the most visible physical symbols of continuing colonialism and farce independence: Immediately after our 1946 independence and under the 1947 US-RP Military Bases Agreement, an estimated 250,000  hectares of arable lands with rich agricultural and mineral potential in 23 bases in 13 provinces —prime real estate– were placed under the exclusive and absolute control of the U.S. government. The original agreement was for the rent-free use of our territory, for 99 years, later to be shortened in negotiations to expire in 1991. It was as if these lands were carved out and seceded from our sovereign control, making a travesty of our independence.

Arguments during the debates on the future of the U.S. bases in the Philippines inside and outside the Senate more than 20 years ago focused on the economic and security issues.

Economic Issues

When the U.S. military bases and facilities were pulled out from the Philippines 20 years ago, some people predicted economic ruin for the country and security fears for the nation.  I even remember the threat of then U.S. Ambassador Nicolas Platt when he said at the height of the bases debates that ” foreign investments would dry up and the economy would collapse if the U.S. bases pulled out.” Instead, the former U.S. base lands today have become linchpins of economic growth in the country. This is the “peace dividend” that has lured businesses to set up shop in the former bases, including the South Korean Hanjin Heavy Industries, which has made the former U.S. military facilities one of the fastest-growing employers in their respective regions. Today, the former U.S. military bases in the country are reported to employ almost more than four times the number of Filipino workers that the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force employed at their Vietnam War peak, and has brought in more than P17-19 billion in revenues into the national treasury.

The Gordon family who were once the most die hard defenders of the U.S.bases when they dominated politics in Olongapo (and still do) are now the first to admit that “the Philippines has one of the best experiences in bases conversion if not one of the most successful base conversion of a foreign military base”, as former Olongapo Mayor and former SBMA administrator Richard Gordon would state in a 1996 interview with a national daily.  In fact, the former U.S. bases have become symbols of economic resurgence for the country such that, during the Presidency of Fidel V. Ramos, Subic was chosen as the site to host the Asia Pacific Economic Council(APEC) meeting of heads of state.

Security Issues

As for the security issues, the Philippine dismantling of the U.S. military bases in the Western Pacific was actually our contribution to the ending of the Cold War in our part of the world. For the U.S. bases were in fact the most visible vestiges of the Cold War in the Asia Pacific, used by the Pentagon for its aggressive gunboat diplomacy in the Korean peninsula, as launching pads for military intervention during the Vietnam War and as springboards for intervention against countries like Iran and other countries in the Middle East.

The “peace dividend” that accompanied this decision was that after we removed the bases here, we could now secure better relations with ALL our neighbors and not be held hostage by being host to a superpower that dragged us into its military interventions and possibly, made us a magnet for attacks as during World War II, when the U.S. bases here were the first targets by the Japanese Imperial Army. But the country without the U.S. bases must also be able to develop its external defense capability both in terms of modernizing its national defense forces and multilateral diplomatic initiatives to defend national interests and sovereignty. This is to deserve its truly sovereign status like our smaller neighbors like Singapore, Brunei, Vietnam and Burma, especially in dealing with claimants to the Spratlys such as China. It must also learn to deal on its own with its internal armed conflicts and peace and order threats such as the Abu Sayaff, without relying on the almost-permanently-based covert operatives of the U.S. Special Operations Forces which we have invited here under the cover of the Visiting Forces Agreement.

And what was the role of the Mt. Pinatubo factor in the outcome of the issue of the bases?  Believe it or not as if it was a god sent act,  Mt. Pinatubo volcano erupted on June 12, 1991, the very day of Independence of the Philippines in the revolution against Spain. In reality, the Pinatubo factor made it more difficult for the anti-bases senators to argue against the immediate bases termination. It reduced the number of anti-bases Senators from 19 to 12 Senators because of the perceived hardships and dislocations in Central Luzon brought about by Pinatubo,  though 12 was still a safe number to reject the proposed new bases treaty.

Pentagon’s desperation to keep forward bases

The Pentagon, despite their temporary withdrawal of Clark Air Bases within three hours just before the Mt. Pinatubo eruption (they had claimed during the bases negotiations that it would take them at least 10 years to withdraw any large base), still wanted to keep their remaining forward-deployed bases in the country very badly.  Beyond 1991, they wanted desperately to keep 14,698 hectares: Clark Air Base, Subic Naval Base, John Hay Base in Baguio City, O’Donnel Transmitter Station in Tarlac, Wallace Air Station in Poro Point, La Union, the San Miguel Communications Station, and the Capas Naval Transmitter Station. But no amount of political pressure on the 12 Senators, now referred to as the “Magnificent 12″ could change their minds. For prior to this decision, the Senate had passed seven resolutions against U.S. bases and nuclear weapons with 19 Senators consistently signing these. Here, we must give credit to then presidentiables Senators Aquilino Pimentel and especially Senate President Jovito Salonga who sacrificed their presidential plans by taking a historic stand that clearly defied U.S. strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region. For Salonga’s Liberal Party, it was really a good chance to clear the party’s name of the stigma of being initially a pro-U.S. party, for it was the LP-dominated government of then Pres. Manuel Roxas that signed the U.S.-RP Military Bases Agreement in 1947.

Leadership Role of Senate

The Senate clearly took a leadership role in directing us towards a sovereign Philippine foreign policy in accordance to our 1987 Constitution when it made its Sept. 16 decision to close down the bases. This decision even defied mainstream public opinion 20 years ago, which generally favored the retention of the U.S. bases.The Senate decided that it was the right decision to make and in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, and that the people would eventually realize that it was the right thing to do. Guiding the Senate’s vote to dismantle the bases were state policies such as “the State shall pursue an independent foreign policy…in its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination”. There was also the new constitutional policy that the Philippines, “consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.” The latter Charter provision was consistent with at the seven UN-initiated treaties that the country had signed against ” the deployment of nuclear weapons and foreign military forces” in other regions of the world including those nuclear weapons and bases “deployed in outer space, the moon and other planets.”

Overall, public opinion today as expressed in leading opinion surveys is such that the Senate decision was the right but difficult decision. Except in the honky tonk community of barangay Barreto along the Olongapo national highway, which is frequented by American and Australian expats. This is where some bars with teasing names like “Wet Spot Bar”, “Corkscrew”, “Lips (Upper and Lower)”, etc. still welcome visiting U.S. troops on brief goodwill visits or during Balikatan exercises under the terms of the VFA . Critics claim that the latter  is a camouflage seeking to restore U.S. military presence in a new form. Many bars and nightclubs in Barreto are said to be owned by Australians and Americans who have long retired from the U.S. armed forces after being assigned to the Philippines. Barrio Barreto residents say that only last July, a visiting U.S. naval vessel docked at Subic and its crew of U.S. servicemen went to the bars to be entertained but with an early evening curfew. A nightclub in Barreto even still has a big streamer in front that says, U.S. TROOPS WELCOME!  At the Perimeter Road at Balibago, Angeles along the side of former Clark Air Base, the same mood still exists where aging foreign expats, now living in the country, can be seen walking in their slippers as if nothing had changed. But it has changed.

R.M. Magsaysay Avenue, once referred to by writers as “the Avenue of Broken Dreams”, which fronts the main gate of the former Subic Naval Base, now looks much different from the time when the whole avenue was saturated with seedy “ago go” bars, massage parlors and “rest and recreation” restaurants waiting to satisfy the sex-hundry U.S. Navy men leaving the base for their brief leave furlough. Now, the Olongapo City Mall stands tall right outside the former base gate, teeming with locals and students who patronize the fast food and appliance centers, as well as the vendors selling cheap China products and pirated DVDs.  The American Legion office and its pub in Magsaysay Avenue, now barely has any visitors, according to a cigarette vendor nearby that this author talked to.

While the level of military prostitution enhanced by the former U.S. bases’ presence has been diminished, prostitution and violation of children’s rights has not really been eradicated since the national economy to which the bases economy has been integrated, continues to be characterized by the unequal distribution of wealth where more than 65% of Filipinos live below poverty line. With the signing of the 1999 VFA and the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement in 2001, units of U.S. military personnel are back to exploit and take advantage of the poverty of Filipina women and children.   Which gives us the lesson that political independence has to be sustained and consolidated by economic sovereignty.

Farmers and indigenous peoples are still disallowed from their claims for inclusion of the former base lands in agrarian reform, and in the ancestral domain as in the case of the Aeta people. The former bases have been blatantly excluded from the government’s agrarian reform program, allowing only the rich local and foreign investors to pour in money to develop the fertile baselands. Landless Filipino farmers continue to be denied the use of the former baselands for agriculture, thus preventing the bases’ transformation from “weapons” use into “ploughshares.”

I always like to tell my visiting Japanese and South Korean academic and activist friends who visit to learn about our bases conversion experience that in the Philippine experience, bases conversion, while initially open to local participation in the bases communities, later was tailored to the elite-based decision-making prevailing in the national economy. Thus, I say, there is the continuing clash between the people’s base conversion strategy and the elite-dominated national economic strategy and system.  Their potential for growth as commercial business enclaves today however, show potential under a neoliberal economic regime that continues to grow. Military buildings and ammunition storage had been transformed into factories,  commercial offices, recreational and sports facilities, schools including a branch of the University of the Philippines, Ateneo and other schools at both Clark and Subic. There are zoos such as the Zoobic Safari, civilian airports, aviaries, and so many hotels and restaurants. In short, I tell our Japanese and Korean foreign friends who are so awed by our feat of kicking out the bases that our lesson here is that, THERE IS LIFE AFTER THE U.S. BASES. But the continuing challenge is how to make it a pro-Filipino and pro-poor economic conversion and development.

Today, what used to be the command headquarters building of the Subic Base commander, is now used as the corporate offices of the SBMA, an authority that was created by law to spearhead the conversion of the former U.S. naval base into the commercial free port and special economic zone that it is today.  One of the largest Philippine flags that I have seen flies proudly over the flagpole in front of the SBMA corporate building. And just below the flagpole are the commemorative palm prints and names of the “MAGNIFICENT 12 SENATORS” who made Sept. 16 possible. But it was the Filipino people, in their long struggle and sacrifices with so many freedom fighters and martyrs, who made the Sept. 16 rebirth possible and the Senate action was really a reaffirmation of that aspiration that is now articulated in the 1987 Constitution.

