|
|
|
|
|
|
January 24, 2002
|
atimes.com | ||
|
|
Battle lines drawn in the Philippines By Marites Sison MANILA - Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's decision to allow the deployment of US troops in the restive south has created a political firestorm, one that her government can ill afford just a year into her troubled presidency. It is now one of Arroyo's biggest political headaches, raising a ruckus from the left and politicians as well as a resignation threat from her own vice president/foreign secretary, even as her government is still struggling to prove itself. This month, about 600 US troops will go to the southern island of Basilan and join 1,200 Filipino soldiers in their mission to quell the extremist Muslim group Abu Sayyaf (Bearer of the Sword). Part of the US troop deployment is already in the country. The Abu Sayyaf, estimated to have fewer than 1,000 members, has been linked by the United States to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. US defense officials have called the mission to the Philippines the largest deployment of US military officials and personnel outside Afghanistan, and consider it part of the US war against terror. "It is not a modest number," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been quoted as saying. But while Manila says that the US troops will train Filipinos in putting the Abu Sayyaf under control, critics ranging from politicians to constitutional experts say the presence of US soldiers in this way is a violation of national sovereignty and is an ominous sign of foreign intervention. Arroyo is holding a series of crisis meetings on the matter this week. Jovito Salonga, who was Senate president when the chamber ended a military-bases agreement with the United States in 1991, decries the exercises as "a violation of the constitution that bans foreign troops and foreign facilities in the Philippines". "After our Senate ended more than 400 years of foreign military presence in the Philippines, we are now back to the worst kind of military intervention," says Salonga. To people like him, the sight of US soldiers on Philippine soil in relation to a local conflict brings back memories of the United States' inordinately big role political affairs in the past, stemming from its colonization of the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century and the presence of the military bases. In the 1930s, US forces took part in the Philippine government's campaign against communist guerrillas. But presidential spokesman Rigoberto Tiglao cites a nationwide poll conducted by the private pollster Social Weather Stations that showed 81 percent acceptance of having US troops help in the fight against the Abu Sayyaf. "I just want the Abu Sayyaf obliterated," says Joy Chu, a businesswoman and mother of two in Manila. "Too much damage has been done to all of us." She was referring to the problems that the Abu Sayyaf has brought, especially through its spate of bold and high-profile kidnappings in the past few years. Founded in the 1990s by the late Khadafy Janjalani, who fought and trained with the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Abu Sayyaf has built its arsenal through million-dollar ransom payments from kidnappings of civilians, including local and foreign tourists. While the group says that it seeks an Islamic state, its Islamic credentials are believed by very few among the 5 million Muslims in the Philippines. Many say the Abu Sayyaf are but bandits misusing Islam, and the bigger Muslim rebel groups have distanced themselves from it. About 5,000 Filipino troops have been deployed in Basilan for months, but they have been unsuccessful. This is why Filipino officials say US help would be a big boost to the campaign against the Abu Sayyaf, who still hold some hostages, including two American missionaries. US troops would bring in sophisticated weapons for modern surveillance, night observation devices, target acquisitions and sniper rifles. Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes says US soldiers would not engage in active combat, but would be involved only in support and maintenance operations. However, he said they would join Filipino front-line troops to evaluate their performance. They will be allowed to carry weapons for self-protection and to engage Abu Sayyaf rebels but only in self-defense. "The apparent public acceptance [of the deployment of US troops] seems to feed upon prevalent anti-Moro [Filipino Muslim] sentiments and a general exasperation with Philippine military efforts in Mindanao," explains sociologist and political analyst Randolf David. But he stresses, "This is a local war and the Abu Sayyaf are local bandits. That Americans and other foreigners have been among their victims does not make them global terrorists. This is an internal problem that is being given an international dimension. Why?" Satur Ocampo, a leftist congressman and former spokesman of the Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic Front, the leftist umbrella group, said that "this initial tie-up of military exercises, with actual military operations against the Abu Sayyaf, may expand to a wide scale" to include even the communist and other Muslim