Friends of the Filipino People

Cold War still hot in Philippines

2008-02-03T07:51:00.000-08:00

The Bush Administration has called the Philippines "The second front in the war on terror". While US military aid has been challenged by human rights advocates and organizations and Philippine solidarity groups, joint military exercises continue to fan the flames of US military influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Is this a message to China? Here is a recent article describing how an imperial vestige of the Cold War, the US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, dominates US military influence in the region under the guise of "The Global War on Terror". Tim McGloin, FFP.

U.S. to resume full-scale war games in Philippines
29 Jan 2008 07:56:03 GMT Source: REUTERShttp://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAN161958.htm
MANILA, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The United States will hold full-scale joint military exercises with the Philippines in February after drastically scaling down the annual event last year because of a row over a U.S. Marine jailed for rape. About 6,000 U.S. soldiers will take part in the exercises,, which will be held near strongholds of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the largest Muslim rebel group in the Philippines, military chief General Hermogenes Esperon said. Last year, Washington scaled down the war games, sending only 400 soldiers after a row over custody of the marine convicted of rape in December 2006. U.S. forces routinely train and advise Philippine military units, build roads, bridges, schools, clinics and conduct other humanitarian activities as part of joint efforts with Washington's closest ally in the region to fight Muslim militants. Esperon said 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. troops would take part in the Balikatan (shoulder-to-shoulder) manoeuvres in the central region of Mindanao. About 2,000 Filipino soldiers would also participate in field training exercises, table-top simulations, and humanitarian and civil affairs activities in poor Muslim communities. The area is the stronghold of the MILF, which is holding peace talks with Manila after a ceasefire took effect in 2003. "Our two armies usually test our preparedness against all sorts of security threats," Esperon told foreign correspondents late on Monday. The war games were not directed at any particular enemy, he said. "We have agreed with our U.S. counterparts to hold medical, dental and veterinary clinics in poor Muslim communities in the central Mindanao region," Esperon added. He said counter-terrorism activities would also be held on the southern island of Jolo, a bastion of one of Southeast Asia's deadliest Islamic militant groups, the Abu Sayyaf. Some Indonesian jihadists are also believed to be hiding there since 2003. (Reporting by Manny Mogato; editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Roger Crabb) Balikatan is a large-scale conventional exercise to rehearse the two countries' defence plan against foreign aggression based on the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty, one of the remaining vestiges of Cold War alliances in the region.\

Philippine Killing Fields Shadowed by US Global War on Terror

2007-03-09T20:06:00.000-08:00

Political executions in the Philippines are carried out by government security forces and military operatives, and are a part of government policy.

These are the inescapable conclusions of two independent human rights investigations, the Melo Commission, set up by the Macapagal administration in response to domestic and international pressures, and Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions (both reports are available from FFP upon request). The Melo Commission, under the chairmanship of former Philippine Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo, identifies the Philippine military as responsible for most of the deaths "by allowing, tolerating and even encouraging the killings." And the report named names, singling out retired major general, Jovito Palparan, as one deeply involved in many of the killings, and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales. The Alston report accuses the Philippine military of being in almost “total denial” about its role in the killing fields.

Conveniently, the targets of the killings have typically been labeled as “communists” or as members of “front organizations”. In reality, the victims have often been those who seek social justice, speak out against the killings, and advocate for labor rights and social justice. They come from all walks of life: students, labor leaders, human rights advocates, farmers, members of opposition parties, religious leaders, or members of human rights and social justice organizations.

Philippine journalist, Benjie Oliveros summarized it very pointedly in his recent article “Political Killings as State Policy” (www.bulatlat.net, March 4-10, 2007),

“Extrajudicial executions……are consciously and systematically being done as part of the Arroyo administration’s counterinsurgency program called Oplan Bantay Laya (Operation Guard Freedom). The United States is deeply involved in fighting the threat of Islamic terrorism plaguing the southern part of the Philippines archipelago. Troops, money and expertise tirelessly have been flown from Washington to Mindanao during the last few years”.