As I walk barefoot and leave footprints on the sand along the beautiful coastlines of the Grande Island beach resort at Subic, I wonder what it was like then when only Filipino waiters and servants could enter these exclusive places to serve American military personnel and their families. I am just glad that that very gross travesty of Philippine independence had been ended 20 years ago.

Streetwise
By Carol Pagaduan-Araullo

When I am asked here or abroad what are the two outstanding achievements of the Philippine mass movement in the 20th century, without thinking twice I declare it is the ouster of the dictator Marcos through a people’s uprising in 1986 and the booting out of US military bases through the Philippine Senate rejection of a new treaty in 1991.

Today marks the 20th year of the RP-US Bases Treaty rejection and it is worthwhile to celebrate and be proud of this shining accomplishment.

We Filipinos did it through consistent struggle, through the mass movement that spanned more than half a century (counting the anti-colonial struggles of the 30’s) and the forging of the broadest anti-bases formations that delivered the coup de grace to this glaring vestige of US colonialism in Asia.  Against the unrelenting efforts by the US and President Cory Aquino to simultaneously cajole and pressure the Senate, 12 senators stood up for national sovereignty and the larger national interest.

BAYAN convened a few days ago, September 14, a gathering of Filipino nationalists — young and not-so-young, street parliamentarians and activist legislators as well as veteran and budding progressive artists — for a forum to rededicate themselves to the cause of freedom from foreign, specifically, US military presence.

According to Prof. Roland Simbulan, “(T)he non-concurrence by the Philippine Senate of the proposed treaty that was to extend the U.S. bases for another 10 years after the expiration of the 1947 RP-U.S. Military Bases Agreement…was a historic feat because it marked the shutting down and dismantling of the largest U.S. overseas military naval and air force bases that were located on Philippine soil since 1901.”

Nathanael Santiago, BAYAN Deputy Secretary-General during this tumultuous period attributed the resounding victory to four major factors: 1) the persistent and painstaking efforts to awaken nationalist and anti-imperialist sentiments among the people; 2) the struggle to overthrow the US-backed Marcos dictatorship; 3) the unification and mobilization of the broadest array of anti-bases, anti-nukes and anti-treaty forces; and 4) the sustained political campaign that saw huge and militant demonstrations attesting to growing public opinion against the bases.

Senator Wigberto Tañada, staunchest of the 12 senators who voted down the bases treaty, recounted how they were derided by pro-bases quarters as the “Dirty Dozen”.  After the vote, they were toasted by the media and the general public as the “Magnificent 12” who took that fateful stand and struck the chord for national independence and sovereignty.

Mr. Tañada told the gathering of his proudest moment when his then ailing father, the venerable nationalist, Senator Lorenzo Tañada, sat in a wheelchair in the Senate gallery during the suspenseful vote to witness and take part in the victory of the lofty cause he had fought so hard to attain since the 1950s.

But he categorically concluded that the fight did not end twenty years ago. The Cold War vintage Mutual Defense Treaty and The RP-US Military Assistance Pact together with  the post-bases treaty Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and Mutual Logistics and Support Arrangement (MLSA) remain and must be abrogated.

These provide the legal and political infrastructure to justify and pave the way for the permanent presence of hundreds of US troops; the prepositioning of US armaments, war vessels and aircraft and related equipment; year-round cooperation between US and Philippine Armed Forces ostensibly for training and joint exercises and civil military operations under the cover of humanitarian assistance and peace and development projects.

Current BAYAN Secretary General, Renato Reyes, titled his presentation “It’s like they never left”.  He expounded on how the US and all the post-bases regimes – Cory Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, Gloria Arroyo and now Benigno Aquino – conspired to ensure the virtual return of US military bases in a form more pernicious and more of an affront to Philippine sovereignty than ever before.

He cited the VFA and MLSA as legal instruments that allow the stationing of US troops and war materiel in Philippine territory with very little regulation and oversight.  He decried the fact that the VFA has an unspecified duration; does not specify or limit the number of troops allowed entry into the Philippines; does not specify or limit the areas in the Philippines that the “visiting” troops can access; and does not specify or limit the activities of the “visiting” troops.

The MLSA on the other hand allows the US Armed Force to access and utilize a wide-array of services for its civil-military operations from the Philippines as host country without having to set up the requisite physical and personnel infrastructure.

In short, “US troops are back and are digging in.”

The US has in fact established the US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) that is headquartered in the Western Mindanao Command’s Camp Navarro in Zamboanga City.  The activities of the JSOTF-P are kept from the public eye and access to its headquarters is highly restricted even for Philippine military and civilian officials.  Moreover, the JSOTF-P is a ubiquitous presence especially in Western Mindanao where it partners with the USAID to spearhead civil-military operations under the auspices of the so-called Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM) programs.

Recently Wikileaks released a US embassy cable dated April 2007 explicitly describing the Philippines as “currently the focal point of our counterterrorism fight in the region”.   It proposes five projects in Southwestern Mindanao for “dual-use” facilities, i.e. useful both for military and civilian purposes.   This revelation provides concrete examples and proof of continuing and permanent US military presence and activity in the Philippines twenty years after the Filipino people expelled the US bases from Philippine territory.

So far, the Aquino regime has not taken a single step, not even uttered a single word in the direction of reclaiming the victory marked by September 16, 1991.  In this regard President Benigno Aquino is following closely his mother’s subservient example.

Clearly, while the September 16 Senate vote was historic because it capped the victory of the decades-long struggle for sovereignty and against US bases, it was by no means the end of the struggle.

For so long as the country is ruled by a political elite beholden to the US, who cannot shake off the US economic shackles and who can only find security under the protection of a foreign military power that it calls an “ally”, the lessons of the anti-bases struggle retain their relevance and power to inspire a new generation of Filipino nationalists and anti-imperialists. #

Published in Business World
16-27 September 2011

(Ang papel na ito ay tinalakay ni Nathanael S. Santiago, pangkalahatang Kalihim ng Bayan Muna at Makabayan sa pagdiriwang sa ika-20 taong anibersaryo ng matagumpay na pagpapatalsik ng mga base militar ng US sa Pilipinas na inorganisa ng BAYAN sa UP Malcol Hall)

Mayroong kasabihan noon, “mapapatalsik ang pangulo ng Pilipinas ngunit hindi ang mga base militar ng US sa bansa”.  Nagmumula ito sa pagtingin na grabe ang kapangyarihan ng US. Nadidiktahan ng US ang gubyerno natin. Kontrolado ng US ang mahahalagang bahagi ng ating ekonomya. Namamayani ang kaisipang kolonyal.

Noong Setyembre 16, 1991, nangyari ang wari’y imposible. Nagapi ng makabayang kilusan ang pinagsamang pwersa ng US, gubyernong Cory Aquino, militar at malalaking negosyo. Walang nagawa ang panunuhol, presyur at pananakot. Sa lakas ng agos ng makabayang sentimyento, mga protesta at aksyong masa, itinakwil ng Senado sa botong 12-11, ang US-RP military bases agreement.

Nagtangka pa ang gubyernong US at Aquino na magmaniobra sa anyo ng panukalang referendum, 7-taong withdrawal, 3-5 taong phase out. Ayaw talaga nilang bitawan ang US bases laluna ang higanteng Clark Air Base at Subic Naval Base. Ngunit itinumba ang lahat ng ito ng higit na malakas na agos ng makabayang sentimyento matapos ang pagtatakwil ng Senado sa US bases treaty. Katapusan ng taong 1992, umalis ang huling tropang Amerikano lulan ng US warship Bettan Wood.

Ano ang saligang aral na mahahango natin sa laban sa base militar ng US? Makapangyarihan ang US. Superpower nga ang bansag sa US. Pero higit na makapangyarihan ang mamamayan. Kapag sila ay namulat at sama-samang lumaban, magagapi kahit ang kapangyarihan ng US.

Sa paggunita sa ika-20 taon ng makasaysayang araw na iyon, kinikilala natin ang makasaysayang pagtindig sa panig ng bayan ng tinawag na manificent 12 – Palakpakan natin sina Sen. Teofisto Guingona, Rene Saguisag, Victor Ziga, Sotero Laurel, Ernesto Maceda, Agapito Aquino,  Orlando Mercado, Aquilino Pimentel, Juan Ponce Enrile at Joseph Estrada. Mas malakas na palakpakan kina Senador Wigberto “Ka Bobby” Tanada at Senate President Jovito Salonga.

Walang isang tao o grupo ang pwedeng umangkin sa makasaysayang tagumpay laban sa US bases. Sa ultimo ang tagumpay ay tagumpay ng mamamayan nakipaglaban para sa pambansang kasarinlan.

Kinikilala natin kung gayon ang libu-libong mamamayan na nag-ambag ng lakas, talino at panahon para mangyari ang Setyembre 16. Bigyan natin ng palakpakan mga sumusunod – ang mga gerilya at makabayan ng Gitnang Luzon na lumaban sa pagbabalik ng mga Amerikano; gayundin sina Senador Claro M. Recto, Lorenzo Tanada at Jose Diokno; sina Satur Ocampo, Renato Constantino, Ambrosio Padilla; ang pinakamatalim na kalaban ng imperyalismong US, si Jose Maria Sison, ang Communist Party of the Philippines, New People’s Army at National Democratic Front; ang mga lumahok sa Sigwa ng Unang Kwarto; ang mga nangahas lumaban at nagpabagsak sa diktadurang US-Marcos.

