 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Mindanao Peace or in Pieces?
By Antonio C. Abaya Written Sept. 08, 2008 For the Standard Today, September 09 issue The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MoA-AD) was a ploy to break up Mindanao into two or more pieces. And if that MoA-AD had been signed, as planned, last August 5, the chief beneficiaries would have been the Bangsamoro, as represented by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), who would have attained the pre-requisites of a separate state � territory, army, separate laws, separate government, separate economy, international recognition � and the US, which would have been rewarded by the grateful Bangsamoro with permanent military bases from which to monitor the activities of the Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and Malaysia and the activities of the Chinese in the Spratly islands, as they have been doing in the past six years.. Left holding the proverbial empty bag would have been the stumblebum government in Manila which will be rewarded with some lollipops in the form of ancient hand-me-down fixed-winged aircraft and helicopters to replace those which its pilots have been crashing to the ground or into the sea with alarming frequency. It has been pointed out by media that, contrary to the provisos in the 1987 Constitution, "visiting" American troops in Mindanao-Sulu-Basilan, supposedly to support Filipino troops in the war on terror, have been "visiting" continuously for the past six years. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita explains that this was so because American soldiers take turns serving six-month terms in the area and are constantly being replaced by other soldiers. "And since they all look alike, it looks as if they never leave.".(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sept. 07, 2008) But, of course! Unlike the US soldiers in their permanent bases in Japan, South Korea and Germany, who have been continuously garrisoned there since the end of World War II in 1945 and are being replaced only as they die of old age. Now that President Arroyo has, correctly, disbanded the GRP peace panel headed by retired General Rodolfo Garcia, and has refused to continue negotiations with the MILF "at gunpoint," the next logical step would be to appoint someone else as presidential adviser on the peace process, to replace retired General Hermogenes Esperon, who should be appointed ambassador to Myanmar. The next peace adviser should not be another former military general and should be someone from Mindanao, either Christian or Muslim, either male or female. If President Arroyo is grooming former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson to replace Esperon, she should forget it. Singson is not from Mindanao and does not come with credible bona fides. President Arroyo should choose from a short list prepared by concerned groups, to which I would nominate Adel Tamano, Irene Santiago, Amina Rasul and Margie Moran, aided by a battery of constitutional lawyers.. But President Arroyo should lay down the rules of the game, to which the new peace adviser and the new GRP peace panel must strictly adhere; otherwise, no go. Chief among these rules should be the condition that any agreement must conform to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In other words, no thinly disguised Trojan horses in which ChaCha dancers can hide and jump from at the first opportune moment, to perform their song-and-dance once they are inside Congress.. If President Arroyo can live with this limitation, she will convince one and all that she does not intend to stay in power beyond 2010. (But even as I write this, House Speaker Prospero Nograles is floating the idea of amending the Constitution supposedly so that investors from the Middle East can be convinced to invest in mega-projects in Mindanao, such as a trans-Mindanao railway, on the grounds that the 40-60 constitutional limitation on foreign ownership discourage Middle Eastern investors from investing in Mindanao. (Here we go again! And this is not even supported by empirical evidence. There are dozens of mega-corporations in the US, the UK and Germany � and no doubt elsewhere - in which Middle Eastern investors have invested hundreds of billions of their petrodollars without insisting on 100% ownership. (Nograles is just sucking up to the GMA Forever bandwagon, like Gov. Joey Salceda, like Sen. Nene Pimentel, like thousands of congressmen, governors, vice-governors, mayors and vice-mayors, who are being enticed with additional years in power without need for re-election, if they will only dance the ChaCha. (Nograles' additional rationale that Middle East-financed infrastructure would be spared attacks by Muslim rebels is also not supported by empirical evidence. There have been hundreds of cases of oil pipelines, oil refineries, hotels, civil works, entire apartment blocs, even mosques, being blown up by fellow Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Somalia, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, etc as Sunnis battle Shias, and secular Muslim governments fight off fundamentalist Muslim rebels. Nograles should read more foreign news.) To get back to the stalled peace process, any resumption of these talks should not be held in Malaysia as