This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. VI, No. 7, March 19-25, 2006
Commentary
US Interventions
BY ELMER A. ORDOÑEZ There were two reported US
interventions in the recent aborted "coup plot" leading to 1017 followed by its
lifting a week later but belied by continuing repressive police/military
actions (on party-list members, the media, leftist and opposition figures and
users of cyberspace). The first version of the US
traditional role (gleaned from a broadsheet column) is that the plotters were
warned by US agents not to go through with their conspiracy, otherwise 5,000 US
Marines already in the country under the Visiting Forces Agreement would stop
them. The other version,
apparently contradicting the other, was that the coup plot was instigated by US
agents themselves who supposedly called the restive military leaders "meatheads"
for not moving to oust the leadership that had become a liability to US
interests—like the war on terror. The first version is
consistent with earlier US official and business statements that any regime
change must be constitutional. It seems that the US has had it with the present
administration whose continuing repression of civil liberties would be an embarrassment to US professed policy of "spreading democracy" around
the world. The second version may be
seen in the context of William Blum's Rogue State which gives as a lurid
catalogue of US covert and overt interventions (from 1945 to the present) into
the affairs of other nations during the Cold War, the US fight against the
Soviet Union and other socialist states (like China, North Korea, Vietnam,
Cuba), and national liberation struggles (particularly in the Third World). Now
add Iran and Syria as US targets. US policy then was one of
"containment" to prevent "developing" nations from falling under the influence
of either Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China. The US went to war in
Vietnam precisely to negate the "domino theory" inherent in its "national
security doctrine" underpinning US foreign policy. Under the Bush's policy of
waging war on terror, the US has embarked on ill-advised military incursions in
Afghanistan and Iraq where, as in Vietnam, US troops are dying and hard put to
disengage themselves from the quagmire of suicide bombings and escalating civil
war. Key officials in the conduct of the US war in Vietnam like Kissinger and
Haig, speaking in a postmortem forum, are either on denial mode or conscience
stricken—unable to see the connection of the Vietnam debacle with what is
happening in Iraq. As President Johnson said in 1966: "I oughtn't to be in this
country [Vietnam] but I can't get out." The lessons of Vietnam have
not been grasped by local supporters of the war in Iraq. I remember nationalist
writers here warned about the perils of supporting the The history of US
intervention in this country goes back to the turn of the century when revolutionary forces had
practically defeated the Spanish troops—surrounding its remnants in Intramuros.
What followed was a series of US betrayals of Filipino
interests and a ruinous Philippine-American war. The "benevolent assimilation"
or "pacification" drive of the US had so thoroughly Americanized our way of life
and thinking that by the time the country became nominally independent in 1946
our leaders and most of the people looked up to the US for practically
everything. It would take nationalist-minded leaders and groups in struggle to
regain our humanity and
pride as a people. William Blum has this to
say about US intervention after EDSA:
"Another scenario of poverty, social injustice, death squads, torture, etc.
leading to wide-ranging protest and armed resistance. . . time once again for
the US military and CIA to come to the aid of the government in suppressing such
movements. In 1987 it was revealed that the Reagan administration had approved
a $10 million, two-year plan for increased CIA involvement in the
counterinsurgency campaign. The CIA undertook large-scale psychological warfare
operations and US military advisers routinely
accompanied Philippine troops during their maneuvers. The Philippines has long
been the most strategic location for US war-making in Asia, the site of several
large American military bases, which have been the object of numerous protests
by the citizens. In 1991 the US Embassy informed the media that embassy polls
indicated that 68 percent, 72 percent, even 81 percent of the Philippine people
favored the bases. The polls, however, never existed. 'I made the numbers up,'
an embassy official conceded." The US bases are gone
(thanks to nationalist protests), but a Visiting Forces Agreement, gratuitously
ratified later by the Senate, has indeed the effect of enabling US Marines to
intervene
militarily in Philippine affairs. Posted by Bulatlat © 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
The Other View - Manila Times
Posted by Bulatlat
US war in Iraq in the name of fighting terrorists (their slogan after
9/11). Then the US began labeling as terrorist national liberation
forces/personalities—effectively stopping NDF/GRP peace talks.