Paper for NEPP-PEPP Luzon Workshop
Rey Claro Casambre
Philippine Peace Center
Subic Bay, 11 October 2007

Four months ago, in June 2007, a faint glimmer of hope shone amidst the seemingly impermeable darkness and uncertainty that had shrouded the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations for the past three years.

For the first time since the formal talks were postponed and then suspended indefinitely in 2004, both the GRP and the NDFP appeared to be seeking a way out of the impasse, both sides displaying a willingness to compromise and bend from erstwhile hardline positions in order to find a mutually acceptable formula for the declaration of a ceasefire and the resumption of formal peace talks. The government proposed a ceasefire for a number of months for the duration of talks, a departure from its prior precondition of a prolonged or indefinite ceasefire that the NDFP had always before rejected. The NDFP responded by saying it was open to a limited ceasefire for the duration of the formal talks, preceded by a joint agreement in accordance with a proposed ten-point “Concise Agreement for an Immediate Just Peace”, with all prior bilateral agreements.

The optimism would be reinforced by the positive intervention of the Supreme Court that unequivocally spoke against the evident pattern and state policy of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Under the leadership of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the Supreme Court called for an unprecedented national summit to address these problems and formulate new legal procedures that would help deter and minimize, if not eradicate, the incidence of these human rights violations.

All that now seems so far away. The glimmer of hope has not only faded, it has been violently extinguished

There is no doubt that the recent arrest of Prof. JMS and the raids on the office and residences of the NDFP panel members and staff in Utrecht, The Netherlands have drastically changed the situation for the worse, perhaps irreversibly.

What is the impact of arrest on the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations?

• At a time when the peace negotiations badly need gestures of goodwill and confidence-building measures, the arrest of JMS and raids on offices and residences of NDFP negotiating panel members and staff have dealt the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations a severe blow, that threatens to extinguish what little hope is left for the resumption of the formal talks and the advance in the negotiations.
• As expected, the NDFP condemns the attacks, sees these as a sign of negotiating in bad faith, and declares it will not negotiate with a government that violates, rather than complies with the bilateral agreements.
• Mauunawaan natin ang NDF kung iisipin nitong wala nang intension ang GRP sa ilalim ni Macapagal-Arroyo at pursigido itong gamitin ang buong marahas na lakas ng estado para durugin ito. While it initially denied any participation in the move of the Dutch government, documents released by the Dutch prosecution show that the Dutch action was in response to a request by the GRP to extradite Prof. Sison (26 Jan 2005). Eventually, Sec. Norberto Gonzales, Sec. Raul Gonzales, PNP Director Calderon and Deputy Director Razon all admitted, or rather claimed, that they had provided the Dutch government evidences and assisted the accusers of Prof. Sison in filing the case in the Netherlands.
• The US likewise professes not to have been involved, and offers its assistance if the Dutch government requests it, but in fact the testimonies of some of the witnesses were taken by the Dutch investigators at the US embassy.
• It is also clear that NDFP will not give in to GRP pressure to sign a “final peace accord” that does not address the roots of the armed conflict, or that is tantamount to its capitulation or surrender.
• Despite this, neither party has terminated the negotiations nor declared the agreements are no longer binding. This is the proverbial silver lining that gives us, peace advocates, the objective basis for persevering in our calls for the resumption of formal talks and for pushing the negotiations forward in accordance with the bilateral agreements both parties had forged.

What can and should peace advocates do in a situation where both sides appear to be unwilling to resume formal talks?

• We cannot remain passive in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Rather, these only mean we must work harder to keep the peace negotiations alive and exert utmost effort to push it forward.
• Join hands in common struggle, seek common principles, aspirations and goals, and work on these together and present a stronger voice.
• Our advocacy cannot be a function of our perception of how “sincere” or “willing” either or both parties are in seeking a genuine peace, but from our faith and conviction that a just and enduring peace is possible and necessary.
• Our quest for a genuine peace has as its main content the advocacy for basic or fundamental reforms that address the roots of the armed conflict. (Note: learn from the experience of the Moro people, or from the peace negotiations between the GRP and the MNLF and the MILF).
• Here are some concrete proposals to address the roots of the armed conflict:
  o Genuine land reform and national industrialization
  o Empowerment of masses through genuine representation
  o Economic sovereignty
  o Independent foreign policy
  o Indictment, investigation and prosecution of plunder, corruption
  o Normal trade and diplomatic relations with other countries
  o Patriotic, scientific and mass culture through education, mass media and mass organizations, cherish the cultural heritage of the Filipino nation and all the ethno-linguistic communities in the country
  o Recognition of right to self-determination of minorities
  o Cancellation of unjust, onerous foreign debts
  o Truce for the purpose of alliance and other constructive purposes

(These are the items in the NDFP’s “Concise Proposal for an Immediate and Just Peace, presented to the GRP in August 2005)

• Take a long view of the peace process
  • Tactically, what to do under conditions that Arroyo government has no intention of proceeding with an agenda that will address the roots of the armed conflict;
    • Study the process, especially the bilateral agreements (see The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations). Pay special attention to The 1992 Hague Joint Declaration, on p.1)
    • Call for the resumption of the formal talks
    • Absent the resumption, call for the operationalization of the JMC (to address the complaints vs EJKs and other violations of both sides.)
    • Take a position on the problems and issues, eg the recent arrest and raids, and political
  • Strategically or in the long term, view the peace process beyond GMA whether or not she remains de-facto president before, up to or beyond 2010. Peace negotiations has spanned and can continue to span different administrations (Ramos, Estrada, GMA), and will certainly outlive GMA

Annex:

From Chapter 9, Searching for Peace in Asia-Pacific – An Overview of Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities (edited by Annelies Heijmans, Nicola Simmonds, and Hans van de Veen; a project of the European Center for Conflict Prevention):

The more fundamental difference between the GRP and the NDFP impeding the peace negotiations is a disagreement on the root causes of the armed conflict, and on the nature of a “just and lasting peace”.

The GRP considers the following as the roots of the armed conflict:

• massive and abject poverty
• iniquitous distribution of wealth and control over the base of resources needed for livelihood
• injustice
• poor governance

These are all acknowledged by the NDFP. But the GRP is silent on how foreign domination and control has stunted the growth of the Philippine economy and caused suffering and misery. In contrast, the NDFP highlights this as the fundamental problem.

The difference goes beyond semantics. The NDFP points out that rather than address this problem, successive administrations since the Marcos regime have pursued basically the same economic policies that further open up the economy to foreign exploitation and plunder. Thus, measures being pursued by the GRP, such as Ramos’ Social Reform Agenda, fall short when assessed in terms of how economic independence and progress can be achieved to alleviate the the people’s suffering.

A comparison of the two parties’ proposals for social and economic reforms reveals great disparity on how to address the roots of the armed conflict. The GRP’s proposals all lie within the framework of the Philippine Constitution and laws, notwithstanding the provision in the “six paths to peace” that reforms “may involve constitutional amendments”. In initial negotiations for the Comprehensive Agreement on Social Economic Reform, the GRP resisted any reference whatsover to foreign domination and control of the Philippine economy.

From the 1993 NUC list of “reforms which will deal with the root cause of insurgency”, to last year’s GRP draft “Final Peace Agreement”, for example, no constitutional amendment is proposed for land reform or national industrialization, only better and more vigorous implementation of existing laws such as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

NDFP proposals, on the other hand, hew closely to the “Program for a People’s Democratic Revolution”. Even as adjustments are made considering the nature of negotiations, these proposals nonetheless aim to dismantle monopolies – foreign and local — from which arise the economic and political power of the ruling elite. The most important of these are in agrarian reform, national industrialization, the protection of economic sovereignty and the national patrimony, and upholding the people’s basic social and economic rights. Many of these proposals, if agreed upon would require major constitutional changes.