Malaysia has a vested interest in the dismemberment of the Philippines. Malaysia has not forgotten and will never forget that President Ferdinand Marcos tried to launch an invasion to grab Sabah or North Borneo from the Malaysian Federation in the 1970s. For the Malaysians, the dismemberment of the Philippine Republic would be the sweetest revenge for such a hostile and unfriendly act. If we must talk with Bangsamoro rebels abroad, let the venue be in Indonesia. Indonesia has its own problems with separatist movements (East Timor, Aceh, Irian Jaya, etc) and would not be hospitable to separatist movements in other, neighboring countries. And finally, there is the matter of ancestral domain. Who has rightful claims to ancestral domains? Muslim settlers from what are now Indonesia and Malaysia did not come to these shores until the 14th century. Before them, these islands were populated for centuries by animist tribes whose descendants are the present-day lumads and other mountain tribes like the Aetas. It is the descendants of the animist tribes who can rightfully claim ancestral domains, like the aborigines in Australia, the Inuits or Eskimos in Canada and Alaska, and the various Indian nations who were dispossessed of their ancestral land when settlers from Europe came to North America starting in the 16th century. In the case of Mindanao, the early Muslim settlers had grabbed the ancestral lands of the lumads, and their descendants in turn were dispossessed of these lands by successive waves of Christian settlers from Luzon and Visayas. How to untangle this web is a Herculean task. But it has to be attempted, but without giving away the family jewels. Peace in Mindanao or Mindanao in pieces!. *****. Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in acabaya.blogspot.com. Tony on YouTube in www.tapatt.org. . . . To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to "Mindanao Peace or in Pieces" More Reactions to "Staring into the Abyss" On the US Bases Negotiations in 1991 On US Intentions in Mindanao On Ancestral Domain Tony, With what you are saying, Why is the president and her people allowed to continue to stay in office. What they are doing is not only a mortal sin but cardinal sin to the Filipino nation the Re[public of the Philippines. Is there no remedy for these traitors to their people and nation? Rex Rivera, (by email), Gen. Santos City, Sept 09, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Two points: 1. For as long as there are determined Muslims who want to separate from the Philippines, and for as long as there are Muslims who do not want to work and prefer the easy way to earn a living by hostaging victims, there will never be peace in Mindanao. 2. A morally weak leader will do anything to keep himself in power, hence we are now experiencing one blunder after another. There will be more blunders to come. President GMA is a morally weak leader. Hector (Tarzan) Tarrazona, (by email), Sept. 10, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir Tony; It'ts disgusting to really watch this government chop this country into pieces, and for what? It is not for the "benefit of the people" like they say it is. It's only for THEMSELVES and they're such hypocrites not to admit it. No matter what the palace releases in the press nowadays - this government has truly lost its moral authority to lead this country and people who kiss the ass of the president should also be exposed for their ass-kissing behavior instead of working for the people who voted for them and placed them in office. What's worse - they follow her blindly which is telling of just how cheap their souls are. It's been bought. And no matter what anyone says about how stupid they are, the minute PGMA tells them to jump, the only question they'll ask is "how high" or "where". That's how pathetic these people are. There should be a list of ass-kissers from the Senate to Congress and from the Cabinet itself, let's make a public list of these ass-kissers and post them in the next elections that they never be given the chance to run for any office for that matter and call it AKC.... Ass-Kissers' Club. Hahahaha.... In a nutshell - they planned on dividing this country, give away Mindanao in pieces and in secret, they were discovered and now - they're doing damage control. And frankly - they even suck at damage controlling the scenario. They lost all credibility with the Mindanao group and they lost for good - any ounce of credibility with the rest of the country. If they want peace to reign over Mindanao - they should get to the bottom of it because I don't think it's just a case of 'ancestral land' issues. There's something far deeper than this and I don't like the idea the people in Mindanao are selfish enough to separate themselves from the rest of the country. It speaks volumes of how badly people from Mindanao are depicted here in Manila. God bless and keep the articles coming. I really enjoy reading them. Jenifer Xavier, (by email), Sept. 10, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I still feel optimistic that peace can be achieved in Mindanao if the govt will crush criminal elements like MNLF, MILF and Abu Sayaf. Sa akin lang, it should be the government that should be the one in leading investments in that area. Mike Delgado, (by email), Sept. 10, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You're right again, Tony. The rightful claimants to the contested ancestral domains are the lumads, who are the real natives of Mindanao. The Muslims were the early settlers who displaced the unprotesting lumads. Our government needs a lesson in Philippine history and should not be quick to giving in to unreasonable demands to win popularity votes. Best, Yett Momtalvan, (by email), Sept. 