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. #

Paninindigan September 2009
By Arnold Padilla

To some, the death of former Pres. Cory Aquino has also signaled the demise of current efforts on Charter change (Cha-cha). The main argument is that pushing for it at this time could backfire on the unpopular Arroyo administration. Cha-cha proponents could not risk further angering a public mourning the death of a widely regarded political icon who strongly opposed Cha-cha through a constituent assembly (Con-ass) route.

Even Malacañang has somewhat shifted from a supposed hands-off stance to a more definite statement asking the House to halt Cha-cha efforts in the context of Aquino’s death. Some legislators who railroaded the infamous House Resolution (HR) 1109, meanwhile, admit that the resolution could not move forward given the practical constraints caused by the 2010 elections. The Senate has also remained steadfast in its position against Cha-cha via HR 1109.

But is Cha-cha really dead?

The Con-con track

The Cha-cha agenda is very much alive.

While HR 1109 proponents are in a fix on how to push through with its Senate-less Con-ass, another Cha-cha resolution passed the House committee on constitutional amendments in late August. The said resolution calls for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention (Con-con) simultaneous with the 2010 national polls. Thus, the process of amending the 1987 Constitution will take place only after the elections. Reportedly a consolidated version of 12 similar measures, the resolution is an obvious attempt to dispel fears that Cha-cha will benefit incumbent officials.

The Con-con track intends to widen public support for Cha-cha. Its proposed timing and mode are the preferred conditions of some HR 1109 critics, including the Catholic Church, business, portion of the political opposition and civil society, and even the late Pres. Aquino.

Decoy for Con-ass?

A review of the Constitution, however, reveals an alarming scenario wherein the Con-con resolution could be used as a decoy to legitimize HR 1109. Article XVII Section 3 states that Congress may call a Con-con only upon a vote of two-thirds or majority of all its members. This will bring up again the issue of separate or joint voting by members of the House and Senate, which is the crux of the debate in HR 1109. A Con-ass, according to Article XVII Sec. 1, may be convened upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members.

Under this scenario, the more acceptable Con-con resolution will be passed with the aim of simply determining the manner of counting the votes of Congress members. Once the Supreme Court has settled the issue and assuming it upheld the joint vote argument, then the road to a Senate-less Con-ass would have been paved. With HR 1109 not yet withdrawn, Lakas-Kampi congressmen can maneuver to put it back on top of the Cha-cha agenda and dislodge the Con-con resolution. If they could not pull it off before the May polls, it will still be an option in the next Congress.

Depending on public reaction and political risks, the Arroyo administration may also opt to just push through with the Con-con mode. But it will be very crucial for its plot to stay in power that the voting for Con-con delegates be held in May to ensure that the Cha-cha train will not lose steam.

2010 is key

Tightening Lakas-Kampi’s dominant control of the House is a key component of the Gloria Forever machination. It must also make certain that it will be able to put enough number of delegates in the Con-con who will articulate the political and economic amendments the regime is pushing. Consequently, the 2010 elections – despite its automation – will be more fraudulent and violent.

Finally, the Cha-cha agenda will not perish because over and above the vested political interests of the Arroyo clique is the imperialist agenda. External pressure from the US, EU, and Japan to fully liberalize the economy and to allow the permanent basing of their troops (in the case of the Americans) will continue to drive Cha-cha efforts even after Arroyo.

The people are challenged to remain vigilant and thwart all attempts of Arroyo to stay in power through Con-ass or Con-con. It is the pre-condition to make her accountable for the many crimes she made against the Filipino people.

At the same time, there is also a growing need to deepen the debate on Cha-cha and expose the underlying imperialist agenda. The push for Con-con – ostensibly to settle among the political elite the contentious issue of perpetuation in power – challenges the anti-Cha-cha movement to consolidate and broaden on the basis of defending the national patrimony and sovereignty.

Paninindigan January 2009
By Arnold Padilla

In her New Year message, Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo described 2008 as “tumultuous” due to the global recession. But fortunately, according to her, this “has not become a crisis in the Philippines”. We are again and again told that the economy is resilient and can weather the storm rocking the US and other large industrialized countries.

Such assertion is flawed on two grounds. First, the country is in fact in a permanent state of crisis. Even before the US and others entered into their latest recession, the Philippines was already facing chronic unemployment, poverty, and bankruptcies. Second, the domestic economy, deeply tied to the US economy for decades, is in fact more vulnerable to the crisis due to neoliberal globalization.