insurgencies. The leftist group is also on the US list of "terrorist" groups. "We are on a defensive stance since we are holding negotiations with the government," says Edi Kabalu, spokesman of the 12,500-strong Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which has been fighting for an Islamic state in the south for more than 20 years. "But in the event the US troops will be used against us, we are ready to adopt the necessary measures to defend ourselves," he adds. But Eduardo Ermita, presidential adviser on the peace process, says this is "not going to happen". Arroyo has also had to allay fears after a statement made by US Senator Sam Brownback that "the Philippines is going to be the next Afghanistan". She said, "We are not the next Afghanistan. We have been battling the terrorists even before" the US launched its anti-terrorist attacks in Afghanistan to flush out members of the Al-Qaeda network who are believed to be supporting the terrorist activities of Muslim groups in Mindanao. But Arroyo said on Tuesday that Brownback had apologized to her for making the statement, which greatly alarmed the Filipino public. Arroyo told the Philippines' Star newspaper that she impressed upon Brownback that his statements were not helping the Philippines or the US government in their efforts to rescue American couple Martin and Gracia Burnham, his constituents from Kansas who are still being held hostage by the Abu Sayyaf in Basilan. The newspaper, in its online edition, quoted the president as saying that she explained to Brownback how his statements will not only make it more difficult to rescue his constituents but will also delay the acquisition of new equipment, new assistance and additional intelligence for the Basilan exercises. "And, therefore, that delays the implementation of the training. So I said his statements were counter-productive to his purpose. "He's quite apologetic. 'You know,' I told him, 'We have to be very clear about this.' From the beginning I told President [George W] Bush that the term of reference is training. And that the American soldiers will not engage in combat. I think if you're going to make clarifications, you [Brownback] must keep stressing that, I told him." Meanwhile, Arroyo also has to deal with unrest brewing within her own team. In an interview with political analyst Amando Doronila of the English-language Philippine Daily Inquirer, Vice President and Foreign Secretary Teofisto Guingona says that he has been "agonizing" over his foreign-policy differences with Arroyo. "He said his dilemma was whether to live with a policy he disagreed with or risk pulling down the administration he helped install in power, by resigning from the cabinet," wrote Doronila. Guingona and Ocampo share Salonga's view that the entry of US troops and their deployment in combat zones violates the constitutional provision banning foreign military presence in the country. The same provision was behind a Senate vote in 1991 to terminate a 40-year treaty on the US military bases. In 1999, the Philippines and the United States, patching up ties strained by the 1991 vote, signed a Visiting Forces Agreement allowing military exercises. This also covers the entry, stay and exit of US soldiers in the country, the Philippine Justice Department maintains. Officials say that the war games are also justified under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States, but Guingona says this does not allow combat or the crushing of internal rebellions. He has also raised concerns about a US proposal for a Mutual Logistics and Support Agreement (MLSA) that would allow it access to its former bases in Subic, in Zambales province, and Clark, in Pampanga province north of Manila. The gap between the two highest officials of the land reared its head during Tuesday's cabinet meeting. For the first time Guingona did not sit beside Arroyo but opposite her across the table. Protocol dictates for Guingona to sit on the president's right during cabinet meetings. Being the concurrent foreign secretary, he is the highest-ranking cabinet official. Guingona also kept his silence during the entire meeting. He left before the meeting adjourned. Earlier, Arroyo and Guingona had a breakfast meeting where apparently they had not reconciled their differences. Arroyo again refused to comment on Guingona's position, which is contrary to her own. "We [have] talked to each other so we don't have to talk to the media," she said when asked about her breakfast meeting with Guingona. She would only say that the vice president had not offered to resign. Over the weekend, Guingona told the Daily Inquirer that he was agonizing whether to make an open break with the president over the deployment of US troops in Basilan and over a new military agreement with the United States, the MLSA. "As far as I am concerned, there is no MLSA," Guingona said. Already, Macapagal had instructed to form a committee that would discuss the parameters of the MLSA. The committee includes the departments of Foreign Affairs and National Defense and the National Security Council (NSC). In Guingona's view, the MLSA was a "secret pact that would pave the way for the permanent presence of the US troops