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I'd hate to think that a possibility of a segmented Philippines would come into being. Much more, Mindanao in pieces. As far as I am concerned, any peace negotiator exclusively from Luzon or the Visayas will not be effective for they will lack the insight of what Mindanao really is. I concur that a person from Mindanao should head the GRP if and when GMA decides to reconvene the panel. And no Cha-Cha, Tango, Pandanggo or even Tinikling please. If they have to learn how to dance the Singkil so as for us to be one and in peace, so be it. Mindanao is beautiful and plentiful. We must do everything in our power to keep her and develop it for the good of the whole country. Let's rid ourselves instead of those who would pursue to simply destroy our rich culture and history by separating our already segmented psyche. LUZVIMINDA must live on and stay whole. Noi Ramirez, (by email), Makati City, Sept. 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Which come first, the chicken or the egg? A commentary from a European ambassador at EDSA Shangrila says " the root of all the conflict in Mindanao is poverty, not religion or secessionism." To this I disagree because there are a lot of places in the world, not in poverty but also in conflicts. Further he said that " development projects in Mindanao must be done to irradicate poverty, but this development cannot be done without peace" So which come first, peace (chicken) or the development (egg). People in poverty can live in peace. What is important is good Education and Training. Ernie Dellosa, (by email), Sept. 13, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Maybe you want to read this which I wrote in August 2006, and no one listened. Fabio Scarpello, (by email), Bali, Indonesia, Sept, 09, 2008 US, Philippines weigh new military marriage By Fabio Scarpello COTABATO CITY, Southern Philippines - More than 15 years after the US was forced to close its military bases in the Philippines by nationalist politicians, there are growing indications that Washington is angling to re-establish a permanent military presence here - though US diplomats strenuously deny the speculation. The United States' behind-the-scenes role in mediating a peace deal between the Philippine government and a group of Islamic rebels and its assistance to the Philippine armed forces in chasing down another rebellious Islamic organization has, for many Filipinos, lent credence to growing speculation that the US has designs on establishing new bases on the country's southern island of Mindanao. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), an independent, non-partisan institution established and funded by the US Congress, is involved in the negotiations between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which has been fighting for independence for more than 30 years. The USIP, however, is conspicuously not a party to the broad, Malaysia-led peace talks, which were launched after the two sides signed a tentative truce in July 2003. The MILF, the largest rebel group in the Philippines, has hinted on several occasions that it has been approached by undisclosed US authorities about the possibility of establishing US military bases in MILF-controlled territory as part of a final peace deal. "This is negotiable, it is possible," said Eid Kabalu, the MILF's spokesperson. "We are facing reality. We know that Washington has its own agenda in Mindanao, and that this has mostly to do with terrorism," said Kabalu from his modest residence in central Mindanao's Cotabato City. "However, if the American interest is really in pushing this peace process, then we can talk about military bases." For nearly a century, the US military had use of two major bases in the Philippines, one at Clark Air Force Base and the other at Subic Naval Station, representing for a time the United States' largest military installations in Asia. After the 1986 fall of Philippine dictator and erstwhile US ally Ferdinand Marcos, nationalistic lawmakers in 1991 voted to end the United States' long military presence in the country. The subsequent US military withdrawal was widely expected to create a regional power vacuum, bringing the Philippines into territorial disputes with Japan, China, Taiwan and Malaysia, particularly over competing claims to the reputedly oil-rich Spratly Islands. Meanwhile, in the late 1990s, the US made overtures to establish permanent military bases in Thailand - which were spurned out of hand. From the United States' perspective, the concomitant rise of regional Islamic terrorism and China's growing military ambitions have fundamentally changed the region's security calculus and accentuated the strategic need for new installations in the region. And from a regional perspective, the Philippines is arguably the best fit. The Islamic-rebel-racked southern Philippines has recently emerged as a key theater in the United States' counter-terrorism campaign in Southeast Asia. The US has in recent years poured hundreds of millions of dollars of military-related assistance into the Philippines, including funds earmarked for military training. The US has also provided technical assistance for the Philippine military's campaign in the southern province of Sulu against the Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic rebel organization that Washington contends has links to al-Qaeda. Strategic motivations Security analysts in Manila agree that Washington has a strong strategic interest in re-establishing permanent military bases in the Philippines. According to prominent political analyst Antonio C. Abaya, the short- and mid-term military objective would be to undermine activities of Jemaah Islamiya, the Indonesia-based regional terrorist group that is believed to have training camps in the Philippines' Sulu Archipelago and West Mindanao. Retired General Fortunato Abat, a former Philippines defense chief and senior envoy to Beijing, contends that establishing a US military base in Mindanao would make strategic sense for Washington on several fronts, including possible future naval interventions in the South China Sea, defending Taiwan from a preemptive Chinese attack and providing a launch pad for anti-terrorist operations in Indonesia, Afghanistan and Iraq. "Furthermore, it would complete the US security arc providing additional strength to what the US has in place in Japan, Korea and Hawaii to forestall any Chinese adventurism in Southeast Asia," Abat said. Writer and historian Renato Redentor Constantino concurs with such assessments, noting that Mindanao is now in the midst of a US-financed infrastructure spending spree that he contends goes well beyond what the region's development would need. "Yes, the US is interested, and no, it is not only because of the war on terror," Constantino said. Philippine-based US diplomats strongly dismiss such speculation. "There are no talks along those lines. The US is an ally of the Philippines and, at the moment, military bases are not allowed here," Stacy MacTaggert, deputy press attache at the US Embassy in Manila, said in a telephone interview. Eugene Martin, executive director of the Philippines chapter of the USIP, sounds similar denials. "As the Institute of Peace is not a US government agency, I do not know what and if any discussions on this matter are or have been held. But the institute is not in any way engaged in such talks as we focus on trying to help the two sides reach a viable peace agreement," he said in an e-mail response to Asia Times Online queries. "Personally, I would be surprised if there were such discussion, since the US military is working closely with its Filipino counterparts on counter-terrorism training," Martin said. "Furthermore, as long as the prospective Bangsamoro homeland is within Philippine territorial boundaries and sovereignty, I believe the national constitutional provisions barring foreign military bases would prevail. Legal scholars and nationalists in Manila would find it difficult to accept such bases." Sources close to the Philippine-based US intelligence community claim that talks about establishing bases are under way, are spearheaded by a parallel unofficial diplomacy on the ground. "It is an ongoing discussion. The two parties are close, and Manila has agreed. One big problem is to find a formula that can be sold to the strong local opposition," a source said. Peaceful latecomer Washington's strategic interest in the region followed al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attack on the US, when evidence emerged that some of the plot's leaders had held meetings in the Philippines. The US later became militarily active in the region after reports emerged that various Islamic terrorist organizations had taken sanctuary in Mindanao's thick forests, including some groups that had allegedly relocated their camps from Afghanistan after the US invasion of that country in 2001. Intelligence sources in the Philippines say the Moro rebels welcomed many of the mujahideen fighters, who brought with them weapons and expertise. Then, their relocation was made easy by Manila's incompetence in identifying and combating the new threat, because of weak anti-terror legislation, a tattered intelligence network and a lack of resources and manpower. The United States' involvement in the region was partly triggered by a direct plea for help made by the late MILF chairman Salamat Hashim, who wrote to US President George W Bush in January 2003. Washington's commitment was partially based on the MILF's pledge to renounce terrorism, which was made public by Hashim in a policy statement released on June 20, 2003. This was followed that same month by a similar request for assistance by Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who had by then emerged as Asia's most vocal supporter of the US-led anti-terrorism campaign. Since then, the US has substantially increased its assistance to the Armed Forces of the Philippines. In the past few years, Washington has poured roughly US$300 million into the AFP's coffers and sent hundreds of American soldiers to conduct prolonged training exercises with their Filipino counterparts. This May, the Philippines