Worst crisis of imperialism

Experts likened the gravity of the current turmoil in the US economy to the Great Depression of the 1930s, with some analysts saying that the latest crisis is in fact even worse. The housing bubble, which started to burst in 2006, has caused the collapse of some of the biggest and most prominent figures of US imperialism, among them financial giants Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Merril Lynch. Expectedly, the crisis has quickly spread from the financial sector to the real economy with giant American automakers Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler aggressively demanding bailout money to keep afloat. Giant retail stores across the US are shutting down due to weak sales, with retail sales in December plunging to an all-time low (2.7%) since record-keeping began in the early 1990s.

While the mortgage meltdown set off the financial crunch, at the heart of the crisis is capitalism’s nature to overproduce. The ceaseless need of the monopoly bourgeoisie to extract surplus value from the working class and increase superprofits through further depression of incomes have continuously and progressively undermined the capacity of society to absorb capitalist production. This explains the “boom and bust” cycle throughout the history of capitalism – the US economy, for instance, has already undergone 32 cycles of expansion and contraction since 1854. Capitalism tries to correct this through, among others, creating the illusion of wealth such as the housing loans and other forms of credit. But as the mortgage meltdown shows, such an illusion is simply that- an illusion.

Indeed, in reality, the American working class is in its most miserable state. US households are deeply in debt and millions are being economically displaced. As of third quarter 2008, US household debt stood at $13.9 trillion. In December, official US unemployment rate was pegged at 7.2%, with around 2 million jobs lost in 2008’s last four months alone. Worse, American taxpayers were forced to save the giant corporations through the bailout of the Wall Street (financial) firms worth a staggering $700 billion and another $17 billion in bailout funds for the Big Three automakers.

The US economic crisis reverberates throughout the industrial world that even imperialist institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are forced to recognize its gravity. Bankruptcies and bailouts of financial and industrial firms as well as record joblessness and economic dislocations are also unfolding from Europe to Japan. As of 2007, global unemployment was pegged at 190 million, which is projected to grow by around 20 million by late 2009 because of the economic crisis.

Deepening permanent crisis

For more than a century, the Philippines has been dependent on the US for market and capital. This is the result of colonial and neocolonial policies designed to make the domestic economy serve the needs of the huge US economy. Such subservience explains the permanence of the crisis in the Philippines, which has remained backward and pre-industrial and where the great majority of the people are in perpetual and worsening poverty. Neoliberal globalization in the last three decades has further opened up the domestic economy and deepened its links to the global economy, especially with the US.  Thus, the Philippines is vulnerable more than ever to the impact of the economic crisis raging in the US and other industrialized countries.

The US remains the biggest trading partner of the Philippines, directly accounting for more than 16% of the country’s exports (Jan-Oct 2008) and more than 12% of imports (Jan-Sep 2008). The importance of the US market for Philippine exports becomes bigger when its exports to East Asian countries that are ultimately shipped to the US are factored in. Due to slowing demand from the US, especially for electronics, the country’s exports declined by almost 15%. Meanwhile, imports of electronics fell by 26% which means that exports of electronics, of which imported inputs make up 90% of the value, will also continue to plummet in the coming months. Overall exports are expected to further decline as electronics account for a huge 59% of the country’s total export receipts.

For Filipino workers, of whom more than 30% are directly employed in the export sector, this translates to massive dislocation. US electronics firm Texas Instrument has already laid off 392 workers in its Baguio City plant last year and warned of another wave of displacements this year. At the Mactan Export Processing Zone (MEPZ), at least three export firms have dismissed around 400 workers in the last two months alone. They will add up to the already huge army of jobless Filipino workers officially pegged at a record 4 million yearly.

The domestic job situation will further worsen as overseas employment, which in the last three decades has mitigated the domestic jobs crisis, also feels the pinch of the global economic crunch. Of the 8.7 million overseas Filipinos at any given time, more than 32% are based in the US and are thus immediately vulnerable to the crisis. Other countries that export to the US and employ overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) are also affected. Taiwan, for instance, has sent home 2,500 OFWs last year due to slower US demand and expects to retrench another 5,000 this year. While migrant workers may continue to find employment as a ready source of cheap labor, this will entail even more oppression and exploitation.