here", according to a Department of Foreign Affairs source. "The MLSA was supposed to have been signed during the visit of Macapagal to the United States last November but it was pre-empted when the news about it leaked in the newspapers," the source adds. Guingona found the MLSA "outrageous" in that it would allow military structures to be built in the country for the US troops while they were here "for whatever purpose". "While it is true that the Philippines would subsidize the expenses of the US troops, what Guingona found more outrageous was that the MLSA would eventually pave the way for the permanent stay of the American troops using the military structures and facilities that they are now building in this country," the source says. "It's a throwback to the Cold War era," Ocampo says of the US presence. "It may even be worse, the Americans are getting the bases back cheaply - without an agreement and without having to pay." Ocampo says that Arroyo's benevolent policy toward the United States, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and after her visit to Washington in November, could prove to be a political kiss of death for her as her enemies prepare to use it as ammunition against her. Asked why Arroyo is eager to support the United States, Ocampo points to the issue of survival: "American support for her government discourages groups plotting against her, or those out to shorten her stay or challenge her in 2004 [the next election]. She realizes that the police and military establishment looks at who the United States supports." In other developments The students were chased all the way to an intersection about half a kilometer away. There were no arrests and none of the protesters appeared to be seriously injured. The demonstration occurred while Arroyo was convening a meeting of the National Security Council to coax her cabinet and leaders of Congress to support the deployment of about 600 US troops in the country. "What crimes have we committed? We are only exercising our God-given rights to protect ourselves ... it is the Americans [who have engaged in] desecration of our women, confiscation of our properties," Sulayman said. It was the first time the bandit group had aired its position on the deployment of US troops in the Philippines. Sulayman read the prepared statement, which was written entirely in English. The radio station did not air its brief interview with him. The Abu Sayyaf statement criticized the government for allowing the entry of US troops in the Philippines. Sulayman said the Americans are violating the Muslims' rights to assert their freedom by intervening in the country's internal affairs. Addressing the US, Sulayman said: "What about freedom and justice? What happened to your freedom and justice? Do you mean to say you have the moral right to assert them and us none? We guarantee that in the end, you will be the loser." He said their three hostages - American couple Martin and Gracia Burnham and Filipino nurse Deborah Yap - are in "good condition" although "weak". He did not mention any terms for the possible release of the hostages. Thailand beefed up its security after information obtained by the Thai Embassy in Kuwait indicated that airline offices of the US and its allies in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore could be targeted by Al-Qaeda members, local media reported on Wednesday. The Nation newspaper reported that security had been increased around "sensitive areas" including embassies, consulates, ambassador's residences, airports and airline offices. The report said that government officials were monitoring the security situation and believed that Al-Qaeda was active in Southeast Asia and may be looking to find a new base for their operations. Thailand was also considering strengthening the exchange of intelligence information with its neighbors, the newspaper said. Singapore said this month it had arrested 13 men from a group called Jemaah Islamiah, which had cells in Malaysia and Indonesia. The men were arrested for an alleged plot to blow up US military personnel and other American targets in the prosperous city-state. Meanwhile, the Philippines has arrested several suspects in the past fortnight who police say have links to the Al-Qaeda network. About 65 suspected Muslim militants have been arrested in Singapore, Malaysia and in the Philippines since the middle of December. Philippine authorities have seized one tonne of explosives, 300 detonators and 17 M-16 armalite rifles that they said would have been exported to other Southeast Asian countries. The government has consistently denied that Al-Qaeda elements are based in the world's most populous Muslim nation, although critics say politicians fear a backlash if a harsh line is taken with militant Muslims even though most Indonesian Muslims are moderates. (Asia Times Online/Inter Press Service) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
Front | China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT | Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive |
|
back to the top ©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Room 6301, The Center, 99 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong |
