Analysis
ONE YEAR AFTER SEPT. 11:
A Mercenary President Without Equal 

Bush’s war on terrorism which was launched weeks after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States, is bringing another terror in the Philippines: the prospects of a permanent U.S. military presence and a growing national security state in the guise of a “Strong Republic.” The war’s targets are the alQaeda, Abu Sayyaf and other extremist forces– but here it is victimizing progressive organizations and the Bill of Rights. 

By Bobby Tuazon
Bulatlat.com 

In the United States, the Sept. 11 “terror attacks” will be remembered this week as the day the bastion of global capitalism and militarism came under assault. The country that never experienced any foreign aggression since the time it was born suffered a humiliating yet frightening blow prompting America’s hawks to unleash a borderless war against a faceless enemy. In the Philippines, just as Mt. Pinatubo’s unexpected and terrifying eruption in 1991 – along of course with the historic people’s rejection of the proposed bases renewal treaty - sent U.S. troops and their bases scurrying out of the country, the Sept. 11 events precipitated – with all pomp and arrogance - their march back into their third world neocolony. 

This Sept. 11, the nation will also observe the day President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sold out the country’s remaining semblance of national sovereignty, laid bare her regime’s mercenary character and all but scuttled any prospects of peace talks with the country’s leading revolutionary movement. 

A year ago, Macapagal-Arroyo pledged her government’s support to the war that U.S. President George W. Bush was going to unleash against terrorist groups who, he said, were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and against freedom and democracy. Indeed the presidential pledge carried much weight: It committed the Filipino people to – whether they liked it or not - support Bush’s “borderless war” against some 80 nations (including, ironically, the Philippines) whom he accused of either sponsoring or supporting terrorism. Aside from the fact that the war would unleash a destruction never before seen in recent wars, it was also a war that would respect no boundaries or national sovereignties. 

Consequently, in talks with Bush himself in Washington in October last year, Macapagal-Arroyo opened wide her country’s land, sea and air space for U.S. military access; increased the number of U.S. troops and war material for the Balikatan war exercises and allowed joint combat operations against the Abu Sayyaf whom Bush officials – without any hint of evidence – accused of having links with alQaeda. It became evident that the pact that Macapagal-Arroyo cut with Bush was all scripted to pave the way for a permanent U.S. military stay in the Philippines with the objective of supporting the regime’s anti-insurgency campaign and addressing America’s economic and geo-political objectives in Asia. 

Pact between global hegemon and client state 

The pact between the global hegemon and a client state – represented by Bush and Macapagal-Arroyo – was also going to address the latter’s expectations. Bush pledged an economic and military aid package which, the Philippine president believed, would boost her government’s economic performance and satisfy the appetite of her generals for money to support their combat operations primarily against the Leftist guerrillas. (The bulk of the yearly defense budget goes to the salaries of Armed Forces personnel leaving only a small chunk for field operations. This was going to be sourced from the U.S. assistance.) In the AFP hierarchy, furthermore, any commander-in-chief who wins the trust of the United States would have their absolute loyalty. 

But Macapagal-Arroyo also used her support for Bush’s war in anticipation of U.S. support for her election in 2004 and to launch her own war on terrorism at home targetting groups – not just the ASG – that prove to be a deterrent to her election bid. Aside from her pledge of support to Bush, the president began to sculpt the image of a strong ally, an anti-terrorist crusader and a tough president – presuming that such combative stance would endear him to the Americans and increase the chances of her being elected two years from now with another six-year term. Indeed, in his strategic global war on terrorism Bush would need the support of many pawns, proxy armies and strategic alliances to be able to meet his objective of eliminating all enemies of U.S. global hegemonism. 

Thus, it was expected that Macapagal-Arroyo would turn her war against the Abu Sayyaf bandits –albeit, despite strong U.S. interventionist support, without much success – into a war against the Left. To her, the Left – which was instrumental in her assumption of the presidency on condition that she would begin to institute meaningful reforms in the republic – is the greatest threat to extending her presidency beyond 2004 or even finishing her transitional term before that year. 

Under U.S. advice, the regime is sustaining an all-out war against the Marxist guerrillas and their alleged legal organizations in several fronts. These involved the labelling of the National Democratic Front (NDF), its affiliated groups and its alleged legal organizations as “terrorist”; the endorsement of several anti-terrorism bills that would legitimize current extra-constitutional moves to eliminate these so-called national security threats and muzzle all forms of political dissent; the escalation of anti-insurgency operations in the countryside along with a nationwide vilification and psy-war campaign against legitimate cause-oriented groups; the recruitment of thousands more regular forces and paramilitary units; and the non-ratification of the Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court (ICC). In government, military and reactionary circles, there is even a move to disenfranchise Bayan Muna from Congress. 

Killings 

These moves have led to the killing of scores of activists from the party-list Bayan Muna, Bayan and other militant groups. Peace talks between the government and the NDF have also been scuttled. Macapagal-Arroyo and defense officials, despite some dissent in her cabinet, are pushing the NDF to capitulate. An expected rebuke by the NDF would gain for government a “moral ground” justifying the escalation of the regime’s all-out war with increasing support from the Bush administration. The next Balikatan exercises and special forces training activities are seen to deepen U.S. role in the anti-insurgency campaign. 

All these pieces, when cobbled together, are what amount to be a creeping national security state or what Macapagal-Arroyo would rather call a “Strong Republic.” If passed by Congress and signed into law, the anti-terrorism bills – which violate the 1987 Charter’s Bill of Rights and other provisions - would smack of a de facto constitutional amendment. Human rights, lawyers and journalists groups fear the return of an authoritarian rule – a goal that was craved for by previous administrations after Marcos. 

Any development of this kind will, however, conform to the requirements of the U.S. war on terrorism, no matter whether the war is supposed to be a crusade for the defense of freedom and democracy. Bush officials believe this will make U.S. interventionism easier, will help eliminate home-grown anti-imperialist revolutionary movements and thus enhance opportunities for restoring U.S. military supremacy in this part of the world. 

The rise of authoritarian states has always corresponded to increased U.S. hegemonic interventionism in all parts of the world. This was seen during the Cold War and, in the Philippines, during the 1970s when the Marcos dictatorship as well as other military regimes in many third world countries were sponsored or had the support of the United States. The so-called “Operation Enduring Freedom,” as many of its critics observe, is actually a pretext for consolidating America’s global hegemony and unilateral power. The war includes what Pentagon calls “regime removal” – the elimination of unfriendly governments through covert operations – while extending support to mercenary states and proxy armies such as the AFP. 

We submit that the Sept. 11 events, instead of being seen from the relics of Cold War politics, must be assessed with cold-blooded facts. The role President Macapagal-Arroyo played in the aftermath of the events must be judged for what it has been – that of a mercenary president without equal. Bulatlat.com 

We want to know what you think of this article.