Palakpakan natin ang progresibong bloke ng Constitutional Commission sa pangunguna nina Atty. Senseng Suarez at Lino Brocka; sina Prof. Roland Simbulan, Capt. Danilo Vizmanos, RC Constantino at Cookie Diokno; sina Lean Alejandro, Felixberto at Rolando Olalia at Crispin Beltran; sina Sen. Nikki Coseteng, Nelia Sancho, Sr, Mary John Mananzan, Liza Maza; ang malalapad na kilusan, Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition, Anti-Bases Coalition, Anti-Baseng Kilusang Demokratiko at Anti-Treaty Movement; At syempre, ang pumagitna at nanguna sa pukpukang laban mula 1985 hanggang 1991, ang Bagong Alyansang Makabayan; at ang lahat ng kasaping organisasyon ng BAYAN.

Pinakamatunog na palakpakan sa mga martir at bayani ng kilusang makabayan.

Sa kabuuan, pinamunuan ng kilusang pambansa demokratikong ang matagumpay na laban sa base militar. Inilatag ng mga pambansang demokrata ang kumprehensibo at matalas na pagsusuri sa base militar at imperyalismong US bilang pangunahing kaaway ng sambayanan at ang ugnayan nito sa suliranin ng  pyudalismo, burukrata-kapitalismo at pasismo. Naging pinakamasugid at pinakapuspusang kaaway ng base militar at imperyalismong US ang kilusang pambansa demokratiko.

Ang tagumpay laban sa base militar ay hindi nakuha overnight. Hindi ito produkto ng ilang buwang kampanya. Ang tagumpay ay kumulatibong produkto ng kalahating siglong tuluy-tuloy na pagmumulat, pagbubuo ng pagkakaisa at pakikibaka laban sa base militar ng mga pambansang demokrata at mga alyado nito.

Ang tagumpay ay kumulatibong epekto ng apat na salik.

1. Masikhay at makabayang pagmumulat sa mamamayan
2. Pakikibaka at pagpapabagsak sa diktadurang US-Marcos
3. Pagbubuo at pagkilos na malawak na hanay na anti-bases, anti-nukes at anti-treaty
4. Sustinidong kampanya, mga militante at malalaking aksyong masa laban sa base militar

Masikhay na pagmumulat sa mamamayan

Susi sa tagumpay ng paglaban sa US bases ang pagmumulat sa mamamayan. Hindi madali ang pagmumulat dahil kontrolado ng US at maka-US ang sistema ng edukasyon, mas midya at malalaking grupong relihiyoso. Sa pasimula, pabor sa pananatili ng US bases ang malaking mayorya ng mamamayan, iilan pa lang ang mulat at tutol dito.

Mula tuwirang kolonyal na paghahari noong 1899, itinatag ng US ang malakolonyal na paghahari  sa bansa pagpasok ng taong 1946. Tiniyak ng US ang patuloy na kontrol sa ating ekonomya sa pamamagitan ng Bell Trade Act na naglalaman ng Parity Rights. Pinagtibay ito ng Kongreso noong Hulyo 2, 1946.

Noong Marso 4, 1947 nilagdaan ang US-RP Military Bases Agreement para sa US bases at facilities sa 23 lugar sa loob ng 99 taon.  Binigyan ng extraterritoriality ang US sa naturang mga base, ibig, sabihin teritoryo at nakapailalim soberenya at batas ng US ang mga ito. Pinakamalaki at pinakaestratehikong ang Clark Air Base sa Pampanga at Subic Naval Base sa Zambales.  Noong Agosto 30, 1951 pinirmahan ang Mutual Defense Treaty.

Kinailangang bakbakin ng mga progresibo ang mga kasinungalingan ng US at mga propagandista nito. Kailangang ipakita hindi lang higit ang pinsala sa soberenya, seguridad, kapayapaan, kababaihan at mga bata at kalikasan kaysa sa pakinabang  sa pananatli ng US bases; kahit ang pakinabang ay palamuti o panloloko lamang. Ano ang mga tampok na kasinungalingan?

1. Magkapareho daw ang interes ng US at Pilipinas at pareho ang ating kalaban. Ang problema maraming inaapi at nagiging kalabang bansa ng US. Ang Pilipinas, wala!
2. Sasakupin daw tayo ng Unyong Sobyet. Deterrent daw ang US bases sa pananalakay militar at nukleyar ng ibang bansa. Sa kabaliktaran, magnet sa atake ng mga kalaban ng US. Hindi ba’t unang inatake ng Japan ang US bases?
3. Bagbagsak daw ang ekonomya ng Gitnang Luzon at Pilipinas kung aalisin ang US bases. May 20 taon ng napaalis ang base militar, nangyari ba ito?
4. Kailangan daw ang US bases para sa modernization ng AFP. Ilang dekada na ang US bases,  namodernisa ba ang AFP? Mas importanteng punto, modernisasyon laban kanino – laban sa mga Pilipinong nakikibaka para sa kasarinlan at demokrasya?

Napakarami pang propaganda at kasinungalingan ang binakbak natin noon.

Nailantad natin ang totoo. Ang base militar ay kasangkapan ng US para protektahan ang kanyang pang-ekonomyang interes at pampulitikang dominasyon sa Pilipinas at daigdig at bilang lunsaran ng panghihimasok ng US sa Pilipinas, Tsina at iba pang bansa. Kailangan ng US ang base militar gaya ng kailangan ng magnanakaw ng baril na itututok sa kanyang biktima.

Dapat ipaglaban ng mamamayan ang pambansang kasarinlan at demokrasya kung nais nitong lumaya sa dayuhang mananakop. Kailangang makintal ang makabayang kamalayan at diwang palaban upang mapag-isa at mapakilos ang mamamayan.

Mamayagpag ang kaisipang kolonyal kung hindi babakbakin ang kasinungalingan at hindi ilalantad ang  malakolonyal na relasyon ng US at Pilipinas at ang salot na hatid ng US bases. Dapat ding ipakita na kayang tumindig at umunlad ng bansa kahit wala na ang US bases. Higit pa, kailangan mulatin ang malaking mayorya ng mamamayan sa mapagsamantala at mapang-aping katangian ng imperyalismo at sa pangangailangang wakasan ang dominasyon ng imperyalismong US sa bansa.

Maitatala sa kasaysayan na nag-ambag sa makabayang pagmumulat ang mga akda ni Jose Maria Sison laluna ang Struggle for National Democracy at Philippine Society and Revolution, ang mga talumpati at sulatin nina Senador Recto, Tanada. Diokno, Constantino, ang Bases of our Insecurity ni Prof. Roland Simbulan, ang mga pulyeto, praymer,  lathalain ng iba’t-ibang lihim at hayag na organisasyon, mga makabayang tula, pinta, awit, sayaw, stageplay, pelikula at iba pang likhang sining.

Nagbunga ang di mabilang na mga pagbabasa at pag-aaral, mga discussion groups, room-to-room, house-to-house, forum, symposium, pulong bayan, misang bayan, teatrong bayan, konsyerto, mga kulturang pagtatanghal. Kung walang pagmumulat sa pagiging makabayan, mamayagpag ang kaisipang kolonyal sa panahon ng makasaysayang araw ng Setyembre 16.

Lumaki at lumakas ang pwersa ng pagtutol at paglaban bunga ng mga inilantad na isyu laban sa base militar at ng pagkamulat ng mamamayan.

Sa katunayan, maraming rebisyon ang isinagawa sa US-RP MBA para pahupain ang mga pagtutol at protesta laban sa US at base militar nito.

Talaan ng rebisyon ng US-RP MBA sa gitna ng lumalakas na pagtutol ng mamamayan:

Gayunman, pinanatili sa saligan ang walang patumanggang paggamit ng pwersang militar ng US sa mga base at instalasyon sa bansa. Dahil sa matalas na paglalantad at pagmumulat, nawalang bisa ang panlilinlang ng mga renegosasyon at rebisyon. Lalo pang dumami ang namulat at tumutol.

Pakikibaka at tagumpay laban sa diktadurang US-Marcos

Mahalagang salik ng tagumpay ang magiting at matagumpay na pakikibaka ng mamamayan laban sa pasistang diktadurang US-Marcos. Inugnay ng mga progresibo ang pakikibaka laban sa  diktadurang Marcos at pagsuporta ng US sa diktadura para panatiliin ang mga base militar nito.

Mulat at mahusay na naikawing ng kilusang pambansa demokratiko kapwa ang pakikibaka at pagbubuo ng nagkakaisang hanay laban sa pasismo sa pakikibaka laban sa imperyalismong US at sa pyudalismo bilang panlipunang base ng imperyalismo.

Ipinataw ni Marcos ang batas militar para ibayong  magkamal ng yaman at kapangyarihan para sa sarili, mga kroni at imperyalismong US. Todong inayudahan ng US ang diktadurang Marcos para mapanatili ang base militar at pang-ekonomyang kontrol sa Pilipinas.

Hindi lang masa at panggitnanng pwersa, marami-raming elemento ng naghaharing uri na anti-Marcos ang nagbukas ng isip o nakumbinsi na hindi lang diktadurang Marcos ang dapat patalsikin kundi pati ang US bases. Gayunman, mas maraming elemento pa rin ng naghaharing uri ang naghahabol na kunin ang suporta ng US para sila ang ihalili kay Marcos, kapalit ang pananatili ng mga base mlitar ng US.

Sa katunayan, si Cory Aquino ay pumirma noong 1984 sa kasunduan ng isang Convenors’ Group na ang isang panawagan ay paalisin ang mga base militar matapos ang Setyembre 1991. Ngunit binawi niya ito matapos magmaniobra ang US na gawin siyang manok panabong kay Marcos.

Nang mapatalsik ang diktadurang Marcos, nangampanya ang Bayan, Partido ng Bayan at Campaign for Sovereign Philippines na ipasok sa Saligang Batas ang prubisyon na hindi na ieextend ang bases treaty at aalisin na ang US bases sa taong 1991.

Sa dikta ng gubyernong US at Aquino, tinanggihan ng mayorya ng Constitutional Commission ang naturang panukala. Sa halip, inilagay sa Konstitusyon, Seksyon 24, Arikulo 18, ang prubisyong nagbubukas sa ekstensyon ng mga base militar pagkatapos ng 1991.