and the US signed a new agreement establishing a formal board that will determine and discuss the possibility of holding joint US-Philippine military exercises against terrorism and other non-traditional security concerns. The US military presence in and around Mindanao arguably has a more permanent feature in the shape of the Joint Special Operations Task Force Philippines, which advises Filipinos on how best to fight terrorism. The JOSTFP, which rotates personnel every six months, is composed of marine, air-force, navy, army, and special-forces personnel, all under the US Pacific Command. The JOSTFP's main target is the Abu Sayyaf Group, a small but violent rebel organization operating mainly in the Sulu Archipelago that has historically been involved in kidnappings for ransom. The US has since September 11, 2001, included Abu Sayyaf on its list of global terrorist organizations. The MILF and Manila have optimistically stated their joint intention to sign a final peace agreement by the end of this year. Provisional indications of the deal include a power-sharing governmental system, which would place part of Mindanao under the Moro's direct day-to-day control while at the same time maintaining Philippine national and geographical integrity. The establishment of US military installations would conceptually serve a de facto peacekeeping role between the two sides, while also providing Manila and Washington a valuable beachhead to combat Islamic terror groups in the region. The MILF's Kabalu said his group would like official US participation in the peace-talks process, which since 2003 has been led inconclusively by Malaysia. "We would like Washington to make its position official, like Malaysia, Brunei and Libya, who take part in the consultations on behalf of their governments. "At the moment the US is playing a clever role; they are involved, but only via the United States Institute of Peace," he said, adding: "We have nothing against the Americans. As a matter of fact, in our 30-year-long struggle, we have never hurt one American. If they help, then they are welcome." Fabio Scarpello is AdnKronos International Southeast Asia bureau chief. He can be contacted at [email protected]. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to "Staring into the Abyss" (Aug. 07, 2008) Tony, I agree with Jose Regino of Zamboanga City. In general, we, the people of Mindanao, are not in favor of this independent-state concept. That includes some Muslims who do not espouse the MILF's combative stance. We know them better than any of you because they live among us. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. All this hullabaloo over acceding to the MILF demands is fired by President Arroyo's desire to win their support and perpetuate herself in power. The killings in Lanao were just a tip of the iceberg of how they can exhibit their war-like nature, and it was prompted by just a slight delay in the MOA. They are the minority, but they are still Filipinos, so why do they want to be independent? Best, Yett Montalvan, (by email), Aug. 25, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww On Ancestral Domain Negotiating with the MILF was a big mistake. Resuming talks with it would be aggravating it. If MILF does not get what it wants, there will be trouble. The bloodshed that followed the SC order suspending the signing of the MOA-AD is an example. If it gets its demand, there will be an even greater trouble. Would the residents of the ceded area allow themselves to be governed by MILF? Imagine the power struggle that would most likely ensue! Lesson: let not any bandit group browbeat us into submission. What is the solution? Vigorous implemention of Republic Act No. 8371, also known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997," the State recognizes and promotes certain rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) within the framework of the Constitution. If Tausogs, Manobos, T'bolis, Dumagats, Mangyans, Agtas, and other ethnic groups are given titles to lands that are rightfully theirs, would they still join any armed group demanding rights to ancestral domains? Ownership is tribal, not religious. Let it be that way. A dialog on federalism? Why not one on local autonomy first? It seems to me that the fruits of federalism is more within reach via this route. No need for cha-cha! This applies also to the ancestral domain issue. It is best approached at the local rather than regional level. It is tribal, not religious. Let it be that way. The government is now confronted with lawlessness on the AD issue because it has been remiss with the implementation of RA 8371 known as Indigenous People's Rights Act (IPRA). It is not too late for this. Grant ancestral domain titles to present, not historical, occupants. Deal with tribes, not bandits. Give everyone his due, whether he is in Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao. Terrorists included! Eustaquio Joven, (by email), Aug. 16/20, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony: Because I respect your perspective, I like to have your comments on my opinion regarding "ancestral domain" which has not been thoroughly discussed in the controversial MOA-AD agreement fiasco. Thanks. Martin Celemin, (by email), Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept 05, 2008. On 