Lacking real industrial development, remittances from overseas Filipinos have buoyed the Philippine economy in the past three decades. But with less jobs available overseas, remittances of foreign exchange are also expected to slow down or even decline, especially considering that overseas Filipinos based in the US account for more than half of total remittances. In October, for example, remittances channeled through banks grew by only 3.3%, its lowest growth in 18 months.

Aggravating the situation for the country is the international credit crunch that deprives the national government of a major source of funds to cover the perennial deficits in the country’s foreign trade and national budget. Access to loans from commercial creditors, as well as official development assistance (ODA) or foreign aid from bilateral and multilateral donors, will force the government to accept even more usurious terms and conditionss. Ironically, these conditions include the neoliberal globalization policies of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization that have further stunted the country’s industrial development and increased its susceptibility to the global crisis.

These conditions also include neoliberal fiscal reforms such as more onerous taxes, which the government will keenly implement to better appease foreign creditors. This of course is shouldered by ordinary tax payers as illustrated by the IMF-imposed 12% value added tax (VAT) that, combined with liberalization and deregulation, pushed up prices of basic goods and services like oil and power. More taxes for ordinary income earners are forthcoming this year while the tax burden of corporations is eased as part of the Arroyo administration’s tax reform program.

Meanwhile, pressure on the Philippines and other poor countries to implement more trade and investment liberalization reforms is intensifying as an offshoot of the global crisis and as part of imperialist efforts to address their overproduction. Major international meetings last year such as the Group of 20 (G20) and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings have shunned economic protectionism and repeatedly called for more liberalization. This signals the intensified campaign to forge bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) as well as multilateral deals through the World Trade Organization (WTO). The US is expected to revive talks on an RP-US FTA especially since Japan has already sealed the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) last October and formal talks on an RP-European Union partnership cooperation agreement (PCA) are underway.

At the national level, the Arroyo administration and its allies in Congress have revived efforts to implement Charter change (Cha-cha). While Cha-cha also serves the narrow political interest of Arroyo to stay in power, it is also a long-time US agenda to further liberalize the investment regime in the Philippines, including foreign ownership of land. As decades of liberalization will show, unduly opening up to foreign goods and capital actually translates to increased underdevelopment as local industries are displaced and more jobs are destroyed.

Immediate relief and long-term reforms

The immediate challenge today is to assert for urgent economic relief and policy reforms that will at the minimum address the further deterioration of the domestic economy and the people. With increased uncertainties in the global economy, the key is to promote internal engines of growth, increase domestic consumption, and in the process invigorate domestic production. This can be achieved through substantial reduction in and effective control of the prices of basic goods and services that the people consume. The 12% VAT and other onerous taxes must be scrapped and proposals for additional burdensome taxes must be vehemently opposed. Neoliberal policies that have allowed global and local cartels to abuse the people with exorbitant prices must be opposed.

Complementing these efforts to bring down prices and keep them in check is the implementation of a substantial wage hike that will allow millions of poor families to at least lessen the disparity between the cost of living and their daily incomes. Filipino small and medium enterprises (SMEs) must be supported and protected by the government not only to allow them to substantially increase their workers’ wages but also to help them cope with the raging global and local crises.

Domestic resources must be freed up and public investment in social and economic services urgently needed by the marginalized sectors must be significantly increased. This entails the repeal of automatic debt servicing, the cancellation of odious debt, and a big cutback in military spending so that enough resources will be immediately made available for social services such as education, health, and housing. More taxes must be collected from big business, especially the TNCs operating in the country and reverse the trend of declining tariffs on international trade.

The domestic economy and local industries must be protected. The implementation of the JPEPA should be stopped and all means must be exhausted to abolish the treaty. Ongoing FTA negotiations must be opposed, including the concession of additional liberalization commitments in the WTO especially on agriculture and non-agricultural market access. New efforts aimed at more trade and investment liberalization such as through Cha-cha must be decisively derailed.

Finally, the latest flare-up in the periodic crisis of monopoly capitalism and its consequent impact on the weak and pre-industrial domestic economy have made it more imperative to create the material conditions that will allow the economy to break free from its permanent crisis of backwardness and poverty. This necessitates the implementation of a genuine agrarian reform program to encourage the productivity of Filipino farmers and farm workers, who comprise a great majority of the direct producers of wealth in the economy. This will allow agriculture to create the needed economic surplus for nationalist industrial development and widen industrial production as it boosts domestic consumption in the countryside where an overwhelming majority of poor and exploited Filipinos live. (END)

Paninindigan January 2009
By Dr. Carol Pagaduan-Araullo

The long record of impunity for the Israeli government in barefaced aggression and military overkill, perpetrating gross human rights violations, war crimes and even genocide must be seen in the context of unshakeable US backing – military, economic, political and diplomatic. With the acquiescence of the other big powers, this unstinting and continuing US support explains in large part the destructiveness, brutality and callousness exhibited by the IDF in the recent attacks on Gaza.

Israel remains the single biggest recipient of US aid getting a hefty US$3 billion annually. A country of approximately 6 million people, it is currently receiving more US aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean taking out Egypt and Colombia.  It has a nuclear arsenal that would be the envy of any of the countries named by US President Bush as constituting an “axis of evil”.

Despite international outcry against mounting civilian casualties and the massive humanitarian crisis the Israeli assault has given rise to, the US government is unrelenting in its support. The US sabotaged a draft UN resolution that called for a ceasefire, addressing the humanitarian crisis, as well as the resumption of peace talks. It rejected calls for Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza and attacked the proposed resolution for not condemning Hamas’ firing rockets into Southern Israel as “terrorist” acts.

In fact, it was Israel that had made a months-old truce untenable by keeping Gaza under siege. Since Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006, Israel, Washington and the West have withheld recognition and all outside aid; an economic embargo and sanctions were imposed; and the legitimate government subjected to vilification and political isolation.

The Israeli government claims that Hamas initiated the hostilities by raining rockets on Israeli villages are belied by reports that IDF forces had earlier intruded into Palestinian territory purportedly  to close off tunnels allegedly used by Hamas to smuggle arms and had killed six Hamas officers in the process. Since the six-month ceasefire ended, Israeli troops have crossed the border several times, while Hamas resumed shelling nearby Israeli towns.

US President Bush immediately justified Israel’s attack by demonizing the Hamas regime as a “terrorist group supported by Iran and Syria.” US Secretary of State Rice strongly rejected outright any ceasefire that didn’t meet Israel’s conditions. President-elect Barack Obama, heretofore silent on the raging global issue, finally expressed “deep concern” for the loss of civilian life after Israeli tank shells killed at least 40 Palestinians at a UN school where civilians had taken shelter on the third day of the invasion.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is certainly not about Israel and Palestine alone. It is about oil.  It is about who controls the Middle East. And it is about the US drive for world domination currently in the guise of a US-instigated “global war on terror”.

Mainstream media have always portrayed and explained the conflict in terms of the Palestinians’ struggle to return to their homeland, on one hand, and the Israeli state’s right to exist on the other. But in fact, from the very start, world powers have manipulated and even instigated the conflict according to their interests and designs, the ordinary Palestinians and Israelis be damned.

To begin with, the British government played a central role in arranging for the migration of tens of thousands of Jews to Palestine and in violently displacing the Palestinians from their lands. Then, the US engineered the lopsided 1948 UN resolution to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. The Palestinians rejected the resolution, rightfully protesting that they were not consulted, and the partition favored the Jews heavily. The resulting armed conflict ended in the Palestinians’ defeat, mass expulsion from Palestine and their seeking refuge in neighboring Arab states. To this date, their just struggle to return to their homeland continues.

With the intensification of the Cold War after the Korean War and the rise in Arab nationalism and unity in the late 50s, the Middle East became a flashpoint with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in focus. The so-called Arab-Israel wars, ostensibly over the Palestinian issue, were in fact proxy wars by the world superpowers for control of the Middle East, with Israel serving as the US’s surrogate force against the Soviet-backed Arab states. Since then, and especially with the emergence of the US as sole superpower, Israel has grown into a bully whose arrogance, brutality and ruthlessness is matched only by its mentor and backer, the US.

The International League for People’s Struggle (ILPS) in a statement condemning the invasion and the escalating massacre of the Palestinian people said, “The US has used Israel as the bridgehead of US imperialist hegemony in the Middle East and as the platform for threatening and blackmailing countries in the region, making them military and political clients and controlling the oil resources.”

One does not have to be partisan for Hamas or against the Israeli government to acknowledge the truth articulated by UN President Miguel d’Escoto Brockman on the day of the Gaza airstrikes, “The behavior by Israel in bombarding Gaza is simply the commission of wanton aggression by a very powerful state against a territory that it illegally occupies.” (END)