Gayunman, nagamit natin kinalaunan ang sekundaryong aspeto ng prubisyon, ang tuwirang pagbabawal sa armas nukleyar at ang pag-aalis sa mga base militar maliban magkaroon ng panibagong tratado na pagtitibayin ng Senado.

Pagbubuo ng mga alyansa laban sa base militar

Importanteng salik din sa tagumpay ang pagbubuo at pagkilos ng iba’t-ibang tipo at anyo ng alyansa laban sa base militar at imperyalismong US. Sa mga alyansa, pormal at di pormal, nagtutulungan ang   mga manggagawa, magsasaka, petiburgesyang lunsod, pambansang burgesya at hindi iilang elemento ng naghaharing uri na kontra-nukleyar o kontra sa base militar.

Hayaan niyong pasadahan ko ang ilang tampok na alyansang may pambansang katangian.

Taong 1946 nakapagpanalo ng anim na kongresista ang Democratic Alliance na binubuo ng lumang Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas at Nacionalista Party ni Sergio Osmena. Ngunit diniskwalipika at hinarangan ang pag-upo ng anim sa Kongreso para maipapasa ng gubyernong US at Roxas ang Bell Trade Act at Parity Rights.

Mula 1949, nanguna si Sen. Claro M. Recto, kumatawan sa mithiin ng pambansang burgesya, sa pag-atake sa US-RP MBA, Mutual Defense Treaty at Parity Rights. Naging katuwang niya si Sen. Lorenzo Tanada sa pagbubuo ng Nationalist Citizen’s Party na sumabak at natalo sa halalang panguluhan noong 1957.

Itinatag noong Pebrero 8, 1967 ang Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism na nanguna sa malawak na hanay laban sa base militar at imperyalismong US. Pinamunuan ang MAN ni Sen. Tanada bilang tagapangulo at ni Prof. Sison bilang pangkalahatang kalihim.

Disyembre 26, 1968 at Marso 21, 1969, muling itinatag ang PKP at ang Bagong Hukbong Bayan. Noong Abril 24, 1973, pinasinayaan ang National Democratic Front. Isinulong ng CPP-NPA-NDF ang armadong rebolusyon laban sa imperyalismong US at papet na estado nito.

Noong 26, 1981, pinanguluhan ni Sen. Tanada ang pagtatatag Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition.  Noong 1984, naganap ang kauna-unahang matagumpay na welgang bayan sa Bataan bilang protesta sa pagtatayo ng Bataan Nulear Power Plant sa prubinsya. Iniugnay ang protesta sa paglaban sa US bases.

Noong 1983, pinamunuan ni Sen. Jose Diokno at kasunod ng anak niyang si Cookie ang Anti-Bases Coalition. Sinamahan ito nina Sen. Tanada, JBL Reyes, Salvador Lopez at mga progresibo.

Matapos patayin si Sen. Ninoy Aquino noong Agosto 21, 1983, nagkaroon ng daluyong ang malalaking kilos-protesta. Naglitawan ang iba’t-ibang organisasyon ng batayang masa, panggitnang pwersa at reaksyunaryong anti-Marcos. Nagkaroon ng iba’t-ibang inisyatiba para buuin ang iba’t-ibang alyansa laban sa diktadurang Marcos at laban sa suporta ng US sa diktadura.

Naging aktibo ang mga progresibo sa pagbubuo at pagpapalakas ng Lakas ng Bayan. Nagsanib ang Pwersa ng Demokratikong Pilipino at Laban. Naglabas ang PDP-Laban ng pusisyon pabor sa pagpapaalis ng US bases.

Taong 1984 nang tipunin ang Convenors Group nina Tanada, Jaime Ongpin at Cory Aquino upang  magbalakangkas ng programa ng pagkilos at alternatibo laban sa diktadurang Marcos. Bahagi ng programa na pinagkaisahan ang pag-aalis ng US bases. Nireject ni Doy Laurel, isa sa nangungunang presidentiable, ang Convenors Group dahil sa pusisyong anti-bases. Umatras si Aquino sa pusisyong anti-bases nang kausapin ito ng US at magdeklara ng pagtakbo noong Dec. 1985 sa snap presidential election laban kay Marcos.

Binuo noong 1984 ng mga pambansang demokrata kasama ng mga demokratikong liberal ang National Alliance for Justice Freedom.

Noong Mayo 5, 1985, itinatag ang ngayo’s pinakamalakas at militanteng alyansa sa bansa, ang Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.

Binuo ng BAYAN, iba pang blokeng pulitikal at ni Sen Tanada at RC Constantino. noong 1988 ang Anti-Baseng Kilusang Demokratiko. Pinayungan nito ang paglaban sa panahon ng review ng US-RP Military Bases Agreement. Noong 1989, nagdeklara si Sen. Joseph Estrada na sasamahan niya sina Sen. Salonga at Tanada sa paglaban sa US bases. Nasurpresa ang di iilan, sa pagtindig ni Sen. Enrile laban sa panibagong US bases treaty.

Noong 1991 nabuo ang pinakamalawak na alyansa, anti-treaty movement, sa panahon na nagaganap ang negosasyon ng guybernong US at Pilipinas para sa panibagong US bases treaty. Tuwiran o di man tuwiran, naging bahagi ng anti-treaty movement ang lahat ng mga uri at sector na kritikal at kontra sa panibagong US bases treaty, pabor man sila o hindi sa base militar.

Noong Setyembre 12, nagdeklara ng national ceasefire ang NDF upang suportahan ang mga senador sa magiging pasya nila laban sa panibagong bases treaty.

Sustinidong kampanya, militante at malalaking aksyong masa sa huling 5 taon.

Mapagpasyang salik ang mga aksyong protesta sa tagumpay dahil ito ang nagtatampok ng pagtutol ng malawak na bilang ng mamamayan. Ginapi nito ang anumang tangka ng gubyernong US at Arroyo na palabasing sang-ayon ang mamamayan sa pananatili ng US bases. Nagsilbing pangumbinsi at presyur ito upang magpasya ang Senado laban sa panibagong tratado sa US bases.

Pinangunahan ng BAYAN, mga kasaping organisasyon at mga alyado nito ang sustindong kampanya, mga militante at malalaking aksyong protesta laban sa US bases. Mula 1985 hanggang 1991, nagpursigi na ang Bayan sa malaganap na edukasyong pampulitika, propaganda, pakikipag-alyansa at mga militanteng aksyon laban sa US bases.

Bukod sa  makasaysayang mga petsa, Enero 30, Marso 16, Hunyo 12, Hulyo 4, Nobyembre 30, sinasalubong at sinusundan ng protesta ang mga upisyal ng US at barkong bumibisita sa Pilipinas. Pinakatampok ang mga sakbayan at lakbayan na pinangunahan ng UP, ng LFS at ng BAYAN.

Ang LFS halos linggu-linggo may aksyon sa US embassy. May panahon na araw-araw may protesta bago ang mga importanteng petsa o kapag may bumibisitang upisyal at barkong pandigma ang US. Inspirado ng militansya ng FQS, hindi pumapayag at nag-aalma ang mga kabataa’t istudyante kapag humarang ang pulisya. Hindi alintana ang palo ng truncheon at teargas, gumigitgit ang mga kabataan hanggang makaalpas sa hanay ng pulis at makarating sa gate ng US embassy. Puntirya palagi ang zeal ng US embassy. Lahat na ginawa doon, binato ng bugok na itlog, ng pinturang pula. Nilagyan ng X. Nilagyan ng notice of eviction. Pinukpok ng martilyo, kaya lang di nabasag. Kaya sumunod na linggo, minaso, ayun nabasag. Hindi mabilang ang sinunog ng mga aktibista na American flag.

Tumindi ang mga protesta sa US embassy  at Malakanyang sa panahon ng review ng US bases noong 1988. Sinindihan nito ang malawak na debate sa midya at kahit saan, kung pananatiliin o paalisin ang US bases.

Mainam sa puntong ito na bigyang tuon natin sa pagtalakay ang taong 1991.

Nangingibabaw pa rin ang impluwensya ng US, alam nating hindi magiging madali ang laban para sa pagpapatalsik sa mga US bases sa pagpasok taong 1991.

• Mayorya ng mamamayan ay pabor pa rin sa US bases, ayon sa survey, kahit pa pababa ang bilang ng mga pro-bases.
• Tahasang maka-US si Pres. Aquino, ang AFP, PNP at matataas na upisyal at determinado sila na itulak ang pagpapanatili ng US bases.
• May pagbasa tayo na pabor o malamang pumabor sa extensyon ng base militar ang malaking mayorya ng mga senador, mahirap makakuha ng 8 senador noon.
• Hindi madaling makapagmobilisa ng malaking bilang laban sa base militar kahit pa maiingay ang mga militante. Abala ang mga tao sa pang-araw-araw na usapin ng kahirapan.

Plinano ng BAYAN na pagtuunan ang taktikal na laban sa ikalawang hati ng taon para ipresyur ang Senado na itakwil ang  panibagong tratado sa US bases. Pero nagpaplano rin tayo ng kagyat at malakihang welgang bayan sakaling pagtibayin ng Senado ang US bases.

Sa pagtakbo ng mga araw at ng labanan laluna nang maganap ang negosasyon, lumaki ng lumaki ang pusiblidad ng tagumpay dahil sa mga paborableng kalagayan at pagpupunyagi ng mga pwersang anti-bases at anti-treaty.

1. Batbat ng krisis, nasa resesyon ang ekonomya ng US noong 1991. Tinalo ni Bill Clinton si Bush sa linyang “it’s the economy stupid” kahit pa namayagpag si George Bush, Sr. sa gera laban sa Iraq. Dahil sa krisis walang maibigay na malaking military economic aid ang US sa Pilipinas bilang suhol sa 10 taong extension ng US bases. Isa pa, nakita sa Iraq war ang moderno at mabilisang paraan ng deployment ng militar.
2. Gumuho na ang Unyong Sobyet, inihudyat ng pagguho ng Berlin Wall noong 1989. Nagpapahina ito sa argumento laban sa inimbentong banta ng pananakop ng Unyong Sobyet.
3. Malaganap na ang diskuntento sa rehimeng Aquino dahil sa patuloy na kahirapan,  korupsyon at mga paglabag sa karapatang pantao. Naglalaho na noon ang Cory magic na anumang bagay na basbasan ni Cory, susuportahan ng mayorya ng mga Pilipino. Sa katunayan, higit 80,000 ang namobilisa ng BAYAN at ng iba pang bloke sa martsa rali mula Liwasang Bonifacio noong Pebrero 26 pangunahin dahil sa isyu ng kahirapan. May nasisilip tayong momentum ng kilusang masa laban sa kahirapan at laban sa rehimeng Aquino.
4. Sobrang pambabraso at pambabarat ang ginawa ng Armitage panel sa negosasyon. Pumosturang matigas sina Manglapuz para humingi ng upa – $825 milyon bawat taon. Pero brinaso sila ni Armitage at pinapayag sa $203 M annual military aid, hindi upa, best effort pa. Mas mababa pa ito sa naunang taunang $481M aid. Sumaling sa national pride ang pambabraso at iba pang pang-iinsulto nila Armitage. Hindi iilan ang pro-US bases ang nadisguto sa naging takbo at kinalabasan ng negosasyon.

Sa panahon ng negosasyon, sumikad ang kampanyang anti-US bases at anti-treaty. Isinagawa ng iba’t-ibang organisasyon ng BAYAN, ng ABAKADA, anti-treaty movement, mga kabataa’t istudyante, guro, kababaihan, mga manggagawa, magsasaka, taong simbahan at iba pang prupesyunal ang sunud-sunod at araw-araw na mga pagmuumlat, aksyong protesta, pamemresyur at lobbying sa Senado.

Naging higit na mainit, matalas at malaganap ang debateng pampubliko sa mas midya, mga radio, TV talkshow, mga forum at kahit saang talakayan at kwentuhan.

Kung hindi ako nagkakamali ng alala, ayon sa SWS survey, ilang araw bago ang Setyembre 16, halos hati ang mamamayan sa pagitan ng pabor at kontra sa US bases.

Nanawagan ng “people power rally” si Presidente Cory Aquino pabor sa US bases. Ginamit ang poder at rekurso ng estado para sa rali sa Agosto 10, pero wala pang 100,000 ang namobilisa ni Cory sa Luneta. Nalantad na hinakot at tinakot pa ang mga dumalo, karamihan ay mga empleyado ng gubyerno. Mabilis nalusaw ang rali nang bumuhos ang ulan.

Kahit kulang isang linggo ang nalalabi para maghanda, nagpasya ang BAYAN at ABAKADA na tapatan ang rali ni Aquino noong Agosto 10. Pasilip sa pag-agos ng sentimyentong makabayan at national pride, higit 45,000 ang namobilisa ng kilusang anti-base sa Liwasang Bonifacio. Nanatili ang bulto ng mga tao kahit umulan, mainit na naninindigan laban sa US bases.

Sa makasaysayang araw ng Setyembred 16, humugos ang higit 80,000 mga tao, mayorya ay mula sa BAYAN, patungong Senado, nananawagang itakwil ang US bases treaty. Nagmartsa, nagsaya at nagsayaw tayo sa panalo ng sambayanan laban sa panibagong tratado sa US bases. Sa botong 12 laban 11 senador, nanalo ang resolusyon laban sa panbiagong tratado sa base militar.

Bilang pagsusuma, narito ang mga aral sa matagumpay na laban sa US bases.

1. Makapangyarihan ang imperyalismong US at papet na gubyerno nito. Pero higit na makapangyarihan ang soberanong mamamayan. Kapag sila ay namulat at sama-samang lumaban, magagapi nila kahit ang kapangyarihan ng US at ng reaksyunaryong papet nito.
2. Susi ang pagmumulat sa mamamayan upang mapakilos sila para ipaglaban nila mismo ang kanilang pambansa at demokratikong interes. Kailangang bakbakin ang mga kasinungalingan, maging mapanuri kaninong interes nagsisilbi ang isang patakaran o kaasyusan at pukawin ang mamamayan na gamitin ang kapangyarihan ng sama-samang pagkilos.
3. Kailangan ang mulat at mahusay na pag-uugnay ang mga isyu laban sa pasismo o burukrata-kapitalismo, imperyalismo at pyudalismo. Mahusay na naiugnay ng mga progresibo ang isyu ng US bases sa mapagsamantala at marahas na katangian ng imperyalismo at sa pag-ayuda sa diktadurang Marcos mapanatili lamang ang US bases at kontrol sa ekonomya.
4. Mahalagang salik sa anumang tagumpay ang pagbubuo ng malawak na hanay laban sa US bases o anupamang napapanahong isyu at laban para sa interes ng mamamayan. Kailangang palakasin ang pwersa at alyansa ng uring mangagawa at magsasaka, kabigin ang suporta at paglahok ng panggitnang pwersa, kunin ang pinakamaraming pusibleng alyado sa hanay ng mga naghaharing uri upang gapiin ang punong papet ng imperyalismong US.
5. Mapagpasya ang iba’t-ibang anyo ng protesta laluna ang malalaking militanteng aksyon dahil ito ang nagtatampok ng pagtutol ng malawak na bilang ng mamamayan. Ginapi nito ang anumang tangka ng gubyernong US at Arroyo na palabasing sang-ayon ang mamamayan sa pananatili ng US bases. Nagsilbing pangumbinsi at presyur ito upang magpasya ang Senado laban sa panibagong tratado sa US bases.

Maraming salamat po at mabuhay ang sambayanang Pilipino! #

Special Release

September 9, 2011

There was also US intervention in the peace talks between the National Democratic Front of the Philippines and the Philippine government as in those between the latter and the MILF.

Confidential and secret cables from the US embassies in Manila and The Hague in the Netherlands show how three governments worked together to designate as “terrorist” Jose Maria Sison, chief political consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in peace talks with the Manila government. The move may have been part of Philippine government’s pressure tactics on the NDFP during the peace negotiations.

Sison, the Communist Party of the Philippines and New People’s Army were included in the US terror list in August 2002, right after the Manila visit of then Secretary of State Colin Powell. He was soon after also included on the EU “terrorist list” of organizations and individuals upon the requests of the US and PH governments. His bank account was subsequently frozen, denying him social benefits accorded to refugees living in the Netherlands.

Terrorist-listing as leverage

“The US, Dutch and Philippine governments engaged in acts that were inimical to the peace talks between the NDFP and the Philippine government.   The Philippine government used the terrorist listing as leverage against the NDFP. There was intense pressure on the NDFP’s chief political consultant, resulting in his arrest and detention. The matter of the terrorist listing became a prejudicial question in the peace talks.” said Bayan secretary general Renato M. Reyes, Jr.

In a 2005 meeting with US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, Foreign Affair Secretary Alberto Romulo said that the NPA’s “delisting as a foreign terrorist organization depended on a demonstration or proof of sincerity… such as entering into a cease-fire or new peace talks.”

The same leveraging was echoed by Presidential Peace Adviser Annabelle Abaya in a discussion with US Ambassador Kristie Kenney in November 2009. Abaya noted that Sison’s delisting by the EU “would eliminate some of the GRP’s leverage over him” and that “the GRP preferred for Sison to remain designated as a terrorist” but admitted that “talks had not succeeded during his time in the EU list”.

“US intervention, undertaken through the terror listing, had a very negative impact on the peace talks.  It was a move that was aimed at forcing the NDFP to surrender to the Philippine government, even without addressing the roots of the armed conflict. This negates the inherent character of the talks which were primarily aimed at finding solutions to the root causes of the armed struggle. Arroyo appeared more interested in getting the NDFP to surrender than in addressing the substantial issues in the peace negotiations,” Reyes said.

“The Aquino government should learn from this negative experience and not fall for the machinations of the US government,” he added.

After a long legal battle, Sison was eventually removed from the EU “terrorist list” in November 2009 based on a ruling by the European Court of First Instance.

However, prior to the delisting, the US and Dutch governments did everything they could to keep Sison on the list, according to the secret cables.  Sison was arrested and detained by the Dutch government in 2007 on suspicion of ordering the killings of two people in the Philippines. Sison was eventually released and the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.

US opposed de-listing despite lack of evidence

In a confidential 2009 cable from the US embassy in Manila, US ambassador Kristie Kenney vehemently opposed the delisting of Sison by the EU, even if no new information or evidence was available to support his retention in the list.

“The absence of new information does not negate the very significant information we have had for some time regarding Sison.  If Sison and the NPA were to reject their past actions and pledge not to engage in such activity again, there might be some grounds for revisiting their designations, but on the contrary they refuse to agree to a ceasefire and continue to carry out kidnappings and killings.  Under the circumstances, removal of Sison’s terrorist designation is inadvisable,” Kenney said.

In a secret cable from the Netherlands in May 2009, the US embassy in The Hague sought advice from the US State Department on how keep Sison on the terror list amid the looming decision of the EU Court of First Instance nullifying his inclusion in the list. The cable said that the Dutch government was seeking US assistance because Sison was included in the terror list upon the request of the US government.

The US embassy in The Hague cited the inability of the Dutch police, intelligence services and the US embassy in Manila to provide any new information that would justify keeping Sison in the list.

“The absence of new evidence or information came despite the massive seizure of NDF documents and equipment during the raids on the NDF office and houses of NDF personnel by Dutch authorities in August 2007. The Dutch police seized everything they could get their hands on and still they could not produce a shred of evidence to support the terrorist listing,” Reyes explained.

In another cable from The Hague dated October 2009, the US embassy again sought new information that could justify the retention of Sison in the terror list. The cable described a bilateral meeting between US and Dutch officials on how to appeal an adverse EU ruling. The Dutch and US officials feared that the UK and German governments opposed the Dutch position and that majority of countries in the EU would not likely support a Dutch appeal.

The US embassy in The Hague also said that information provided by the Philippine government linking Sison to money-laundering activities was “insufficient to support prosecution in the Netherlands”.

In a separate cable issued from the US embassy in Manila, US authorities hinted at the possibility of rendition or deportation of Sison from the Netherlands to the Philippines, but cited as a stumbling block Sison’s status as a judicially recognized political refugee under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. ###

Paninindigan January 2010
By Arnold Padilla

As the May elections draw near, the electorate has yet to hear any substantial presentation of what the main protagonists in the upcoming national polls intend to do with the country’s most pressing problems. Consider, for instance, that whoever becomes the next President will have to run a government that is almost P5 trillion deep in debt and with a budget deficit of P300 billion or more. Thus, whatever promises about providing for the basic needs of the people especially the poor are empty rhetoric unless candidates disclose how they intend to address the worsening fiscal situation.

Amid the election fever, the country’s fiscal situation is like a deadly time bomb silently ticking away.

Debt accumulation

Every second, the country’s debt is growing by P8,394.54. That’s the average pace in the last nine years and it is still accelerating. Last year, it was expanding by P8,462.36 per second. The rate at which the debt stock is accumulating is indeed alarmingly high.

As of October last year, the total debt of the national government including its outstanding and contingent liabilities was about P4.99 trillion. Outstanding debt refers to unpaid obligations while contingent debt includes government guarantees to state-owned corporations and financial institutions.

At the end of 2000 before the current Arroyo administration took over, the total debt was P2.65 trillion. It means that under the incumbent regime, government’s debt increased by P2.34 trillion. Such huge amount of accumulated debt makes President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo the heaviest borrower among all post-EDSA presidents.

In addition, the domestic economy despite the aggressive hype about its growth by the Arroyo administration is not coping with the rapid accumulation of government debt. From 2001 to 2008, government’s annual outstanding debt as a portion of the yearly gross domestic product (GDP) was pegged at 67.8 percent. Comparing it with its immediate predecessor, the Estrada administration (1998 – 2000), the debt-to-GDP ratio was at 60.1 percent. Note that the GDP under Arroyo supposedly expanded by 4.8 percent per year and only 3.5 percent per year under deposed President Joseph Estrada.

For creditors, the higher the debt-to-GDP ratio, the higher the risk of default or inability to make future payments. But for the great majority of the people, it means that the economy, already hampered by structural issues of highly skewed distribution of wealth, would be further unable to provide opportunities for decent living.

Impact on the people

Current debt levels mean that each of the 92.23 million Filipinos is now practically in debt by around P54,093.46 to government’s creditors. And at the rate that government debt is growing since 2001, each Filipino would have a debt of about P56,965.97 by the end of 2010.

But the direct impact on the people of this huge debt can be measured by how much pressure it puts on public resources. The Arroyo administration has shelled out more than twice the amount it borrowed from creditors. From 2001 to 2009 (until November only), government has so far paid its creditors a total of P5.06 trillion for interest and principal payments.

It means that every second, the country is giving out P17,970.90 to pay for government debts. It also means that each Filipino has practically shelled out P54,832.39 to pay for such debts and yet still owes government’s creditors almost the same amount.

Every year since 2001, the amount of debt servicing has been equivalent to 42.7 percent of annual government expenditures and 67.4 percent of annual revenues. Stated more simply, it means that for every P10 that government spends more than P4 go to its creditors while out of every P10 it collects from the people’s taxes and other revenue measures, almost P7 are used to pay for its debt.

More money that go to debt servicing means less money that go to the people for social services. To compare, in 2008 (latest available data), debt servicing for interest and principal payments comprised 47.6 percent of total public expenditures. Education, culture, and manpower development accounted for only 14.5 percent; social security, welfare and employment, 5.5 percent; health, 1.2 percent; land distribution, 0.3 percent; housing and community development, 0.02 percent; and other social services, 0.1 percent. Even if we add the share of these social services together, they will still not comprise even half of public expenditures that went to debt servicing.

Note that the public expenditures for health, education, and housing cited above include spending for police and military schools, hospitals, and housing programs. Thus, actual spending that directly benefited the civilian poor are much smaller. Unfortunately, such data for the said period are not available.

Budget gap and debt trap

Government justifies its heavy borrowing by pointing to the budget deficit, or the gap between its revenues and expenditures. To bridge this gap, government is forced to borrow. And just how big is this gap? As of November 2009, the budget deficit is pegged at P272.52 billion – already an all-time high in absolute terms (and the December figures have not yet been accounted for). It is also P22.52 billion higher than what government anticipated for the whole 2009.

From January to November last year, total revenues was at P1.02 trillion but total expenditures was bigger at P1.29 trillion. To finance the deficit, government raised P541.02 billion through borrowing during the period, mostly through the foreign and domestic bond markets. But if government’s deficit is only P272.52 billion, why did it borrow almost twice the amount? Because portion of the borrowings will cover not only interest payments (which is 20.1 percent of the reported expenditures) but also for principal amortization, which reached P332.91 billion during the 11-month period. In other words, government borrows not only to bridge the deficit gap but to settle as well its old and existing debts.

This cycle goes on and on, worsening in every turn.

What must be done?

One way is to raise revenues. But it does not necessarily mean new (such as the text tax) and higher taxes as the Arroyo administration repeatedly claims. There are numerous ways to raise public resources without subjecting the people to additional burden – curb corruption and bureaucratic wastage, reverse trade and investment liberalization, improve tax collection efficiency, collect proper taxes from the biggest foreign and local corporations instead of giving over generous fiscal incentives, to name a few.

In fact, even onerous taxes such as the 12 percent value added tax (VAT) especially on oil, power, and other essential goods and services can be scrapped and still government can raise needed revenues.

But raising revenues in a pro-people way is just one aspect of the urgent fiscal reforms that we need today. Unless we plug the largest fiscal hole that is debt servicing, our resources will continue to be drained. Thus, all presidentiables must also outline how they intend to address the country’s debt crisis that has been raging on for almost three decades now.

More concretely, what do candidates intend to do with Executive Order (EO) 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987 that provides for automatic debt servicing at the expense of social services? What do they intend to do with odious debts or those debts incurred by past and present administrations that were tainted with corruption and anomalies ala-NBN-ZTE? Or those that only caused death and destruction of livelihood for marginalized communities such as the San Roque Dam?

These are some of the most pressing questions that those who want to steer government in the next six years (if Arroyo’s Charter change scheme will not push through) will have to answer now. ###

Paninindigan January 2010
By Meggie Nolasco, Philippine Climate Watch Alliance (PCWA)

From December 7-19, 2010, hundreds of thousands of activists, delegates, representatives of different sectors and civil society organizations gathered in Copenhagen Denmark to participate inside and outside the year’s biggest and one of the most important international events, the 15th Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC.

If anything was arrived at during the COP15, it was the conclusion that the climate negotiations in Copenhagen was not a negotiation among equals and was never an international negotiation for the common good, the welfare of the people and the environment. It was a political arena where the superpowers, headed by imperialist US, imposed their interests and where the puppet governments of developing nations abandoned the interests of their nations.

No legally binding commitment to reduce emission

Instead of stating a legally binding commitment for the reduction of emissions to levels advised by science and dictated by social equity, the Copenhagen Accord, does not commit the developed countries and biggest polluters to specific emission cuts targets at a specific deadline thus putting humanity nearer to the brink of world catastrophe.

Studies show that industrialized nations are responsible for 80% of the world’s historical emissions in which at least a 40% reduction below 1990 levels of the world’s carbon emissions by 2020 is needed to avert runaway climate change. Many vulnerable nations, meanwhile, are calling for a 1.5 degrees Celsius limit, as a 2 degree Celsius limit already spells death and devastation to many African nations and small island states.

The main reason for the failure to have a legally-binding agreement for carbon emission reduction is the continued refusal of rich countries headed by the United States to cut their carbon emission according to what is globally necessary.

The US, however, is not alone in railroading run-away emission targets. Its allies Japan, Australia and European Union have also pressed for individually set emission targets, with commitments falling around measly 5%, 8% and 20% carbon reduction by 2020, respectively.

Undemocratic process

The very process in which the accord was agreed on was undemocratic and in violation of the principle of transparency and equality in international relations.

On the eve of the summit of the climate talks, US President Obama held a press conference and announced that the US and BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have already reached a consensus and that 25 other heads of states already concurred on a draft Copenhagen agreement, disregarding the progress and efforts of other countries in the two weeks of negotiations.

As a come-on to developing nations, the accord supposedly commits the developed countries to raise climate funds from public and private institutions to vulnerable nations.  In the deal the US and capitalist countries committed to create a climate fund to “aid” developing countries worth US$30 billion over three years and to work towards a US$100 billion a year by 2020. However, these funds can hardly be called help as they are in a form of loans that will further indebt nations and cause greater poverty to vulnerable nations. Further more, this is way below the sum needed by developing nations to adapt to the effects of climate change.

Market-based mechanisms

While the main polluters are not bound to reduce their emissions, the accord also favors the big corporations and international private banks by the introduction of profit-oriented and market-based solutions to climate change.

One such mechanism is the REDD Plus or reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation which will put the protection and management of our forests resources to the hands of big corporations, including the logging and mining companies. These private companies will be given financial assistance and rewards for supposedly “conserving” in the developing countries.

Puppetry to the US

Instead of protecting the national interest by standing firmly with other poor countries demanding that rich countries led by US commit to an effective, fair, and legally binding climate deal, the Philippines was among the first countries to support the accord. By doing so, the Arroyo government showed that it is more willing to follow the dictates of the US than assert the interest and welfare of the country.

This is alarming as our recent experience with typhoon Ondoy and tropical storm Pepeng, as well as the ongoing El Niño show how extreme weather events caused the death and destruction of livelihood of our people, especially the poorest and most marginalized sectors.