Oliveros goes on to say that the US military has a policy of not training foreign armies notorious for human rights violations. That is good to know, but it has never been implemented anywhere in the world where US troops, advisors, and training specialists are sent. Besides, such a policy is easily undermined by “contracting out” such services to private security companies like Blackwater in Iraq and more recently DynCorp in Somalia.

Since Gloria Macapagal Arroyo came to power four years ago, some reports have put the number killed or “disappeared” at over 800. Regardless of the actual number, this must stop now, and there are actions that can be taken by both the US and Philippine governments.
On Feb. 27, U.S. ambassador Kristie Kenney said that human rights are critical to every democratic country and asked President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to do all she can to stop the killings and abuses. But exactly what pressure will the US apply, especially when Macapagal Arroyo has received high praises from the Bush Administration for her support in the “global war on terror”?

Several actions can be taken. The U.S. can suspend all military and economic aid until the human rights violations stop. In addition, it can use its military advisers in the Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) and the Security Engagement Board to pressure their AFP counterparts to put a stop to political killings and review its counterinsurgency program which, after all, is based on U.S. counterinsurgency strategies (see Oliveros article cited above for more details).

For its part, the Macapagal Arroyo Administration should follow the recommendations from the Alston report to review its counterinsurgency program and to create space for the Left to participate in the party-list system. Many of those killed have been active in opposition parties like Bayan Muna. And it can at least investigate and expose the direct involvement of its own military and national security forces and bring to justice the perpetrators of all human rights violations and abuses. Otherwise, if the killing fields “business as usual” policy continues, Philippine democracy itself is at stake.

US Prepares to bomb Iran: BBC

2007-02-20T16:43:00.000-08:00

US Plans for Attack on Iran Revealed (Report from Democracy Now, www.democracynow.org, 2/20/07):

The BBC is reporting the US military has drawn up contingency plans for massive air strikes against Iran. The plans call for attacks on Iran's nuclear sites, air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centers. As part of the plan, long-range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs to penetrate Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

In additon to this, US Secretary of Defense Robertt Gates admitted today that the US has its second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

Bush Prepares to Bomb Iran?

2007-01-29T22:07:00.000-08:00

US preparations to unleash military force on Iran are becoming clearer, as this recent article from the Sunday Herald UK describes. What are the consequences for the Philippines for supporting Bush's "Pax Americana"?

America "Poised to Strike at Iran's Nuclear Sites" From Bases in Bulgaria and Romania By Gabriel Ronay The Sunday Herald UK, 28 January 2007

Reports suggest that "US defensive ring" may be new front in war on terror.

President Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.
"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.
The American build-up along the Black Sea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.
Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on terror.
Sofia's news of advanced war preparations along the Black Sea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack." Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner, "a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of this revelation.
Curiously, the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.
Before the end of March, 3000 US military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April, 2006, an air base at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".
Romania, the other Black Sea host to the US military, is enjoying a dollar bonanza as its Mihail Kogalniceanu base at Constanta is being transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the Iran scenario.
Last week, the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanu base. Admiral Gheorghe Marin, Romania's chief of staff, confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnel will be temporarily stationed in Romania".
In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the country.
Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an open threat to Russia".
Sergey Ivanov, Russia's defence minister, spoke more circumspectly while emphasising Moscow's concern. He said: "Russia is not worried. Its strategic nuclear forces can assure in any circumstance its safety. Since neither Tehran, nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental missiles capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."
Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax Americana."

2007-01-05T16:50:00.000-08:00

US Militarization in the Philippines: Follow the Oil Trail

US Military installations all over the world are strategically situated to maintain US access and control over global oil supplies. George Bush's "war on terror" happens where 3/4 of the world's remaining oil and natural gas is located. For more detailed information on the location of US military forces and oil resources, check out www.theoilfactor.com . A statement from that website sums it up: "The Oil Factor" questions the motives for the U.S. wars in the Middle-East and Central Asia where 3/4 of the world's oil and natural gas is located”.

The same truth is unfolding in the Philippines. The article below appeared in Saturday, December 9, 2006 issue of “Mindanao Today” (http://mindanaotoday.com/?p=157#more-157)
As With Iraq, American Oil Giant Exxon Follows U.S. Troops in Sulu
Most people have come to accept the fact that the war in Iraq, more than spreading US -style democracy in a troubled Arab region, is actually about oil. Those who advanced this line had been labeled as conspiracy theorists and leftist nuts. Saddam, after all, was a brutal dictator that deserved to die. Today, the war-for-oil justification is widely accepted to be true, bolstered in no small measure by the subsequent forays into Iraq by US oil companies.

One of those companies is Exxon Mobil, the world’s biggest oil company.
This week, Exxon announced that it would explore the deep waters of Sandakan Basin off Sulu for oil. The oil exploration agreement would cover about two million acres. The Department of Energy has been promoting the basin for exploration because it has “high petroleum potentials.”

Is there a parallel between the US war in Iraq and the “war on terror” America is waging in Sulu, which has basically given the US the justification to stay there?

“We are pleased to add this prospective acreage to our global portfolio and to have this opportunity to enter the oil and gas industry in the Philippines,” said Steve Greenlee, vice president of Esso Exploration International Limited, an Exxon subsidiary.

Activists, of course, have always said that there’s more to the US presence in Mindanao than the “war on terror.” With Exxon’s entry to Sulu, that is pretty much affirmed. Then again, in the history of the world, military aggressions and wars are almost always followed by the division of the spoils. This “war” seems to be no exception.

Philippines remains US Military Springboard

2006-11-04T09:57:00.000-08:00

Cog in US Military Machine
Things in the Middle East are really heating up even beyond the current insanity. A few weeks ago there was a deployment of a strike force, led by the nuclear aircraft carrier U.S.S. Eisenhower, to the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran. Some experts claim that this is a normal deployment, while others believe that it is an intentional “show of force,” if not an active provocation.

U.S. minesweepers have been ordered to follow. This is an even more ominous signal of preparation for military action, since such ships would not normally accompany a strike force on routine deployments.

5,000 US troops mostly from the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa are currently participating in joint military exercises in Central Luzon. The naval vessels and aircraft are using Subic and Clark as drop off points for these exercises. The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force is the major US interventionary force for overseas US operations, and they're there to "warm up" for possible action either in the Middle East or the Korean peninsula. The US is basically getting its militarty agenda met by the GMA administration.

US, Philippines Weigh new Military Marriage
A recent article in Asia Times by Fabio Scarpello (August 26), describes how the US is using the conflict in Mindanao to position itself to re-establish a permanent military base there. His article states, “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 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.” The article goes on to note that “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. The US continues to pour increasing amounts of military aid to the Armed Forces of the Philippines. More US-RP military exercises are underway.

What are the implications of all of this? Will the Philippines continue to be a “Springboard of Intervention” for US military forces in the region and the Middle East? Will the Philippines become a pawn in the growing tension between the US and China?

Fair Trade not Free Trade

2006-09-23T09:51:00.000-07:00

Fair Trade, not Free Trade: ASEAN FRAMEWORK DEAL WITH U.S. MAY BE DISASTROUS TO ECONOMY, WARNS IBON
A recent report (August 29, 2006) from the independent think tank IBON Foundation warns about the consequences of NAFTA for ASIA (“TIFA” or Trade and InvestmentFramework Agreement. The recently signed agreement will lead to another “Free Trade Agreement”, says IBON, and “will sooner or later lead to a free trade agreement (FTA), and this will prove disastrous to the vulnerable sectors of the region.”
The recently-signed trade and investment framework agreement (TIFA) between the US and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will sooner or later lead to a free trade agreement (FTA), and this will prove disastrous to the vulnerable sectors of the region, according to independent think-tank IBON Foundation. According to IBON research head Sonny Africa, underdeveloped countries entering into an FTA with industrial powers such as the US and Japan virtually surrender national development policy-making to the interests of transnational capital. “Governments that forsake control over the domestic economy betray their poor farmers, workers and small and medium businesses,” Africa said. See www.ibon.org for the full article.
He cited the experience of other Third World countries that suffered after entering into FTAs with Washington. Some 1.3 million Mexican corn farmers were displaced by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) because of US dumping of heavily subsidized corn. Over a million Colombian consumers will be excluded from access to essential medicines and the country will face an additional US$5 billion in health costs over the next ten years because of intellectual property rights provisions in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
The State of the Philippine Environment (3rd Ed),, published and regularly updated by IBON, provides baseline data and is a factual guide and quick reference for environmental activists and students. Now available from IBON Bookshop, 114 Timog Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines.

