Analysis

Desperate Straits

If the Macapagal-Arroyo administration fails to secure the release of de la Cruz, it will commit an injustice more serious than what was done against Flor Contemplacion and her family. At most, the Flor Contemplacion case demonstrated what is wrong with the labor export policy and the Philippine government’s inability to protect its overseas contract workers.

BY BENJIE OLIVEROS
Bulatlat.com

Barely eight days after her proclamation as president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is facing one big challenge to two of her most important policies, her administration’s unyielding support to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and her pursuit of the profitable labor export policy. 

These two policies cannot be attributed to her administration alone. Historically, all Philippine presidents had followed a foreign policy subservient to that of the United States. Second, the labor export policy was conceived and implemented as a temporary measure during the Marcos dictatorship. Succeeding administrations did not rescind this policy because of the lack in employment opportunities locally and due to the fact that overseas Filipino workers have become the biggest dollar earners for the economy, which is saddled by a perpetual trade deficit.  

What is particular to this administration is that President Macapagal-Arroyo has unabashedly flaunted her support to U.S. wars of aggression even as these are increasingly becoming unpopular among the peoples of the world including the American people. On Oct. 8, 2001, upon the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, President Macapagal-Arroyo declared that “the Philippines stands together with the United States” and that “the military action… is just, legitimate, urgent, and unavoidable.”  

Worse, the Macapagal-Arroyo administration eagerly supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq even after the United Nations refused to sanction it. On March 20, 2003, the day after the start of the invasion, Macapagal-Arroyo declared, “We are part of the coalition of the willing”. On April 9, when the U.S. declared victory, Macapagal-Arroyo hailed the “freedom” of the Iraqi people. The next day she acclaimed “the restoration of democracy and human dignity to their country…the triumph of democracy over despotism and terrorism…the victory of the Iraqi people [and their] brighter future.”  

Last August, her administration even sent an AFP-PNP contingent to Iraq as part of a “humanitarian mission”. She even used as rationale, for her administration’s unyielding support to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the potential employment opportunities for overseas Filipino contract workers in post-war Iraq. President Macapagal-Arroyo had the temerity to announce her intention to beg, from the U.S., for a share of the spoils of the war since the Philippines is in a deep economic crisis, no thanks to her hard-headed pursuit of the policies of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization.  

Clear choice 

If the Macapagal-Arroyo administration will have its way, its choice is clear. Under pressure at home, it may appear to exert efforts at securing the release of Angelo de la Cruz short of withdrawing Philippine troops in Iraq. There were reports that the Philippine government offered ransom to the Iraqi abductors but was rejected by the latter because according to them “their principles are not for sale”. If the political consequences of its choice will not be heavy, the Macapagal-Arroyo administration will not disappoint the U.S. by withdrawing Philippine troops even at the expense of sacrificing Angelo de la Cruz.  

Meantime, the administration is desperately implementing damage-control measures such as offering various explanations for its refusal to withdraw the Filipino contingent numbering a mere 51 (46 troopers and six policemen). Citing clichés such as “higher national interests” or “commitment to the international community” does not justify the choice that the Macapagal-Arroyo administration has made.  

Its excuse that the Philippine government cannot simply ignore its commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1546 does not hold water since this was passed only last June 8 while the Philippine contingent was sent to Iraq August last year.  

The president currently refuses to issue a statement regarding the issue. The government is also trying to contain the de la Cruz family especially after they had issued statements calling for the withdrawal of Philippine troops from Iraq. The government sent Angelo’s wife and brother to the Middle East while holding on to the children. The administration has also embarked on publicity offensive to try to turn the potential negative effects of the case to a political opportunity for the administration to project itself as “refuge” for and protector of its citizens.  

Withdrawal

 On July 13, there were reports that the government is already willing to withdraw Philippine troops from Iraq. Malacañang refused to confirm or deny it. The following day, July 14, the foreign affairs department announced that the government has sent home eight troops and is reportedly coordinating with the Department of National Defense for the withdrawal of the whole contingent. But the government’s attitude regarding the withdrawal of troops is still consistent. It would only push through with the troops’ withdrawal if the issue becomes too politically costly for Macapagal-Arroyo. 

The government has also employed fascist measures against those who are protesting its refusal to withdraw its troops from Iraq to save Angelo de la Cruz. Previously, the government was content at pushing demonstrators out of Mendiola Bridge. On July 13, without provocation, police forces violently dispersed a rally by Migrante (Migrants), an organization of overseas Filipino workers, Bayan (New Patriotic Alliance), and other people’s organizations.  

In the process, three demonstrators were hurt including Dr. Carol Pagaduan-Araullo, vice-chairperson of Bayan. Four others were arrested and charged as “threats to national security.”  

The reason for the Macapagal-Arroyo administration’s hesitation to withdraw a mere 51-person contingent is easy to surmise. Immediately after the DFA announcement regarding the reduction of troops, the U.S. State Department urged the government not to withdraw its troops and expressed disappointment over the reported reduction.  

Tenuous presidency 

The challenge posed by the Angelo de la Cruz hostage-taking incident cannot be underestimated considering that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was not able to secure a fresh and convincing mandate by winning in an election which is tainted by charges that she used the government’s coffers for her presidential campaign and that she stole the victory from her closest rival, Fernando Poe Jr., through massive fraud. With her tenuous hold on the presidency, Macapagal-Arroyo cannot afford the Angelo de la Cruz case to turn into an indictment of the administration’s inability, or worse, refusal to protect its overseas contract workers much like what happened with Flor Contemplacion.  

If the Macapagal-Arroyo administration fails to secure the release of de la Cruz, it will commit an injustice more serious than what was done against Flor Contemplacion and her family. At most, the Flor Contemplacion case demonstrated what is wrong with the labor export policy and the Philippine government’s inability to protect its overseas contract workers. But in the case of the Filipino truck driver, the Macapagal-Arroyo administration’s choice will seal his fate.  

To save Angelo de la Cruz, the Filipino people must pressure the Macapagal-Arroyo administration to pull out the Filipino troops from Iraq now. The abduction of de la Cruz demonstrated how the Iraqi people feel about the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the continued presence of foreign troops in their country. If we do not act now to save de la Cruz while at the same time demonstrating our opposition to the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq, we can only hope that the Iraqi people will realize that it is our government and not ordinary people like Angelo de la Cruz who are supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq and contributing to the oppression of their people. (Bulatlat)     

Back to top

We want to know what you think of this article.