The Copenhagen Accord is a weak and spurious agreement which impedes countries and people of the world to come up with genuine climate agreements and solutions. It claims to curb carbon emission and address global warming but in reality, it will lead to runaway global emissions that doom the world to more environmental destruction and people sufferings. ###

Paninindigan January 2010
By Renato M. Reyes, Jr.

United States Ambassador to the Philippines Kristie Kenney left the Philippines on January 25. A new ambassador, Harry Thomas, Jr., is set to take her place. The changing of diplomats hardly signals any change in US foreign policy towards the Philippines.

Just as Kenney was leaving, the Department of Foreign Affairs announced the holding of another round of Balikatan exercises from February to March. The yearly war-games will have a “humanitarian” component, citing the damage done on the country by recent typhoons as basis.

Throughout 2009, top US officials have also visited the country, starting from US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Arroyo also met with US president Barack Obama in July 2009.

Do these events signal warmer ties between the Philippines and its former colonial master? Or do this string of events point to the reinforcement of the uneuqal ties that bind the two countries, even under the Obama era?

A July 2009 report of the Washington-based think-tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) may give some insights on how the US views the Philippines today.

The CSIS, which describes itself as a “bipartisan, nonprofit organization” founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, is “dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation”. The institution claims to be “one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions.”

In its July 2009 report entitled “US Alliances and Emerging Partnerships in Southeast Asia: Out of the Shadows”, the CSIS gives proposals to the newly-elected Obama administration on how to achieve US interests in Southeast Asia.

One of its recommendations is that the US must “seek to reinvigorate its engagement of alliance partners Thailand and the Philippines to test the possibilities of greater strategic convergence and cooperation.” It also sought to develop bilateral relations to complement US engagement in regional bodies like the ASEAN.

The report however laments the “legal and other constraints” in the “development” of US-RP defense relations, which includes the presence of US troops in the Philippines. There is recognition of the controversies sparked by the Subic Rape case and the opposition to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

“Still healthy but fraught with difficulty”

The report believes that US-RP alliance is “in surprisingly good health” and that it is “in its best shape in 20 years.” However, the report cited some recent problems which the CSIS thought put some strain on US-RP relations.

The CSIS describes US-RP relations as “fraught with controversy and difficulty”. It blamed a “minority of Leftist politicians, media, and demonstrations outside the US embassy” for raising questions about US-RP relations and “constraining the development of ties. “

The report played up what it believes as predominantly pro-American sentiments in the country. The report condescendingly describes Filipinos as not being able to live without the Americans. “At a fundamental level, Philippine interlocutors affirmed that Philippine citizens almost universally consider the alliance with the United States to be not only welcome and successful, but also an essential element of Philippine life that they cannot imagine doing without.”

It also cited an unnamed 2007 poll finding that “Filipinos rank first in trusting the US to act responsibly in the world, first in disagreeing that the US is playing the role of world policeman too much, first in supporting long-term US military bases overseas, and third in feeling that the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problems.”

Basing without bases

Yet despite this alleged pro-US sentiment that is seemingly favorable to the continued US intervention, the report advised against making permanent military bases as the focus of US defense policy towards the Philippines.

The think-tank, while not opposed to the idea of permanent military basing noted that it would be politically untenable for the Philippines to allow the return of permanent bases, citing resistance to the idea for the “foreseeable future.”

The report said that with the increase in US exercises and activities, a former US ambassador had described US troop presence in the Philippines as being semi-continuous. The CSIS also praised the Philippines for being the “leading supplier” of new US Cooperative Security Locations (CSL) or facilities to which U.S. forces have “ready, regular, and predictable access but of which host nations retain ownership.” The report cited refurbished facilities in Clark and Subic as the potential cites of these CSLs.

True enough, these former bases are reportedly already being accessed by American military contractors like Blackwater and Corporate Training Unit (CTU), both of which operate in Iraq.

The report actually reinforces earlier analysis that the Philippines continues to provide the US “virtual basing” opportunities. What’s “new” is that it concedes there will be great difficulties if the US government pushes the return of formal bases, probably because of the protest movement.

CSIS Recommendations

Another recommendation of the CSIS deals with free-trade. “The United States needs to be prepared to react to potential Philippine protectionism, endemic corruption, and position within international economic forums such as APEC, the World Trade Organization, and ASEAN, with steady and patient engagement.”

While acknowledging that US-RP relations are crucial in protecting American interests against emerging powers like China, the report advises US policymakers not to suggest in word in or deed that US-RP relations are aimed at third party like China. “To be comfortable to Manila, strategic relations should be defined, oriented, and couched in constructive terms, rather than ‘against’ any particular country.”

In short, the US does not want us to see the patently obvious.

In the area of defense, the report urges the US government to “continue to develop the quiet progress in U.S.-RP defense relations in recent years.” This means the “quiet reintroduction of U.S. military forces onto RP territory” which, while under legal restrictions and other constraints, “represents slow but important progress in the relationship over the past decade.”

The report makes reference to “humanitarian assistance/disaster relief exercises” as a good starting point in broadening the scope of the defense partnership between the US and the Philippines. It exposes the so-called Civil Military Operations or “civic actions” by the US troops as being in support of US security goals in the country.

Lt. SG Nancy Gadian, a former Balikatan planner and corruption whistleblower, said as much when she described the role of US troops conducting CMOs during Balikatan exercises. It was part of “winning the hearts and minds” of the people so that they would accept the continued presence of US troops engaged in various combat roles in the Philippines.

“The short-term goal should be to assist the Philippines to help itself internally. The long-term goal should be to help it eventually to assist the United States in collective defense, a task not anathema to Manila’s leaders or to the average Filipino in principle,” the report said.

Here we see how the interoperability training the AFP receives is not just for tactical domestic needs (local counter-insurgency), but also for the strategic goal of making the Philippines assist America in the “collective defense” of US interests in the region. We have seen how the US wants to use the Philippines as a forward operating site for its rapid deployment in the region. We have also sent troops abroad as so-called peacekeeping forces in Iraq.

The report conceded that the US will not regain formal basing rights within the foreseeable future. Instead, it called on the US government to encourage Manila to find more creative ways of justifying US troop presence in the country, while at the same time being careful as not to be too obvious in wanting to return the formal US bases.

“While the United States should continue to encourage Manila to think more creatively and strategically about the further contributions greater U.S. military presence and access in the Philippines can make to regional peace and stability—and to Manila’s own national security interests—Washington ought to be relatively careful about its basing ambitions to safeguard continued progress in this arena and generally be mindful of its conduct so as not to offend Philippine sensibilities.

Clearly, the US is here for the long haul. The announcement of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates that 600 US Special Forces, mostly based in various AFP camps in Mindanao, will remain indefinitely in the country is one clear example.

To get away with its violation of Philippine sovereignty, the CSIS recommends the US increase its aid funding as a “strategic element” in the relationship. This is perhaps the reason why, despite corruption and gross human rights abuses, the Philippine government is set to receive additional aid from Washington. In December 2009, DFA Secretary Alfredo Romulo announced a 13% increase in the 2010 US aid to the Philippines.

Increases came from the Development Assistance and Economic Support Fund which was increased to US$70.3 million in FY2010 from US$60 million in FY2009 and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) which was also increased to US$32 million from US$15 million over the same period.

While recognizing that formal US bases may not be acceptable at the moment, the report cited other means by which to advance US troop presence en route to more permanence. The report said that the US already enjoys wide access to Philippine military facilities, saying that it has provided strategic benefits and that it can be used “as a productive base on which to develop US strategic presence in the country over time.”

When the US describes its relations with the Philippines as “fraught with difficulties and controversies”, it does so not because it recognizes the legitimacy of the issues being raised. The “frustration” of some US policymakers stems from the increasing resistance to US impositions.

These controversies, and the protests they create, also derail US plans for the Philippines. The 2007 Balikatan exercises was almost scrapped when the issue of Daniel Smith’s detention was not yet resolved in favor of the US.

What we can deduce from the report is that resistance to US impositions has not gone unnoticed and will be something that Washington will have to deal with in the future. ###

Paninindigan September 2009
(Comments on the Affidavit of Former Navy Lt. SG Nancy Gadian)
by Prof. Roland G. Simbulan

Navy Lt. SG Nancy Gadian’s affidavit and testimony regarding the combat role of US military forces in the Philippines, particularly in Mindanao is the most telling “insider’s” account of what US military forces and US intelligence operatives are actually doing in the Philippines. Her written and oral sworn testimony exemplifies the courage, integrity and loyalty to the Filipino peoples’ interests that every genuine soldier must uphold.

First, Lt. Gadian has nothing to gain but everything to lose if she exposes US military activities in the Philippines. At the very least, she may never get a US visa for the details she exposed about the activities of US military forces in the Philippines. In an earlier exposé about the misuse of Balikatan funds by her superior officers, she had the entire Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) going after her. Why would she now risk the ire of the US government and its mighty armed forces, except to tell the truth about how our nation’s sovereignty and self-respect is being trampled like a doormat?

Second, I observe how much detail Lt. Gadian has given regarding the role of US military forces particularly those of the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTFP) based in Mindanao. These are direct and first hand accounts that only an insider could give, an exposé of Balikatan and the VFA war machine to the Filipino people. In her capacity as part of the administrative operations of Balikatan exercises, doing liaison work with US and Philippine military forces involved in the Balikatan exercises in Mindanao and the AFP’s Western and Southern Commands, no doubt, her testimony sheds light to a lot of things that have been hidden from the Filipino people. It opens the fact that there are many more activities which are being kept hidden by the US and Philippine governments about what US forces are really doing in Mindanao and other parts of the country under the cover of the VFA and supposed “humanitarian missions” by US military forces.

US role in combat operations and counter-Insurgency in the Philippines

In an article published by the journal Military Review (May-June 2004)  of the US Army Combined Arms Center, former JSOTFP Commander Col. David Maxwell said that their mission “is to conduct unconventional warfare in the Philippines through, by, and with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to help the Philippine government separate the population and destroy terrorist organizations.” The latest US Field Manual on Unconventional Warfare (FM 3-05.130) issued to the US defines “unconventional warfare” as including “guerilla warfare, subversion, sabotage, intelligence activities and assisted recovery.” Maxwell’s article in fact, implied that the Balikatan exercises under the VFA were just a disguise for counter-terrorist operations. We must also note that the Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines which Col. Maxwell commanded in the Philippines was the Philippine counterpart of the Operation Freedom-Afghanistan which was a combat unit assigned to Afghanistan right after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. By no means were they just for training or logistics support.

If there is such an official claim that US military forces here provide advisory, intelligence, equipment, training, and logistics, then that may be the reason why US Special Forces are “embedded” in combat units of the AFP during their tactical missions. The AFP largely depends on the intelligence gathering, covert and psywar operations now provided by US forces in conflict zones.

It is clear that the type of US support given to the AFP is not only at the level of strategic planning (such as in Camp Aguinaldo) but at the battlefield level, through operational and tactical units involved in combat. That is why the JSOTFP are in Basilan, Sulu, Zamboanga, among other provinces where they have been deployed. They are integrated as part of combat units which at any given time actually engage in combat with the Abu Sayyaf or MILF or NPA. This is what the Gadian testimony has so clearly exposed. If the US forces under Balikatan/VFA terms are just conducting training of AFP tactical troops, then they should do so in Nueva Ecija, in Tanay or in AFP training camps far from the conflict war zones.

As for the US involvement in intelligence and counter-intelligence operations in support of the AFP, if this is done in the field, it can be considered as directly combat intelligence (and counter-intelligence). Information Operations (IO), a concept of the US Army Land Information Warfare Activity is indeed classified as combat support, and a combat activity. It includes intelligence, electronic warfare, operations security, and psychological warfare operations. US combat doctrine classifies information operations as integrated with combat planning and execution of combat operations in unconventional warfare or in an insurgency situation. Surveillance and target acquisition, command, control and communications for combat missions are all integrated as part of the whole tactical mission, which is to neutralize or kill the enemy target. US Manuals now refer to all of these as battlefield operating systems (BOS). They are all part of the conduct of a military operation, using US army doctrine, which has been adopted by the AFP as its doctrine.

US basing in many parts of the Philippines

In its document, Strengthening US Global Defense Posture (Sept. 2004), the US Department of Defense now categorizes its overseas basing structures according to the following:

MAIN OPERATING BASES (MOB) – these are very large installations and facilities located in the territory of their most reliable allies, with vast infrastructures and even family support facilities. They serve as hub of military operations with comprehensive facilities. Subic, Clark and other US military facilities in the Philippines before 1992 were of this category. Today, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, and Camp Humphreys in South Korea are examples of MOB.

FORWARD OPERATING SITES (FOS) – these are smaller bases and facilities but they store pre-positioned equipment and logistics and normally host only a small number of troops on a rotational, as opposed to permanent, basis. They support a range of operations such as the forward deployment forces of the special operations forces. To a certain degree, the US presence in the Philippines has the qualities of FOS.

COOPERATIVE SECURITY LOCATIONS (CSL) – these are facilities owned by host governments that would only be used by the US “for access” in case of actual operations. Though they would be run and maintained by the host nation or even private contractors, they may be used to pre-position logistics support, for joint operations, etc. When expanded, they are converted to FOS.

FOS and CSLs are refered to as “lily pads” by US military literature as they support MOBs without requiring a lot of resources to maintain large US bases and to disguise themselves against political agitation from the host country. FOS and CSLs are normally integrated in host country military or civilian facilities. Thus, US military presence in the Philippines, based on Lt/SG Gadian’s testimony can easily fall under FOS and CSLs.

Paninindigan September 2009
Renato M. Reyes, Jr.

In 1999, Bayan and other people’s organizations and legal experts warned that the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) would bring US bases back in the Philippines, even after the Philippine Senate rejected a new bases treaty in 1991. We argued then that the deal would allow an unlimited number of US troops to enter the country for an indefinite period of time, to conduct a broad range of activities not limited to military exercises.

These issues were twice raised before the Supreme Court (SC), where a petition is currently pending. These issues were also raised before the Legislative Oversight Committee on the VFA in a hearing last year.

Subsequent events from 1999 to the present have shown that the presence of US troops in the Philippines has become permanent and continuous. Various accounts now show that US forces have maintained several structures in Mindanao from 2002 up to the present. There are also accounts that point to US combat participation in the Philippines.

Unlimited troops, indefinite duration

The VFA does not specify nor limit the number of US troops allowed to enter the Philippines. The numbers can range from 10 to 1,000 and beyond. Some studies show that as many as 50,000 US troops may have gone in and out of the Philippines since the VFA was implemented in 1999. The US is also not required to secure visas for their troops who enter the country under the VFA nor required to submit even only the names of their personnel. Thus, the Philippine government has no way of determining how many troops enter and leave, if at all.

Last August 21, the New York Times reported US Defense Secretary Robert Gates announcing that the US troops in the Philippines under the Joint Special Operations Task Force- Philippines (JSOTFP) will remain in Mindanao to “complete its mission”.

The JSOTFP is a unit of the US Special Forces under the Pacific Command and used to be part of the Joint Task Force 510 of the US Special Operations Command Pacific during the Balikatan 02-1 in 2002. When the Balikatan 02-01 ended in July 2002, it transitioned to the JSOTFP and stayed in Mindanao. The JSOTFP has headquarters inside Camp Navarro of the Western Mindanao Command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in Zamboanga.

Gates’s announcement that the US government has (unilaterally) decided to keep its troops in our country (contrary to claims that US troops can stay only upon the request of the Philippines) is an insult to our sovereignty. Unfortunately, the subservient Philippine government merely welcomed the decision without even bothering to ask the Americans how long they plan to maintain their forces in the country.

The US has had a permanent and continuing presence since 2002 and there are no indications that they will be leaving any time soon. Its troops stationed in Mindanao are part of a Forward Operating Site (FOS) of the US military. An FOS hosts a rotational force and pre-positioned equipment. It is a base that, judging from the past seven years, has acquired a permanent status.

Return of bases

The JSOTFP occupies a facility that was described by a Mindanao-based human rights group as “sealed by walls, concertina wire, and sandbags. The actual size of the area could not immediately be seen from the outside. Their communication facilities (satellite dishes, antenna, and other instruments) are visible.”

Various accounts have pointed out that the US facility cannot be accessed by Filipinos unless invited by Americans. Like traditional US bases, these facilities in Mindanao are exclusive only to US troops and appear to be beyond the authority of Philippine military officials. An account by former Navy Lt/SG Nancy Gadian confirms the permanent nature of the structures built inside Camp Navarro. There are other facilities in Mindanao believed to be occupied by US troops on a permanent basis.

These permanent bases run counter to the Constitution. The VFA cannot be invoked as the basis for the continuing stay of the US troops because it is not a basing agreement. Yet the way the VFA is implemented, it has given rise to virtual and even actual basing by the US forces.

Combat role

There have been various accounts that the US forces are engaged in actual combat.
The Balikatan 02-1 exercises were held in actual areas of armed conflict such as in Basilan and Sulu that immediately set the stage for the combat involvement of the US troops.

While the Terms of Reference (TOR) of Balikatan 02-01 states that the US troops are not allowed to engage in combat, it also says that US forces will be embedded at the AFP battalion and company levels in the areas where actual armed conflict exists. According to the TOR, US forces reserve their right as well to self-defense, meaning they can fire back when fired upon.

In a recent New York Times article, JSOTFP chief Col. Bill Coultrup was quoted as saying their mission was only 20% combat-related, a goal that aims to “help the Armed Forces of the Philippines neutralize high-value targets — individuals who will never change their minds.”

When the US forces “help” in neutralizing targets, when they take part in combat intelligence operations and select targets for neutralization, when they undertake any hostile action against an identified enemy, this is already taking part in combat operations. It would be foolish to limit our definition of “combat” to that of simply firing a weapon.

In 2002, the International Solidarity Mission reported the shooting of Buyong-buyong Isnijal, a civilian suspected of being an ASG member, by US troops on combat patrol in Basilan. The family distinctly heard the armed men speak in English, telling them to “stay down”.

In February 4, 2008, US forces were said to be embedded in an AFP unit that conducted a military operation in Maimbung, Sulu that resulted in the death of seven civilians including two children, two teenagers, a pregnant woman and an off-duty soldier. The incident was documented by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

The VFA does not specify the types of activities that the US forces can undertake in the Philippines and that US forces can operate outside the known military exercises such as Balikatan a another serious defect of the agreement.

Benefits and the myth of indispensability

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has called the VFA indispensable because of its supposed benefits. These gains come in terms of humanitarian missions, financial gain, as well as benefits for the Philippine military.

But the technical and logistical benefits from the Balikatan and the VFA are small, as admitted by some military officials. Former Commodore Rex Robles has described these benefits as being in the “nice to have” category. Gadian meanwhile says the benefits are limited to the use of firearms and night-vision goggles. The high-end equipment are exclusively used by the US and are not transferred to the Philippine military. In her affidavit, Gadian said that US forces have exclusive control over their surveillance equipment.

What the Philippines receives in bulk are Excess Defense Articles (EDA) which has been in effect even before the VFA. The EDA includes second-hand or antiquated military equipment which are not indispensable for the Philippines nor will help modernize the AFP.

On the contrary, the US troops have gained the most from the VFA. They have been given virtual basing rights in Mindanao sans any formal basing treaty. US forces also benefit from the VFA by using Mindanao as some kind of combat laboratory. The US’s permanent presence in the South also provides them with “power projection” in Southeast Asia.

Recommendations

The Philippine government must terminate the VFA. This is the only logical response to the continued violation of our sovereignty, territorial integrity and judicial processes.

The Filipino people must protest the continued imposition of foreign troops on Philippine soil. Their presence is a lasting reminder of how the Philippines is not truly free and sovereign. The imperialist agenda in keeping foreign troops stationed in the Philippines must be thoroughly exposed and opposed.

We kicked out the US bases once. We should have what it takes to expel them once more. #