8/22/08, Martin Celemin <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Perry: "Ancestral Domain" has been used in this MOA agreement to justify giving the Moros some lands in Mindanao purportedly to acquiesce or appease them. The whole United States of America is an ancestral domain of Native Americans (aka Indians). By the same logic, the Native Americans are supposed to be entitled to claim and demand to revert the U.S. sovereignty to them. There are many countries now which had been ancestral domains of people other than the present population, history can attest. In the history of the world, lands were transferred, demarcated or bought (remember the Alaska and Louisiana purchases) by wars or otherwise many times over. I don't recall any descendants of ancient people claiming present lands except our Moros. It's not even sure the Moros were the first people who inhabited Mindanao. That's why I question the use of ancestral domain as the basis for Moros to acquire lands in Mindanao and Palawan. Why is it that the Philippine Congress or other entities do not junk this spurious "ancestral domain" claim? Martin Celemin wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww What Ancestral Domain? We are bothered no end why Filipinos kill their compatriots over the so-called Bangsamoro ancestral domain, which, in reality, encompasses the entire North Borneo and the Malay Peninsula. Being so, the people who, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) claims they represent, are non-natives and are not entitled to an ancestral domain. History books, including a photocopy given to me by my favorite historian and big sister, Chitang Nakpil which she got from "The Reading in Philippine History by Horacio de la Costa,historian and a good Jesuit, tell us that only the Aetas deserve an ancestral domain. They are the original Filipinos. In Mindanao, the only remaining real natives are the kinky-haired and thick-lipped Mamanwas of Surigao and and a few other non-Moslem hill-tribes. Most history books suggest that all Filipino Moslems are not truly natives. Most of them are descendants of Arab and Malay migrants who inter-married. In reality, they are descendants of Abu Bakr, an adventurous Arab (Islamic) scholar who, for some reasons, came from the Madjapahit empire; and other migrants from Malaya, who immigrated to Mindanao between 200 and 300 AD. In fact, there was a big wave of Malayan immigrants, who landed on the shores of Mindanao just some 20 years or so ahead of the coming of Spanish conquistadores headed by Fernando de Magallanes. Safe to say, the Tagalogs, Capampangan, Ilocano, Sugbuanon, Bol-anons, Hilonggo, Bicol and the so-called Lumads of Mindanao, came from the same Malayan stock, but their ancestors came to the Philippines, via the Celebes and South China seas. These migrants inter-married with Chinese traders and later on, with people of the different race, thereby begetting what would later on become the Filipinos. Moro scholars, including the shrewd and sly leaders of trouble-makers in Mindanao are familiar with these bits of history. It is, in fact, the reason why, in their quest to hoodwink the Filipinos, they are trying to bluff their way into acquiring ancestral domain even in territories that they know are not really theirs. In so many ways, the MILF's claim of an ancestral domain is just a means of pulling the rug under every peace-loving Filipinos' feet. They are dragging the Lumads into a conflict they have been sowing in Mindanao - not long ago, but just a few decades hence. No doubt, the coming days would be very exciting. Amir Ombra Kato and Abdullah Macapaar a.k.a. Commander Bravo are said to be on their way back to Mindanao. They are sailing back through the Philippines' southern backdoor after cooling their heels in a secret base provided to them by their Malaysian benefactors in Sabah. Reliable sources say these crooked psychopaths, who are known to be among the die-hard fundamentalists among the band of pirates, pillagers and marauders, are coming back with lots of funds, a horde of relatively new armaments, uniforms and other war materials which have striking resemblance with the basic issues of the Malaysia's military and commando units. Certainly, they are determined to mount a more aggressive semi-conventional struggle for the "secession of Mindanao," along with Islamic elements whose fingers are crossed that the conflict would evolve into a civil war ala Vietnam in the next few days. The war that Kato and Bravo will be mounting would be sporadic yet sweeping, bloody and extremely cruel. And if tens of thousands had been killed and unquantifiable miseries have been experienced by legions upon legions of Mindanaonon families in the more than three decades of clashes between government forces and the bandits who conveniently label themselves as mujahideens or freedom fighters, thousands more are bound to get slain and more houses would be torched in the ensuing skirmishes. Hunger and crimes would be the order of the day as deprivations on and by either side is going to be rampant. Notwithstanding the observance of the Holy month of Ramadan, heavy three-sided clashes between government forces, the blasphemous secessionist guerillas and Christian vigilante groups are expected to erupt in just a few days from today. And if the non-Moslem hill-tribes start pursuing their quest for their own claim for an ancestral domain, we just can't imagine how riotous the scenario is bound to be. The government's recent disclosure of a doubled bounty for any the capture of MILF Commanders Kato, Bravo and Pangalian is viewed more as a veiled invitation to every passive Christian to take part in eliminating the military's perceived trouble-makers. In fact, several local government units in Mindanao have been purchasing guns to arm their chosen wards in the pretext of defending their villages from the marauding bands. And no less than high-profile local officials are known to be organizing newly formed vigilante squads and reactivating the remnants of the Marcos-era ILAGA, barracuda, Sagrado Corazon Senor (SCS) and other tadtad groups of armed non-Moslems, who believe in their perceived invincibility. What amaze me is the sudden entry of another muslim freedom fighter (kuno),The Moro Resistance and Liberation Organization which according to my "mole" is patterned to the Palestinian Liberation Organization of the late Yasser Arafat. All hell break loose! Erick San Juan, (by email), Sept. 06, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww On the US Bases Negotiations in 1991 Tony, Just two minor corrections on my Reaction to "Winners and Losers.". Former Executive Secretary Oscar Orbos was eyeing on the presidency in 1992 - and NOT 1998 as I wrote earlier. Second is the name of the US State undersecretary. You are right. It was Richard L. Armitage and NOT Richard Armacost, the former U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines. Armitage was appointed by then President George Bush in 1990 as Presidential Special Negotiator for the Philippine Military Bases. A year earlier in 1989, the U.S. Senate REJECTED the appointment of Armitage as U.S. State Assistant Secretary. Given the background of Armitage, he was the wrong guy for the job to negotiate. He is used to having his way in shady transactions. He is known as a Vietnam-era covert operative and Contra-era figure. In the testimony of the Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal, Armitage was identified as the Department of Defense (DoD) man involved in the illegal transfer of weapons to Iran and the Contras in Central America. Worse, Armitage has been identified as a "neo-conservative" involved in the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of a U.S. diplomat opposed to Bush's policy in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. Washington's Post's Bob Woodward testified on 12 February 2007 that it was U.S. State Undersecretary Richard Armitage who disclosed to him the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame in June 2003. This Armitage is really one hell of a guy! Too bad, he did not serve his country well with all his activities that can be made into a movie. Best regards. Ric B. Ramos, (by email), Santa Rosa, Laguna, Sept. 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, I saw the reaction of Ric Ramos regarding the U.S. bases negotiations that took place in 1990-1991 and your reply, and decided to weigh in on it. I served as the spokesman for the Philippine Panel until an Achilles tendon operation took me off-line. The U.S. was at that time closing down many of its military bases at home and abroad. This was one of the peace dividends at the end of the Cold War. As we learned from the U.S. panel in the course of the negotiations, they were prepared to give up Clark but were intent on keeping Subic to serve as its main logistical base to service their naval interests stretching from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. While they were prepared to reduce their "boots on the ground" using the term "phase-down" (to include Clark's closure), they were not prepared to "phase out" which was the Philippine panel's constitutional position. After all, as public servants, we took an oath to obey all laws and enforce it, and the 1987 Constitution was clear regardless of our personal views on the matter. The Philippine panel was being portrayed as: 1.) unable to stand on its own two feet; 2) engaging in "cash register" diplomacy, and 3.) anti-American. To top it all, it wasn't only the Americans saying it (I assumed it was part of their psywar script, strictly business, nothing personal), but it was the little brown Americans who really believed that crap. I felt like we were in a basketball game where part of the hometown crowd was cheering for the other side, later on to find out that even the referree was on their side. I wondered aloud then how many million reasons were being thrown for that effort and who was really conducting "cash register" diplomacy. I recall retorting in one press conference that the Philippines preferred America's good faith ahead of their money, because at that time Richard Armitage was already pushing for us to negotiate a new bases agreement even when it had yet to fulfill its obligations on the existing agreement. Heck, if they wanted to talk business, then the first order of our business was to get them to comply with the terms and conditions of the existing agreeement before discussing the next. For starters, it was plain knowledge that America established its bases after its colonization of the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, and had a free ride until President Marcos demanded rental payments in the '70's. Even the rent paid from that time up to the time we began our negotiations paled in comparison to what America was paying Spain, Greece and Turkey, for example, for land areas far far smaller than the tens of thousands of hectares occupied by Clark, Subic, John Hay, O'Donnell, etc. So, while the "cash register diplomacy" label was a good sound byte, it rang hollow in the face of historical facts. Moreover, the "chuchuwas" were parroting the selling point that the bases provided an effective security blanket and helped reduce the cost of security allowing the country to rechannel precious funds to socioeconomic development. That was true up to a point but, in the main, disadvantageous because we developed in the process a one-sided security relationship at the expense of a broader and normal relationship befitting two independent and sovereign countries that considered themselves "special." Moreover, the security blanket argument flew in the face of history. I recall saying in a meeting that despite the proliferation of U.S. bases in the Philippines, Japan occupied us for 3 years in World War II, and that America's scorched earth tactic to regain Manila from the Japanese reduced it to rubble, making it the second most devasted city of WW2 next to Warsaw, Poland. Two decades later, the U.S. abandoned South Vietnam unable to defend it against North Vietnam despite the humongous presence of its bases there in the 60's and 70's. Nothing anti-American there, I said, simply unassailable history. In a back-channeling dinner exercise at the U.S. Ambassador's residence, I was seated at a table with guys from the Embassy and Washington, D.C. Someone asked me why my statements rang of anti-Americanism. I told him that I do not have to be ant-American to protect and defend my country's interests and honor against disinformation and bullying (a tactic that Armitage adopted). I, in turn, quipped that what the U.S. was doing to the Philippines was un-American. I told them that when their 18yr old sons or daughters seek their emancipation from home, their parents allow them despite their fears and reluctance. It is because of their early exposure to freedom and the risks of being on one's own that makes America an enviably strong society. Then, I said, here's the Philippines, at that time of the negotiations already 92yrs old and supposedly America's "special ally," that was still being restrained by America Why, I asked? "Don't you trust or have confidence in your special ally that wants to stand on its own two feet and stop being a monkey on anyone's back? I added that they should instead pat themselves on their backs and take a bow because the 92yr old pupil has learned from its master and has gathered the courage to be on its own. Why, then, was America unwilling to let us go? Someone mumbled that I had a point there but that the problem they had was making their bosses in Washington understand all that. In a private dinner with my counterpart and master communicator, Stan Schrager, I remember telling him that should the Phil. govt. allow a phase down instead of a phase out (Tony, we were prepared to give up to 7 years for the U.S. to dismantle Subic), (Which was my editorial position in my column at the time. ACA) President Cory Aquino would have been vulnerable to an impeachment for failing to uphold the Constitutional provision of "no military bases on Philippine soil." 7 years was generous for a gradual and cost-effective phase out, we thought, at a time when military technology and rapidly changing military strategies and tactics were rendering such jurassic bases economically untenable. I also recall the moment with the DND-AFP when I sought a meeting before accepting the role as spokesman. I told them that I went over to get their backing because if there was any one symbol of patriotism it was the military. Then Secretary Fidel V. Ramos and Gen Renato de Villa said something to the effect that I had their full backing because it was time for the country to stand on its own and for as long as I represented a panel that upheld the national interest. FVR intimated that despite the "Amboy" label levelled at him and the AFP in general, he said that it was the Filipino cadets in West Point like him that first experienced relationship imbalance between America and the Philippines. If the country had developed a mendicant attitude the political leadership, past and present, had much answering to do. Tony, what can I say? History continues to repeat itself because we haven't really learned from it. Not just yet. I'm of the opinion though that while we may be slow learners, we'll get there. Let me just say that in our journey to real freedom we don't have to be anti-anyone. In fact, America's many good points are worth emulating, as China's, Japan's, Europe's, etc. Let's just be pro-Filipino and care for each other along the way. On that note, cheers! Keep writing and hitting the nail right on the head. All the best, Raffy Alunan, (by email), Sept. 07, 2008 Former Secretary of the Interior and Local Government OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to [email protected]. Tony on YouTube in www.tapatt.org. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. |