Wars in Middle East

2006-08-08T08:50:00.000-07:00

In this August 7 letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Herbert Docena takes issue with the Inquirer's JUly 30 editorial stand and raises several timely points and issues on the current Israeli/US wars in the Middle East. Below is the text of the full statement.

You can reach the writer at herbert@focusweb.org

WHO DO WE SIDE WITH? An Open Letter to the Editors of the Philippine Daily Inquirer on the War inthe Middle East: To the editors of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

In your July 30 editorial (pasted below), you rightly point out that the Philippines should demand that Israel submits to a ceasefire in its ongoing war with the Hezbollah. We disagree on two points, however.First, you say that you "appreciate the struggle that a democracy likeIsrael is going through, when it fights an asymmetrical war where its veryexistence is at stake." It is unfortunate that while you correctly chide those who blindly align themselves with US and Israel on the current war,your characterization of Israel -- as a "democracy" facing an existential threat and forced to defend itself from "terrorists" -- is itself a nunquestioning embrace of the US-Israeli spin. That your editorial was published on the very day when 56 Lebanese were killed -- 37 of them children -- by an Israeli missile attack in Qana highlights how misplaced your appreciation may be. Israel's all-out bombardment of Lebanon and its invasion of Lebanon'ssouthern region is not an act of self-defense; it is raw aggression. The incident which is often said to have ignited this fighting -- Hezbollah's July 12 capture of two Israeli soldiers on disputed soil -- did not put Israel's very existence at risk. It was an armed operation that targeted military targets in response to Israel's continuing detention of over 9,000 Palestinians and Lebanese prisoners, many of them civilians, including about 500 women and children. It was also a response to the Israeli bombardment of and full-scale military assault on Gaza which had by then killed over 100 Palestinian civilians. Israel's counter-response -- subjecting an entire population under"collective punishment" in the form of relentless aerial bombardment -- is totally unjustified. So far, over 900 have been killed, most of them civilians and many of them children. Israel's targeting of civilians as well as civilian infrastructure such as roads and bridges -- and even ambulances and humanitarian convoys -- are clearly illegal under international law. The "democracy" whose struggle you appreciate has expelled over one million Palestinians from their land and has defied UN resolutions requiring that these Palestinians be allowed to return to their homes. In complete defiance of the UN and international law, it continues to militarily occupy the WestBank and Gaza, build more settlements in Palestinian territory, and seize more of their land and resources. In other words, it is the very "democracy"whose struggle you appreciate that has continued to deprive the Palestinians of their very existence.Israel's existence, on the other hand, is not in question: majority of the Palestinians -- including the current Hamas-led government -- have calledfor a two-state solution in which a Palestinian state will be established alongside Israel along pre-1967 borders. It is Israel that has blocked this solution every step of the way. The Hezbollah is not calling for the destruction of the Israeli state; only that Israel frees the Lebanese prisoners. For now, it is not even pressing its other demands, that Israel ends its occupation of the Lebanon-claimed Sheba farms and gives them a map to the 300,000 landmines they planted in Southern Lebanon during their18-year occupation of that area. Israel has refused all of this and has chosen to bomb on. It is indeed an "asymmetric war" -- on the one hand, Israel, the world's fourth most powerful military and the only one with proven nuclear weapons in the Middle East, backed by the full diplomatic as well as $3-billion-dollar-a-year military support of the United States. On the otherhand, the Palestinian and the Lebanese people subjected to Israel's military colossus. Between them, 34,000 Filipino workers who have nothing to do withthe Hezbollah but who, along with the Lebanese, are now being subjected toIsrael's "collective punishment." And it is on this second point that we beg to disagree: We call for animmediate ceasefire not just because it would allow the government to evacuate more Filipinos but because this war is wrong and it must not go on for a minute longer. Apart from making the evacuation of Filipinos unnecessary, an end to the war will end the killings of all innocent civilians -- be they Lebanese, Palestinians, Israelis, or Filipinos. We call for an end to this war because -- whether or not Filipinos are caught in the crossfire -- we believe that Israel and its backer the United States are on the wrong side and they must not be allowed to continue their aggression a second longer. You say: "Who do we side with? With our own, of course."We say: Who do we side with? With what's right, of course. STOP THE WAR COALITION - PHILIPPINES7 August 2006===============================EDITORIAL

Editorial : Who do we side with?Inquirer `Posted date: July 30, 2006AN exchange of views on the Senate floor last Wednesday, on the ongoinghostilities in Lebanon, proved inadvertently revealing. It revealed to the public that the inferiority complex in Philippine foreign policymaking is alive and well. And living in the person of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile.That day, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. filed Resolution No. 512, which soughtto express the Senate’s support for United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan’s appeal: an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. Possibly out of a sense of urgency, Pimentel asked that the matter be taken up forthwith on theSenate floor.Enrile, however, objected. And he couched his objection in ratherinstructive language. He said Pimentel’s resolution should first be raisedat a hearing of the appropriate Senate committee, for the following reason.“We’re going to express the sense of the Senate but we have an alliance withthe United States of America, and they are supporting the ongoing conflict in that part of the world,” Enrile said. Then he added: “We have diplomatic relations with Israel. We might be misunderstood if we are going to tackle this immediately.”Maybe, but we understand Enrile perfectly. What he is saying is that the immediate passage of the resolution may rile the United States and discomfit Israel. What he means is that any passage of such a resolution may haveserious diplomatic consequences. Enrile again, after a Senate recess had dissipated the tension on the floor:“I would suggest, before we tackle [the resolution], we must hear the position of the executive department. We can’t just act here, simply because we want to support the UN. We have to hear the voice of our diplomatic service in order that we can be guided properly.”He assumes, correctly, that Israel and the United States do not want aceasefire to take effect before the military capability of the Hezbollah,the Lebanese militia that is allied with both Syria and Iran, is substantially degraded.He assumes, correctly, that the official US view—especially as expressed inthe statements of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has cautioned against indulging the “false promise” of a “premature” ceasefire—runs counter to that of the United Nations. But Enrile assumes wrongly that the Philippine position—or, strictly speaking, that of the Senate alone—should necessarily reflect the views ofthe United States, with whom we have a military alliance. He assumes wrongly that the upper chamber, before passing a resolution thatexpresses its view on a given issue, a so-called sense of the Senate initiative, must consult the executive department. By constitutional design, the Senate bears a special responsibility for foreign affairs, and it isunder no obligation to merely reflect the executive’s position.Enrile’s criteria for weighing the value of Pimentel’s resolution, the assumptions behind his objection, are revelatory. They prompt us to ask: Don’t we have diplomatic relations with many other Arab states too, and withLebanon itself? Why privilege that of Israel? Don’t we have treaties withother world players? Why focus on our alliance with the United States? His objection reveals the timorousness of a political tradition, or ratherof that attitude shared by many in the political class: That we cannot hope to do anything on the global stage without the help of the Americans. That we cannot afford to displease the US government. That our best interests are in sync with those of our former colonial masters. Foreign policy, of course, should be a matter of enlightened self-interest.It is in the country’s best interests that a ceasefire in Lebanon takes immediate effect. We have 30,000 reasons for thinking this is the right course.Every day that a ceasefire remains out of reach, our contract workers inLebanon, especially those south of Beirut, suffer ever greater risk. Weappreciate the struggle that a democracy like Israel is going through, when it fights an asymmetrical war where its very existence is at stake. But thousands of Filipinos are caught in the crossfire. When even a temporary cessation in the hostilities would allow the government to evacuate more Filipinos out of Lebanon, why should we stop ourselves from adding our voiceto the chorus of restraint? Who do we side with? With our own, of course.