Without the assistance of a neutral third party, it is unlikely that the peace negotiations would advance this far. From the outset the NDFP has been open to having a foreign neutral third party in the negotiations. But the GRP argued that the armed conflict was an internal matter that should be resolved without any foreign third party intervention. The GRP, wary that having a foreign third party in the negotiations would give the armed conflict an international character and grant the NDFP belligerency status, initially insisted on holding the talks in the Philippines, then proposed a “shifting venue”. The NDFP objected, pointing to the 1986 experience when CPP/NPA/NDFP personnel who surfaced for the peace talks were subjected to intensive surveillance, identification and punitive actions[i]. To underscore its point, the NDFP offered to host the peace talks inside NDFP territory, with the NDFP issuing safe-conduct passes to GRP personnel.

Exploratory and formal talks have been hosted by The Netherlands and Belgium since 1992. The Royal Norwegian Government has acted as third party host since the resumption of formal GRP-NDFP talks in April 2001. It has taken an even more active role as third party facilitator since October 2003. Other, less significant activities by outside parties have included an offer from the Swiss government to host talks (rejected by the GRP)[ii], similar offers from the European Parliament, and European Parliament resolutions supporting the negotiations and expressing concern over human right violations.

In contrast, there is also what might be called foreign third party “conflict aggravation”. For example, the US, The Netherlands, and the Council of the European Union have jeopardized peace negotiations by listing the CPP/NPA and NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Maria Sison as “foreign terrorists” since August 2002.

The GRP has itself undermined confidence-building efforts by campaigning for the “terrorist” listing among member-states of the European Union in October 2002, welcoming such actions, and then using the “terrorist” listing to pressure the NDFP into agreeing to a “new enhanced process” that would lead to the signing of a “Final Peace Accord”. The NDFP has denounced the listing and the actions of the GRP as violations of national sovereignty and of the bilateral agreements. It also rejected the GRP’s proposed “new process” and draft “Final Peace Accord” as “negotiated capitulation”.

(This has taken a turn for the worse with the collaboration of the US and Dutch governments in the recent arrest of Prof Sison and the raids on the office and residences of the NDFP negotiating panel members and staff.)

Recommendations

The Philippine experience in conflict resolution validates the criteria for an efficacious approach prescribed by Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse in “Calling for a Broad Approach to Conflict Resolution”[iii]. The GRP-NDFP negotiations and the agreements reached show that progress is possible so long as (1) the parties enter into the negotiations without preconditions or any imposition from either side or outside parties, (2) the agreements are crafted in precise language that strikes a balance between commitment and flexibility (3) there is mutuality and reciprocity in the provisions, and (4) they deal with the core issues and bring about basic changes in society, “in accordance with mutually acceptable principles, including national sovereignty, democracy and social justice[iv].”

1. The most difficult but essential thing to “justpeace-building” is to ensure that the peace process “deals with the core issues” – i.e., it is aimed at addressing the root causes of the armed conflict, especially the social and economic ones. With respect to bilateral peace negotiations, conflict resolution and prevention means ensuring that agreements identify and address the root causes of conflict, prevent their perpetuation and aggravation, and thereby avert the recurrence of violent conflict.

2. Addressing the root causes of armed conflict is invariably a long-drawn out and complicated process. Thus the peace process must be so designed as to generate immediate tangible gains that benefit the people in general, mitigate the adverse effects of the armed conflict, and serve to build confidence and goodwill as the negotiations advance towards the goal of a lasting peace.

This is the advantage in having the agreement on the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law as the first item of the substantive agenda. Its implementation could at once, in the absence of a settlement, mitigate the human cost of the armed conflict. The returns in terms of imbuing both combatants and non-combatants with greater respect for human rights are invaluable, if intangible. The forging of the CARHRIHL likewise helped build confidence in the capabilities of the two parties to move forward to the more contentious item on the agenda, the socio-economic reforms.

3. The peace process needs all the help it can get. Third party official intervention can be either positive (offers of good offices, hosting, facilitation) or negative (e.g., the “terrorist” listings). Intervention by other international organizations can be positive if they contribute to the identification, elaboration and resolution of the causes of armed conflict, and if they help the parties build on their bilateral agreements rather than try to impose their own ideas. Neutrality should mean not taking the side of either party. In the Philippine context, the kind of neutrality which is good, possible, and necessary makes the interests of the greater majority of the Filipino people the paramount consideration in determining what position to adopt vis à vis the twists and turns in the negotiations.

The GRP-NDFP armed conflict has never been purely an internal affair, with the US playing a dominant role in Philippine politics, economy and social-cultural life. September 11 has injected renewed US military activity in the country under the guise of “counter-terrorism”. The inclusion of the CPP, NPA and Prof. Sison in foreign “terrorist” lists underscores the negative impact of international geopolitics on the GRP-NDFP conflict and conflict-resolution.

4. The GRP and NDFP must uphold and comply with bilateral agreements that have proven to be effective in advancing the talks and achieving further substantial agreements. Foremost is The Hague Joint Declaration which serves as the framework and foundation of the negotiations.

5. There is a vast potential for building a strong peace constituency in the people’s movement clamoring for socio-economic and political reforms. To a larger extent, such potential lies in both the organized and still unorganized grassroots masses in the countryside, who are most directly affected by the armed conflict, and who stand to benefit most by its just resolution.

The NGOs, POs and other organizations and individuals in this people’s movement have presented sharp critiques of the present system, policies, etc., and clamor for basic reforms. But they still have to link their advocacy to the peace process, particularly the peace negotiations, and affirm their roles as true stakeholders.

There is a pressing need for further peace education and information work among the populace, the POs, NGOs and other sectoral and grassroots organizations, and for involving them into activities that directly support and enhance the peace process.

In the end it is the people’s conscious and sustained participation in the peace process that will push it forward in the direction of addressing the roots of the armed conflict. The Filipino people are the final arbiters on what will bring about genuine peace.

Realistically speaking, a just and lasting peace in the Philippines is still far beyond the horizon. The peace process has stretched out over many years. The ultimate resolution of the conflict will only come with much more painstaking work not only inside the negotiating room, but more decisively, outside its walls.

 

---

 

[i] Government intelligence officials reported that their intelligence stock on the CPP/NPA/NDFP increased by 60% after the 1986-87 ceasefire and peace talks.

[ii] “Switzerland offers good offices for peace talks between NDF and Aquino government in Geneva. Aquino government rejects offer”, Neue Zuricher Zeitung, 17 May 1991

[iii]Hugh Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham & Tony Woodhouse, “Calling for a Broad Approach to Conflict Resolution”, in Searching for Peace in Central and South Asia, edited by Monique Mekenkamp, Paul van Tongeren and Hans van de Veen. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2002, p. 34.

[iv]Luis Jalandoni and Jose Yap, “The Hague Joint Declaration”. Signed and issued by Cong. Jose Yap and Luis Jalandoni representing GRP President Ramos and the NDFP, respectively, The Hague, 1 September 1992.

Rey Claro Casambre
Philippine Peace Center
8 November 2007

Paper presented at the Church Leaders’ Meeting under the auspices of the Norwegian Ecumenical Peace Platform (NEPP), 7-8 November 2007.

Introduction

The topic assigned to me is “The Human Security Act and the Rule of Law”.My task is to make a discussion of this topic fit into the program and objectives of this workshop. More particularly, the question I must answer is, why should we talk about the Human Security Act and the Rule of Law after listening to the updates on the peace negotiations from the GRP and NDFP representatives, and before discussing the demands of conflict transformation and the challenges of reconciliation in the peace process?

Let me start by citing a seemingly insignificant and only remotely related incident that appeared in the news a couple of days ago. It was a simple case of a work of art – a mural — being altered by its owner to please his guests, and the artist who created it protesting the changes made. It would have been a simple question of an owner’s right on one hand to do whatever he wants with something he owns, and an artist’s right on the other, to preserve his or her creation. But the cast of characters makes the incident more than that.

The mural – one depicting the state of press freedom in the Philippines — was created by the Neo Angono Artists collective, as commissioned by the National Press Club, which now owns the mural. The NPC had made some afterations on the mural without consulting the Neo-Angono Artists, after the Presidential Security Group commander commented that it (the mural) had “Leftist” marks. The PSG commander was referring, among others, to the alibata K on the arm of Bonifacio. The NPC had this altered with a heart pierced with an arrow. What were the other alterations made?

Interestingly and ironically, among the other alterations made was the complete obliteration of the statement of concern by the International Federation of Journalists over the Human Security Act, or the Anti-Terrorism Law, which was passed by Congress early this year.

The incident itself has a chilling effect. No less than the supposed guardians of press freedom were intimidated and impelled into this act of vandalism and censorship by what the PSG commander claims was a mere casual remark.

The NPC leadership’s reaction is absolutely unjustifiable and unforgivable. The excuse they offered – that the NPC wants to be apolitical and does not want being associated with the Left nor the Right — is quite lame and unacceptable. Altering the mural to please the PSG and avoid incurring the ire of GMA (who would be the guest of honor at its unveiling) was itself a blatantly political and Rightist act.

But if one views this incident in the context of unsolved killings and disappearances of journalists under the GMA government, the filing of libel cases against them by no less than the First Gentleman, and their inclusion in the AFP’s “order of battle” or listing of “enemies of the state”, then the NPC’s reaction of panic is understandable.

In fact, the NPC’s action demonstrates how terrorized and insecure they have become, perhaps just like anyone who is branded as an “enemy of the state”, despite or even because of the Anti-Terrorist Law, aka “Human Security Act”.

The Human Security Act

This, too sounds ironic, but not altogether strange. The Philippine version of an Anti-Terrorist Law, like many of its counterparts worldwide, has among its most objectionable features the following (slide):

1) failure to define clearly what “terrorists” and “terrorist acts”, thereby lumping together criminal acts and legitimate actions of protest, demands, or expressions of dissent and grievance.
2) imposing stiffer penalties on allegedly “terrorist” acts than on the same criminal acts not associated nor accompanied with “terrorism” or political ends
3) suspending if not entirely denying individual and collective rights, even constitutionally mandated rights, for the sake of anti-terrorism
4) vesting certain entities and individuals with extraordinary powers (e.g., the “Anti-Terrorism Council” is vested with prosecutory and judicial powers even if it is not part of the Philippine judiciary).

One possible impact of the HSA on the peace negotiations is that the CPP, NDF and NPA could be proscribed as terrorist organizations. Not a few high government officials, including the AFP and PNP top brass, have expressed their desire and objective to do so. This would surely terminate the peace negotiations.

Another possibility is that progressive organizations and individuals already listed as “enemies of the state” or “communist fronts” would also be proscribed as “terrorist”, giving state security forces further leeway in acting against these organizations and individuals to suppress dissent.

But the real and greater danger in the HSA lies even beyond its provisions. While state security forces and agencies decry what they call the emasculation of the Anti-terrorist law, that it is “toothless” and not strong enough to counter terrorism and send the terrorists to jail, the truth is that grievous human rights violations have been committed with absolute impunity and at an unprecedented scale and intensity for the past six years, even without the HSA. What the HSA has done is to provide an aura of legality, a legal justification, to an extrajudicial “counterterrorist” action, even if the HSA is not actually invoked or applied on a particular case.

In sum, the Human Security Act is itself a source of insecurity. This Anti-Terrorist Law itself terrorizes a broad range of potential victims.

No less than Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno declared:

… Terrorism is just one means of violating our human rights, especially our right to life itself, and should not consume our entire attention… Terrorism is terrible enough but the mindless, knee jerk reaction to extirpate the evil is more discomforting. The quickie solution is … for the military and the police to use their weapons of destruction under the theme victory at all cost. To put constitutional cosmetics to the military-police muscular efforts, lawmakers usually enact laws using security of the state to justify the dimunition of human rights by allowing arrests without warrants; surveillance of suspects; interception and recording of communications; seizure or freezing of bank deposits, assets and records of suspects. They also redefine terrorism as a crime against humanity and the redefinition is broadly drawn to constrict and shrink further the zone of individual rights.

In many countries, including the US and in Europe, many provisions of their anti-terrorist laws (such as the USA PATRIOT Act) have been questioned, and some have been ruled as unconstitutional or illegal by their own courts. Again, this is not strange, considering that there is no single, universally accepted legal definition of “terrorism”, even six years after 9-11 and the launching of the so-called “war on terror”.

Again citing Chief Justice Puno:

On the universal level, 9/11 altered the face of international law. As the worst victim of terrorism, the United States led the fight to excise and exorcise terrorism from the face of the earth. It pursued a strategy characterized by a bruising aggressiveness that raised the eyebrows of legal observers. The leader country of democracy did not wait for the United Nations to act but immediately sought to search and destroy terrorists withersoever they may be found. In less polite parlance, the search and destroy strategy gave little respect to the sovereignty of states and violated their traditional borders. The strategy which is keyed on military stealth and might had trampling effects on the basic liberties of suspected terrorists for laws are silent when the guns of war do the talking. The war on terrorism has inevitable spilled over effects on human rights all over the world, especially in countries suspected as being used as havens of terrorists. One visible result of the scramble to end terrorism is to take legal shortcuts and legal shortcuts always shrink the scope of human rights.

Are we blaming the US-led “war on terror” entirely for the human rights violations, the state of lawlessness, and the lawlessness of the state? Definitely not. The Arroyo government has its own reasons, and is totally responsible, for tolerating, if not itself promoting, a pattern and policy of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture and massacres against alleged “enemies of the state”, and using the “war on terror” as a pretext and justification for doing so.

Despite claims of economic recovery and progress, the broad majority of people suffer joblessness, hunger, spiraling prices, onerous taxes, etc. The economy is largely dependent on and at the mercy of foreign capital, and the national patrimony is being opened up further to foreign exploitation and plunder. The Arroyo regime itself is suffering from a serious and long-festering crisis of legitimacy, rocked by monstrous corruption scandals of its own making. Confronted with incessant protests, calls for its removal from office – either through voluntary resignation or by forced ouster — it has resorted to deception, bribery, cooptation and coercion to ward off criticisms and suppress dissent. But most of all it unleashes the coercive forces of the state against those who rise up in protest.

According to Chief Justice Puno :

The threats to our national security and human rights will be aggravated if we have a state, weakened internally by a government hobbled by corruption, struggling with credibility, battling the endless insurgence of the left and the right; and, by a state weakened externally by pressure exerted by creditor countries, by countries where our trade comes from, by countries that supply our military and police armaments. A weak state cannot fully protect the rights of its citizens within its borders just as a state without economic independence cannot protect the rights of its citizens who are abroad from the exploitation of more powerful countries.

Human Rights and Peace

What does all this have to do with the peace process? Chief Justice Puno points out the relationship between human rights, violations of economic and cultural rights, and the relevance of these to the quest for peace:

The promotion of human rights is also the indispensable predicate of peace and progress. For this reason, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its two implementing covenants are the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These instruments not only denounced nazism and fascism, but also recognized that the “security of individual rights, like the security of national rights, was a necessary requisite to a peaceful and stable world order.”

xxx we need to give a broader, innovative view on our efforts to protect the human rights of our people which should consider our distinct social, economic and political context.
Xxx In poor countries, it is poverty that truly terrorizes people for they are terrorized by the thought that they will die because of empty stomachs and not that they will lose their lives due to some invisible suicide bombers. In poor countries, it is also poverty that renders the poor vulnerable to violation of their rights, for the poor will not vindicate their rights in a justice system that moves in slow motion and whose wheels have to be greased with money. And would any dare to doubt, that our national security and our human rights are more threatened by the fear that we face an environmental collapse if we do not take immediate steps to save our seas and our forests from the despoliation to satisfy the economic greed of the few. Again, the realities may be uncomfortable but let the statistics talk and they tell us that in year 2000 for example, 300,000 people all over the world died due to violence in armed conflicts but as many people die each and every month because of contaminated water or lack of adequate sanitation.

In the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal Second Session on the Philippines held in The Hague, Netherlands in March 2007, the plaintiffs – organizations of human rights victims under the Arroyo government – declared in their Summation:

… we have shown that these gross and systematic violations of civil and political rights, of social, economic and cultural rights, and of the right to national self-determination and independence, are distinct but at the same time not isolated from each other. They are closely and intrinsically interrelated.

1. The poverty and social injustice brought about by the economic plunder, rampant graft and corruption, and other violations of their social, economic and cultural rights by the Defendants are pushing the great majority of the people, especially the toiling peoples, to protest their condition and fight for better social conditions.

2. The Macapagal-Arroyo regime, like its predecessors, uses deception and coercion alternately and in combination in order to suppress and defeat the peoples’ protests and struggle for genuine independence, democracy and social justice. But as the people’s movements gain strength and they become less vulnerable to deception, the Macapagal-Arroyo regime and its foreign patrons increasingly resort to the coercive forces at its disposal. It does so for its own political survival, for retaining and protecting its narrow economic interests, and to protect the interests of its foreign patrons, especially US imperialism.

Our role and contribution

This brings us to where the peace negotiations currently are, and what we as peace advocates and church leaders can and should contribute in our people’s quest for a just and enduring peace.

What can and should peace advocates do in a situation where both sides appear to be unwilling to resume formal talks? Allow me to reiterate some points I had presented earlier at the Luzon Workshop held at Subic last October.

• We cannot remain passive in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Rather, these only mean we must work harder to keep the peace negotiations alive and exert utmost effort to push it forward.
• Join hands in common struggle, seek common principles, aspirations and goals, and work on these together and present a stronger voice.
• Our advocacy cannot be a function of our perception of how “sincere” or “willing” either or both parties are in seeking a genuine peace, but from our faith and conviction that a just and enduring peace is possible and necessary.
• Our quest for a genuine peace has as its main content the advocacy for basic or fundamental reforms that address the roots of the armed conflict. (Note: learn from the experience of the Moro people, or from the peace negotiations between the GRP and the MNLF and the MILF).
• Here are some concrete proposals to address the roots of the armed conflict:
  • Genuine land reform and national industrialization
  • Empowerment of masses through genuine representation
  • Economic sovereignty
  • Independent foreign policy
  • Indictment, investigation and prosecution of plunder, corruption
  • Normal trade and diplomatic relations with other countries
  • Patriotic, scientific and mass culture through education, mass media and mass organizations, cherish the cultural heritage of the Filipino nation and all the ethno-linguistic communities in the country
  • Recognition of right to self-determination of minorities
  • Cancellation of unjust, onerous foreign debts
  • Truce for the purpose of alliance and other constructive purposes

(These are the items in the NDFP’s “Concise Proposal for an Immediate and Just Peace, presented to the GRP in August 2005)

• Take a long view of the peace process
  • Tactically, what to do under conditions that Arroyo government has no intention of proceeding with an agenda that will address the roots of the armed conflict;
    • Study the process, especially the bilateral agreements (see The GRP-NDFP Peace Negotiations). Pay special attention to The 1992 Hague Joint Declaration, on p.1)
    • Call for the resumption of the formal talks
    • Absent the resumption, call for the operationalization of the JMC (to address the complaints vs EJKs and other violations of both sides.)
    • Take a position on the problems and issues, eg the recent arrest and raids, and political
  • Strategically or in the long term, view the peace process beyond GMA whether or not she remains de-facto president before, up to or beyond 2010. Peace negotiations has spanned and can continue to span different administrations (Ramos, Estrada, GMA), and will certainly outlive GMA

Briefly, here are some suggested concrete measures:
1. Protection of Human Rights

1.1. Call on the government to repudiate “Oplan Bantay Laya” and the AFP policy and practice of branding its critics, progressives, peace advocates, etc as “enemies of the state”, which have been pointed out by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Killings, Philip Alston, as having resulted in extra-judicial executions and other violations of human rights.
1.2. Call for the immediate reactivation or resumption of meetings of the Joint Monitoring Committee even while the formal talks remain suspended.

2. Social and Economic Reforms

2.1. Work for the resumption of formal talks so that the formal negotiations on the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms, which had started in April 2001 can resume.
2.2. Hold widespread consultations, fora, roundtable discussions, education and information campaigns, etc. on the draft proposals of the GRP and NDFP.

3. Resumption of formal talks

3.1. Call for the immediate resumption of formal talks on the basis of The Hague Joint Declaration and other bilateral agreements.
3.2. Support the proposal for a ceasefire based on a concise agreement for an immediate just peace
3.3. Support the formation of technical working groups and groups of experts to accelerate the talks.

Finally, I would like to conclude by giving my two cents’ worth on two points raised in the very frank and animated discussion last night:

Can genuine peace be achieved through the bilateral peace negotiations alone? (No. The bilateral negotiations are an important or essential arena, but only one of many.)
Can genuine peace be achieved by the removal – by forced resignation, ouster, or whatever — of GMA alone?
No. This is the clear lesson from EDSA 1 and 2 (or People Power 1 and 2).

But is the removal of GMA necessary to achieve genuine peace? We still have the rest of this morning and the whole afternoon to answer this question.

Inihanda ni Rey Casambre
Para sa Pulong ng BAYAN National Council
Oktubre 28, 2002

Sa unang tingin, may nagaganap na biglaan at malaking pagbabago sa mundo na nagsimula noong Setyembre 11, 2001. Mabilis at mabalasik ang mga pangyayari mula nang bombahin ang World Trade Center at ang Pentagon. Kagyat na nagdeklara si George W. Bush, Presidente ng USA, ng isang “digmaan laban sa terorismo” na diumano sasaklaw sa buong mundo at tatagos at ikasasangkot ng lahat ng bayan, nang walang pasubali. “Kung hindi kayo papanig sa amin, ituturing namin kayong kaaway,” ani Bush. Kagyat ding itinuon ng US ang pag-uusig sa sarili nitong mga mamamayang di nito mapagkatiwalaan. Ilang linggo pa lang ipinasa ng Kongreso ng US ang “Patriot Act” na sumusupil sa mga karapatang pantao ng mga Amerikanong pinaghihinalaan pa lamang na may kaugnayan sa mga diumanong mga terorista.

Wala pang isang buwan ang nakalipas, nilusob ng US ang Afghanistan nang walang pagsangguni man lamang sa United Nations. Simpleng ikinatwiran ang hinalang kinukupkop ng gobyernong Taliban ng Afghanistan ang pinaghihinalaang mga teroristang bumomba sa WTC at Pentagon, si Osama bin Laden at ang pinamumunuan nitong Al Qaeda. Matapos ang walang habas at walang habag na pambobomba at pag-atake maging sa mga sibilyan na populasyon at mga instalasyon, nagtagumpay ang US sa pagpapabagsak at pagpapalit sa gobyernong Taliban. Pero bigo ito sa idineklarang layunin na “dalhin sa hustisya, o dalhin ang hustisya, kay Bin Laden at Al Qaeda. Ngayon, ginagamit pa itong dahilan ng US para sa patuloy na pagpapanatili ng mga pwersang militar nila sa Afghanistan at mga kanugnog na bayan sa Central Asia.

Kasunod nito ang isinagawang pagtugis diumano sa Abu Sayyaf sa Pilipinas, sa likod ng balatkayong “Balikatan 02-1 joint combined exercises training”. Kaakibat ng deklarasyong ang Pilipinas at Timog-silangang Asia ang “ikalawang larangan” ng “gyera laban sa terorismo”, maramihan at matagalang lumahok ang US Special Operations Forces sa kampanyang militar laban sa mga Abu Sayyaf sa Basilan at iba pang bahagi ng Mindanao. Simpleng ikinatwirang mga terorista ang mga ito kahimat walang matibay na ebidensya ng tuwirang ugnayan sila kina bin Laden at Al Qaeda, liban sa katotohanang kapwa sila nilikha ng CIA bilang bahagi ng mga “surrogate forces” ng US. Muli, bigo ang US at AFP sa isinaad na layuning durugin ang Abu Sayyaf. Muli, ginagamit pa itong katwiran para sa patuloy na pagpapanatili sa ilang US Special Forces sa Mindanao diumano para tapusin ang mga “humanitarian & infrastructure projects” na sinimulan nilang gawin sa panahong tinutugis ang Abu Sayyaf.

Ngayon naman maingay na nagtatambol at naghahamon ang US para sa pakikipag-gyera kay Saddam Hussein ng Iraq. Bilang bahagi diumano ng “war against terror”, ang pagpapabagsak kay Hussein, pagpapaupo ng gobyernong maamo sa US, at ang pagwasak sa kakayahan ng Iraq na gumawa ng mga bombang nuclear at iba pang “weapons of mass destruction” ang inilalahad ng gobyernong Bush na layunin sa pag-atake sa Iraq. Pero di tulad ng digma sa Afghanistan, hirap ngayon ang gubyernong Bush na makakabig ng malakas at malawak na suporta para sa gyera sa Iraq.

Ito’y sa dahilang kung ihahambing sa paglusob nito sa Afghanistan, malayong higit nang nailalantad at kung gayon binabatikos ang tunay na layunin ng US sa paglusob sa Iraq: (1) ang mapalakas ang pampulitikang lakas nito sa Gitnang Silangan, at (2) ang pag-agaw at pagkontrol ng malaking rekurso sa langis na matatagpuan sa teritoryo ng Iraq.

Malinaw na mula Setyembre 11, nagkaroon ng ibayong paglakas at paglawak ng opensiba ng US sa larangan ng pulitika, ekonomya at militar. Dulot lang ba ito ng pambobomba ng Setyembre 11, tulad ng paniwala ng marami? Ang mga ito ba’y kontraopensibang tugon lamang ng US bilang paghiganit sa sinapit nitong trahedya sa kamay ng mga terorista, pagtatanggol sa sarili para hindi maulit ang kalunos-lunos na pangyayari, at responsableng pamumuno sa isang dakilang pandaigdigang kampanya laban sa terorismo para sa kaligtasan at pag-unlad ng buong daigdig?

Alam na natin ngayon ang sagot sa tanong na ito. May malilinaw na mga indikasyon at katunayang ang nabanggit na mayor na mga hakbang tulad ng Patriot Act, paglusob sa Afghanistan at mga pagbabago sa disposisyong militar matapos ang 9-11 ay napag-isipan at napaghandaang ipatupad ilang buwan o taon pa nga bago nangyari ang 9-11. Kung bubuin ang mga katunayan, at susuriin nang mas malalim, makikita ang katotohanang ang “gyera laban sa terorismo” ay isa lamang balatkayo para sa ibayo at walang-habas na opensibang pampulitika, pang-ekonomya, pangkultura at militar ng imperyalismong US para mapalawak at mapatatag ang pandaigdigang hegemonya nito.

Ang ibayong opensibang ito ay masasabing nagsimula noon pang nakaraang dekada kung kailan nagsibagsakan ang mga rehimen sa Silangang Europa at tuluyang gumuho ang Unyong Sobyet. Ang pagtatapos ng “Cold War” ang nagtulak sa US sa pusisyon bilang nag-iisa at walang-kasinlakas na superpower. Matatandaan nating namayagpag ang US noon at kagyat na inilunsad ang “globalisasyon” bilang mayor at masaklaw na opensiba sa ekonomya at ideolohiya.

Matatandaan din nating nagtapos ang “Cold War” sa panahong dalawang dekada nang nakabalaho ang pandaigdigang sistemang kapitalista sa papatinding krisis ng sobrang produksyon, na namamanipesta sa matumal na paglago ng mga ekonomya maging ng mga pinakamalalaking kapitalistang kapangyarihan. Para mapalakas ang pusisyon ng mga imperyalistang estado at ng monopolyo kapital, ipinataw sa mga mahihina’t maliiit na ekonomya ang neoliberal na mga patakaran ng liberalisasyon, deregulasyon, at pribatisasyon na nagpatindi ng pagsasamantala at pang-aapi sa higit na nakararami sa mamamayan ng buong daigdig.

Tinawag ito ni George H. Bush, Sr. bilang “New World Order” o “Bagong Kaayusan”. Pero sa katunayan ito’y dili’t iba kundi ang lumang kaayusang higit na naging magulo. Pinatunayan ng mahigit sampung taong pagpapatupad ng mga “neoliberal” na mga patakaran na hindi pa rin makaahon sa krisis ng sobrang produksyon ang pandaigdigang kapitalistang sistema, lalong lumubog sa kumunoy ng utang at depresyon ang maliliit at mahihinang ekonomya lalo na ng Ikatlong Daigdig, at nanatiling nakabalaho sa mababang antas na paglago ang mga makapangyarihang ekonomyang imperyalista. Kamakailan, pumasok sa recession ang mga ekonomyang US, Russia, Australia, Canada Japan at Germany. (review Pol’s charts). Kamakailan, pumutok ang “economic bubble” sa US, na likha ng matagal at malubhang artipisyal na pagpapalobo ng mga tubo at halaga ng mga transaksyon. Kabilang dito ang pinakagarapal at lansakang pandaraya at pagsisinungaling sa pagdeklara ng mga tubo ng malalaking monopolyong korporasyong Amerikano.

Dahil sa kagahulan ng panahon, ihahanay lamang natin ang ilang pinaka-signipikanteng mga katangian ng komprehensibong opensibang ito na nagtatago sa maskarang “gyera laban sa terorismo” at kung ano ang naging hugis nito mula noong Setyembre 11.

1. Sa larangan ng pulitika:

1. ang pagtatangkang hatiin ang mundo sa pagitan ng “terorista” at “kontra-terorista” samantantalang arbitraryo at tusong inihanay na “terorista” at pinagmumukhang-demonyo ang mga matatatag at epektibong anti-imperyalista tulad ng CPP-NPA at si Prop. Sison;
2. pagpapatindi at pagpapalawak ng mga mapanupil at pasistang hakbang tulad ng Patriot Act, pagbubuo ng mga sekretong military tribunal para sa pag-usig at paglitis sa mga diumanong pinaghihinalaang terorista, at paghikayat o pagtulak sa mga kliyenteng estado na magpatupad ng katumbas na mga batas at hakbang sa iba’t ibang bayan;
3. paglalagay ng sarili sa ibabaw ng ibang mga bansa; paglabag sa soberanya at territorial integrity ng mga bansa maisagawa lamang ang pakay ayon sa makitid na sariling interes, e.g. ang itinutulak ng US na anti-teroristang tratado sa Timog-silangang Asya kung saan pinaaalis nito ang mga probisyong nangangalaga sa soberanya ng mga bansa
4. tahasang pagdeklara na maaari nilang tanggalin at palitan ang sinumang head of state nang ayon sa kagustuhan at interes ng US (tingnan ang QDRR 2000 at ang talumpati ni Bush sa West Point)
5. paglagay sa sarili sa ibabaw ng United Nations, ng internasyunal na batas at internasyunal na makataong batas;
   • paglabag sa probisyon ng UN Charter hinggil sa mga kondisyon sa paggamit ng dahas o digma (self-defense when under attack, exhaustion of diplomatic means, multilateral peace-enforcement action decided on by Security Council)
   • paggamit ng resolusyon ng UN bilang lisensya sa pagdigma (eg Reso 678 vs Iraq)

6. paggawa ng mga hakbang na tahasang nagbubunga ng paglabag sa makataong karapatan, pagtanggi na mapailalim ang tropang US sa ilalim ng mga Kasunduan at international norms na nagtatanggol sa mga karapatang pantao, halimbawa:
   • pagtutulak na ideklara ng ibang bayan na “terorista” ang mga itinuturing ng US na terorista batay sa sarili nitong depinisyon
   • pagsasantabi o pagbabalewala ng mga probinsyon laban sa political extradition (ekstradisyon sa dahilang political)
   • kampanya laban sa ratipikasyon ng Rome Statute at pagtatatag sa ICC at nagbibigay dito ng mandato at kapangyarihan, at pagbuo ng mga bilateral na kasunduang epektibong magsasawalamisa sa ICC.

2. Sa larangan ng militar

1. ang pagpapalakas ng “permanently stationed”, “forward stationed” at “forward deployed” na mga pwersa sa iba’t ibang rehyon ng daigdig (QDRR 2001);
2. pagbanta ng “preemptive strike” o “first strike”, kasama ang banta ng paggamit ng sandatang nuclear
3. paggamit ng mataas na teknolohiya para sa intelligence and surveillance, mas malalakas, mabisa at mapanirang mga sandata at munisyon tulad ng mga deep-penetration incendiary bombs, cluster bumbs, etc. na naglalayon diumanong magbigay ng maririin at pamatay na dagok sa kaaway nang may minimal na kaswalidad sa mga tropang US, pero sa kalakaran ay nagdudulot sa mga sibilyan ng ng malalaking pinsala at pagkasalanta na manhd na tinatawag lamang na “collateral damage”
4. ibayong paggamit ng mga Special Operations Forces na may kasanayan, kakayahan at atas na magsagawa ng intelligence & surveillance, “foreign internal defense operations”, pag-oorganisa ng mga katutubo para sa kontra-insurhensya, at mga lihim na misyon tulad ng sabotahe, asasinasyon, pagdukot (abductions) kung saan “hindi maaaring aminin ng gobyernong US ang pagkasangkot dito”
   5. pagsasanay-militar ng mga lokal na pwersang panagupa sa iba’t ibang dako at bayan
      • 100,000 tropang dayuhan ang sinasanay ng US taun-taon sa US at 180 bansa
      • isa itong paraan ng forward deployment — sa bawat linggo, may idinaraos na pagsasanay ang 5,000 US-SOF sa 60 bansa sa buong mundo
      • noong 1997-98, nagdaos ng mga pagsasanay sa Turkmenistan

3. Sa larangan ng ekonomya

1. pagtiyak sa kontrol sa mga estratehikong rekurso lalo na ang reserba ng langis
2. paghahanda at paglunsad ng digma para makatulong sa pag-ahon mula sa krisis at pagkamal na mas malalaking tubo ng mga korporasyon sa “military-industrial complex”
3. pagsusulong ng mga “neoliberal” na mga patakaran ng globalisasyon
4. pag-bailout sa mga malalaking monopolyong nalulugi bunga ng pagputok ng “economic bubble” ng artipisyal at dinayang mga “tubo” at transayson

4. Sa larangan ng ideolohiya at kultura

1. pagpapalitaw na ang US ang sentro at pinagmumulan ng kalayaan, demokrasya, katarungan, kasaganaan, etc at kung gayon siyang may solong kakayahan at karapatang maging “tagapagtanggol” nito sa buong mundo
2. pagpapalaganap sa “kabutihan” at superyoridad ng neoliberalismo, globalisasyon at ng kapitalismo bilang “dulo ng kasaysayan”
3. pagsasa-demonyo sa mga kaaway ng imperyalismo bilang mga “rogue states”, “axis of evil”, “terorista”, etc.

Mga Pangunahing Punto:

1. Malinaw na napapatunayan ang pagsusuri na imperyalismo ang pinagmumulaan ng digmaan at ng banta ng digmaan. Nangangahulugan ang imperyalismo ng digma.
2. Bago pa man nangyari ang 9/11 o ang pambubomba sa WTC at Pentagon, puspusan nang naghahanda ang US sa paglulunsad ng mga gyera ng agresyon, ng malawak at masinsing interbensyong militar sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng daigdig, na ang layunin ay palawakin at patatagin ang hegemonya nito, ang kanyang imperyalistang dominasyon at paghahari sa buong mundo.
3. Katangian ng “gyera laban sa terorismo”:
   • mas matindi at malawak na paggamit ng terorismo ng estado ng US at mga alyado nito
   • lansakang pagbalewala at paglabag sa mga internasyunal na batas
   • lansakang pagbalewala at paglabag sa karapatang pantao
   • lansakang pagbalewala at paglabag sa internasyunal na makataong batas

Kongklusyon

Mga kasama! Noong 1998, binigyan ninyo ako ng pagkakataon at tungkuling talakayin sa Pambansang Kongreso ng BAYAN imperyalistang globalisasyon. Binanggit ko noon na may ispesyal o natatanging papel na ginagampanan ang Pilipinas sa paglitaw ng globalisasyon sa mundong ito: na kasaba ng “pagtuklas” ni Magellan sa ating mga isla, napatunayan niya na ang mundo ay hindi isang malawak na kapatagan kundi isang globo. Higit pa rito, natuklasan ni Magellan ang bagong mga ruta ng kalakalan – trade routes – mula sa “Old World” tungo sa “New World” ng Americas at sa Asya. Ito ang isa sa mga nagbunsod ng tinatawag na “primitive accumulation of capital” na naging daan sa paglakas ng kapitalismo sa Europa hanggang sa maging dominanteng sistemang pang-ekonomya ito sa buong mundo.

Kung babalik-aralan ang nakaraang siglo ng pag-iral at pag-unlad ng imperyalismo, lalo na ang imperyalismong US, makikita rin an ng kahalagahan ng Pilipinas sa pag-unlad at paglakas nito. Mistulang isang laboratoryo at “pilot project” ang Pilipinas sa paglikha, pagpapaunlad at pagkikinis ng mga kolonyal at neokolonyal na mga pamamaraan nito, tulad ng paggamit ng dalawahang-taktika ng dahas at panlilinlang. Malinaw din ang kahalagahan ng Pilipinas sa US bilang “outpost” para sa ekspansyon at dominasyon sa Asya. Sa larangan ng militar, matagal na nagsilbi ang Pilipinas bilang forward base, likuran, at lunsaran ng mga aksyong pulitiko-militar ng US . Ipinapaliwanag nito kung bakit at papaanong nagiging mapagpasyang salik ang US sa pulitika, ekonomya, kultura at patakarang panlabas ng Pilipinas.

Sa kabilang banda, narito rin sa Pilipinas ang isa sa pinakamalakas, tumpak at mabisang anti-imperyalistang kilusan sa mundong ito. Maningning at dakila ang kasaysayan ng mamamayang Pilipino sa pagtutol at paglanban sa dayuhang pananakop at dominasyon. Sa kasalukuyan, kinikilala ang rebolusyonaryong kilusang mapagpalaya sa Pilipinas bilang isa sa mga nasa unahan ng anti-imperyalistang kilusan sa buong mundo, at makabuluhang umaambag dito.

Sa mga dahilang ito, malaki ang tungkulin nating suriing mabuti ang mga implikasyon ng pandaigdigang kalagayan, lalo na ang kasalukuyang “gyera laban sa terorismo”, sa lipunan at pakikibaka dito sa Pilipinas. Kaalinsabay nito ang pagkakaroon ng Pilipinas sa kasalukuyan ng isang sagadsarin at sunud-sunurang gobyerno na walang kahihiyan at walang katulad sa pagiging sipsip sa US. Kailangan din nating isaalang-alang ang malalim pang atrasadadong kolonyal na mentalidad ng malawak na bilang ng mamamayang Pilipino.

Rey Claro Casambre
Philppine Peace Center
13 November 2002

A couple of days ago, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously in favor of a US-
sponsored resolution with regard to Iraq. The resolution compels Saddam Hussein of Iraq to allow a team of UN inspectors to ascertain the veracity of the Iraqi leader’s pronouncements on Iraq’s manufacture and possession of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons or “weapons of mass destruction”. Opinions are divided on whether or not in the long run, this resolution will lead us closer to world peace, depending on whether or not you are, as Bush says, “with us or against us”. But there is little disagreement that in the short run, it means that it will only be a matter of time when the US would once again unleash a full-scale offensive against Iraq, with the objective of deposing Saddam, gaining control of the immense Iraqi oil reserves and consolidating US hold on Western Asia.

US President George Bush struggles and strains to pass this off as part of the US-led “war against terrorism” and a logical sequel to the war on Afghanistan. But opposition to the war on Iraq has been as broad as support for the Afghanistan war had been. In fact, opposition to the entire US-led “war against terror” has grown throughout the world over the past year and two months since the bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Questions have been raised, and attempts to give answers only give rise to more questions. Who are the terrorists? Who are behind them? Why do they hate America so much? How can they be discovered and defeated? How should they be dealt with? How will this “war on terror” be carried out? How can it succeed? Will it lead to world peace?

Here at home, few eyebrows were raised when President Macapagal-Arroyo quickly threw the Philippines’ support behind the “war on terror”, generously offering the US use of Philippine territory and resources, including Philippine troops, for the Afghanistan offensive. When US troops were deployed in Southwestern Mindanao to participate in military offensives against the Abu Sayyaf under the pretext of joint military exercises. The exercises are long over, US troops are still around. So are the Abu Sayyaf. What has been gained by compromising our sovereignty and territorial integrity? Are the US troops staying over to keep the peace, or will they cause the further escalation of armed conflict?

To answer all these questions, we must take a closer, more critical look at this US-led “war against terrorism”.

1. The current US-led “war on terror” did not begin on or shortly after September 11, 2001. The war plans, including the offensive against Afghanistan to dislodge the Taliban government, were on Pres. Bush’s table a day before the terrorists crashed their planes on the WTC and the Pentagon. Thus this so-called “War on Terror” is not as it is being touted, a retaliatory strike and a defensive campaign to prevent other terrorist attacks from occurring.

2. The global military offensive is closely linked, and compliments, the US-led trade and cultural offensive commonly known as “globalization”. This includes primarily the imposition on weaker states and economies of the “neo-liberal” policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization. The breaking down of trade and protectionist barriers purportedly to allow the free flow of capital, technology, ergo, peace and prosperity – from the highly industrialized countries to the developing third world countries. The economic offensive is accompanied by the drumbeating over the demise of socialism, the victory of democracy over communism, capitalism as the end of history.The past twelve years have shown that “globalization” has resulted not in the flow of capital and high technology from the advanced economies to the backward, but rather that of greater profits from the backward to the advanced. Greater reconcentration of wealth. Bigger monopolies and supermonopolies. Global financial crises as a result of the abuse of finance capital, as exemplified by the bloated value of transactions and the flagrant misrepresentation of profits by giant conglomerates. Third world economies are drowning in an ever deeper and wider ocean of debt. Even the advanced economies – US, Europe and Japan – are bogged down in depressed growth rates and feeble recoveries.

3. The Sept 11 bombings provided the impetus for the implementation of a “paradigm shift” in US global military force structure and approach. From a force structure that was greatly reduced in the wake of the end of the Cold War, to one of increased forward stationing and forward deployment. The declared objective is to be able to fight two simultaneous major wars and win them quickly and decisively with the minimum of reinforcements or redeployment of forces from one theater to another. From an approach that was multilateral – requiring military actions to be undertaken by US-led coalitions (such as the Desert Storm in 1991) and alliances (Kosovo, 1995) – to one that is unilateral (“if other governments won’t act, America will).This paradigm shift will be carried out by increasing the number of US military bases (which had been reduced with the end of the Cold War), by maintaining status-of-forces and access or logistics support agreements, and by conducting a wide variety of “stability operations”. According to the Defense Department’s Base Structure Report the US currently has military bases in at least 38 countries worldwide. This number could rise to 60 if we include newly acquired bases and forward bases such as in Saudi Arabia and the Balkans, and considerable troop concentrations in Central Asia (60,000) since 9-11. In addition, the US has access agreements with 57 countries. There are 250,000 US troops outside US territory, 200,000 on land and 50,000 at sea. One hundred thousand of these are in the Asia-Pacific region, 75,000 of which are in Northeast Asia.

   Stability operations are operations conducted by US Armed Forces outside the US and US territories. They include joint military training exercises, humanitarian and civic assistance, peace-keeping, peace-enforcement, support to insurgencies, information-gathering, counternarcotics, counter-terrorist, “foreign internal defense” operations, noncombatant evacuation, arms control, “small contingency actions”, and “show of force”. These operations are planned and synchronized in such a way as to ensure or maintain a suitable and effective forward deployment of forces at all times.

   Special operations forces — which include Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Air Force Special Forces, and the clandestine “Delta Force” – are at the core and play a key role in all these operations.A special word on the special forces: numerous independent and government (e.g., congressional) studies have raised the concern for rampant human rights violations brought about by US-sponsored training programs and by the increased deployment and use of Special Operations Forces. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has stepped up the training of surrogate forces. The US trains and employs local forces in much the same way and for much the same reason as the AFP trains and employs the CAFGUs: to economize, to bring down the casualty rate of the regulars, and to exploit the familiarity of the local forces with the terrain and the population.

   Special operations forces gained fame in the Vietnam War, notably the Green Berets who were touted as highly trained, highly skilled, armed with sophisticated weapons and high-tech gizmos. Indeed, they are trained and armed to perform special missions. With the end of the Cold War, the political imperative to bring down casualty rates and military spending has further bolstered their role in the US war machine. More and more, they have been given covert roles.

   Listed last but not least among the “Special Collateral Missions” of the SOFs is the following: Special activities – subject to limitations imposed by Executive Order and in conjunction with a presidential finding and congressional oversight, plan and conduct actions abroad in support of national foreign policy objectives so that the role of the U.S. government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly

   As described in the US Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2001, issued September 20, 2001, the “paradigm shift” visibly calls for beefing up US “forward deterrent forces” in the entire Asian region. US strategists anticipate – or predict — that these two wars would likely be fought in Asia: one in West Asia (aka Middle East) and another in Northeast Asia (Korea-Japan). Thus the increased importance of Asia to its military strategy. Thus also, the increased strategic importance of Southeast Asia, which lies midway between West Asia and Northeast Asia. And finally of the Philippines, which lies smack in the middle of Southeast Asia.

   The US has currently no permanent military base between North Asia (where it has big military bases in South Korea and Japan) and Diego Garcia in the India Ocean. Rand Corporation, a US military think tank whose board of directors includes Paul Wolfowitz and whose recommendations have always been followed by Pentagon, has pointed out the need for the US to re-establish a major military base in the Philippines. The team that conducted this particular study was headed by Zalmay Khalilzad, who became a member of the US National Security Council and is the US special ambassador to Afghanistan.

4. Bush has declared that the US reserves the right to act unilaterally, to make a preemptive strike, even a nuclear strike, and includes in its objectives the option for regime change, i.e., a forcible overthrow of an existing government that the US has decided to be a threat to world peace – read: US interests. All these disregard the norms of international law and infringe on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations. It has ignored and violated the UN Charter and UN Resolutions when it wishes and uses them when it suits its purpose. In launching the war against Afghanistan, the US did not bother to seek the approval of the UN Security Council, even if it had a good chance of gaining it.(The UN Charter allows a state to use force or attack another state in self defense when under attack by that state, or when all diplomatic means have been exhausted, or as part of a multilateral peace-enforcement action decided on by the Security Council.)

5. The US has opposed ratification of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), a permanent independent judicial body mandated to receive complaints and prosecute the gravest crimes under international law: genocide, other crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.The US admits that it opposes the establishment of the ICC because it does not want the operations and actions of its overseas troops to be harassed with suits filed against them with the ICC, or by the threat of being sued with the ICC for whatever acts they commit in the performance of their duties or the execution of their mission.

6. The US has taken a lead in enacting “anti-terrorist” laws that suspend the constitutional rights of its citizens. The “Patriot Act” has resulted in thousands of cases of secret arrests and prolonged detention of Americans and aliens, mostly Arab and of color, violations of privacy and other violations of human rights. The US has encouraged and pressed other countries to enact and enforce similar laws under the mantle of “anti-terrorism” and “counterterrorism”.

7. The US has used 9/11 to declare a polarized world: of terrorist vs counter-terrorist, with us or against us, virtually declaring war against all who would not do its bidding.The US defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence …usually directed against civilians… to inculcate fear…intending to coerce or intimidate governments or societies… in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals.”

   Is there a universal definition for “terrorism”? The United Nations has at least twelve conventions or treaties covering “terrorist” acts such as hijackings, bombings, kidnapping of civilians and civilian establishments, but does not have a single consolidated definition of what “terrorism” is. Last January, diplomats and legal advisers from more than 100 countries attempted to craft a definition that has evaded the United Nations for 30 years. This would have been the key to a comprehensive treaty against terrorism that would compel all 189 UN member-states to go after terrorists.

   While there was little debate on the condemnation of any targeting of civilians, there was significant insistence on differentiating terrorists from “national liberation movements” and “resistance to foreign occupation.”

   The European Union Council on Justice and Home Affairs proposed to define terrorism as, “offenses intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country.” This proposal promptly provoked an appeal from 200 European lawyers expressing their concern that the definition could be used to crack down on legitimate dissent such as trade union strikes and anti-globalization mass protest actions.

   So how can a global “war on terror” be carried out without a global definition of terrorism? This lack of a universal definition has not hampered the US from carrying out its so-called “war on terror” unilaterally. Bush’ “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” statement makes it clear whose definition matters. Ironically, the statement carries a thinly veiled threat backed up by the actual use of awesome power against those the US has considered “terrorist”.

8. Not a few have pointed out that by its own definition, the US itself would turn out to be not just a terrorist but the number one terrorist or a superterrorist. It would also include several countries solidly behind the US in the global “war on terror” such as Pakistan and Israel, who are themselves guilty of violating human rights and international humanitarian law.

The conclusion is stark-clear. The US-led “war on terror” is nothing but a naked use of power to consolidate and gain more economic, political and military power under the guise of “combatting terrorism”, “defending the US”, “promoting world stability and peace”. It threatens to lead to more wars, collateral damage, violations of human rights, sovereignty of nations.

The US-led “war on terror” will not lead to world peace. As designed, its objective is to strengthen and impose US supremacy throughout the world, of shaping or creating a world that will promote the economic interests not of the world at large, not of the American nation, but only of the small clique of the wealthiest and most powerful monopolists in the US. It aims to deter and decisively and swiftly defeat all those that threaten these interests. It imposes its will by the combination of sheer coercion, bribery and deception. It puts itself above international law, and wantonly violates human rights and international humanitarian law. But this design has the grievous flaw of creating more and more enemies as it attempts –and momentarily succeeds—to do so.

Implications on the Philippines:

We can now examine and understand recent events in the Philippines in the light of the discussion above on the US-led “war on terror”.

1. Philippines and Southeast Asia as “second front” in the “war against terror”.
2. Strategic position
3. Increased military presence: VFA, Balikatan, then Balikatan 02-1 purportedly vs Abu Sayyaf, MLSA—-> setting up a base
4. Peace Negotiations

The peace negotiations between the government and the NDFP and between the government and the MILF are among the first casualties in the US-led “war on terror” in the Philippines.

Even before Sept 11, there was a quiet tug of war between the doves and hawks in government on how to go about the peace negotiations. The doves favored the continuation and even the acceleration of the formal talks wherein the substantive agenda of basic reforms to address the age-old social, political, economic and cultural problems which bring about armed conflict. The hawks favored the abandonment of the peace negotiations and recourse to greater military force to pressure the rebels to surrender or to negotiate within the framework of the Philippine Constitution.

The “war on terror” shifted the balance heavily in favor of the hawks. On March 16, Malacanang announced the unilateral suspension of formal talks with both the NDF and MILF. Backchannel talks would supposedly be undertaken instead.

On August 5, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ordered more troops redeployed to NPA areas, including those that have been employed in the combat operations against the Abu-Sayyaf during Balikatan 02-1. On August 9, Secretary of State Collin Powell announced the US action declaring the CPP-NPA as “foreign terrorist organizations”. This action was promptly “welcomed” by the Arroyo government, signaling a further shift away from the peace talks, given the government’s policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

August 12, the US Department of Finance included Prof. Jose Ma Sison in its list of terrorists against whom financial actions are to be taken. Prof Sison is the NDFP chief political consultant and a key person in the peace negotiations. On August 13, the Dutch government, upon the request of the US, declared the CPP-NPA and Prof. Sison as terrorists, and subsequently froze Prof. Sison’s bank account (which contained his subsidy), and withdrew his housing and other personal privileges from the Dutch government due him as a recognized political refugee who was barred from earning a living in The Netherlands.

On October 28, as a result of a country-hopping campaign by a Philippine delegation led by Secretary Ople and including Secretaries Norberto Gonzales, Silvestre Afable and Ermita, the European Council of Ministers included the NPA in their list of terrorists.

These actions, by their own pronouncements, are intended by the US, Dutch and Philippine governments to stigmatize and isolate the CPP, NPA and Prof. Sison and pressure them into “laying down their arms” and “rejoining the mainstream of society”. The NDF has condemned these moves as attempts to force them into capitulation.

All these seriously jeopardize and may have in fact already killed the peace negotiations. As pointed out, it is untenable now for the GRP and NDFP negotiations to continue with the government considering the CPP-NPA and Prof. Sison as terrorists. The NDFP has also stated that these actions by the government constitute grievous violations of prior agreements, notably the 1992 The Hague Joint Declaration and the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG).

Hopes for Peace

While the US-led “war on terror” appears to be an awesome and unstoppable war machine, it is hampered by its own contradictions, not the least of which is that it is guilty of the very terror it professes to combat.

In the US and Europe, hundreds of thousands have joined rallies and protest actions against the US “war on terror”, especially the impending war against Iraq. Notable is the protest movement that sprouted from among the relatives of the WTC victims and has grown into a nationwide anti-war movement called “NOT IN OUR NAME”. Similar protest movements have grown worldwide, including Asia, Southeast Asia and here in the Philippines.

The US economy, just as the entire world capitalist system, continues to suffer from chronic stagnation and bouts of recession and feeble, incomplete recovery. The US cannot pursue as much unilateralism as it boasts or wishes. It is forced to accommodate and give concessions to rival powers in alliances and coalitions to gain needed political, military and financial support for the wars it seeks to wage. It must contend with them, first of all, in inter-capitalist and inter-imperialist competition for sources of raw materials and cheap labor and outlets for products and excess capital.

Finally, there are the “brushfires” of liberation movements worldwide that continue to burn. It has sought, through the past half century, to extinguish these little pesky fires. But it has so far failed, despite the past decade of unchallenged all-round supremacy. In truth, these brushfires may be the real targets of the “war on terror”. Last January 18, Secretary Colin Powell told the Nepalese King Gyandera and Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in Kathmandu last January 18:

“You have a Maoist insurgency that’s trying to overthrow the government, and this really is the kind of thing that we are fighting against throughout the world.”

Right now the warmongers and militarists of the world, including our local ones here, are riding high, bleating and boasting, thinking they will eventually get their way and eventually crush all their enemies with military force.

Diyan sila nagkakamali. (That is where they are mistaken.)

Annex I: From: QDDR 2001,

III. Paradigm Shift in Force Planning

“The new force-sizing construct specially shapes forces to:

• Defend the United States
• Deter aggression and coercion forward in critical regions
• Swiftly defeat aggression in overlapping major conflicts while preserving for the President the option to call for a decisive victory in one of those conflicts – including the possibility of regime change or occupation
• Conduct a limited number of smaller-scale contingency operations

Deter Forward

As a global power, the US has important geopolitical interests around the world.

…new planning construct calls for maintaining regionally tailored forces forward stationed and deployed in Europe, Northeast Asia, the East Asia Littoral, and the Middle East/Southwest Asia…

…will strengthen its forward deterrent posture. Over time, US forces will be tailored increasingly to maintain favorable regional balances in concert with US allies and friends with the aim of swiftly defeating attacks with only modest reinforcement…. A key objective of US transformation efforts over time will be to increase the capability of its forward forces…

Security cooperation will serve as an important means for linking DoD’s strategic direction with those of its allies and friends…A particular aim… will be to ensure access, interoperability, and intelligence cooperation,,,

From IV. Reorienting the US Military Global Posture

One of the goals of reorienting the global posture is to render forward forces capable of swiftly defeating an adversary’s military and political objectives with only modest reinforcement. Key requirements … include new combinations of immediately employable forward stationed and deployed forces; expeditionary and forcible entry capabilities;…information operations; special operations forces; and rapidly deployable, highly lethal and sustainable forces that may come from outside a theater of operations.

US global military posture will be reoriented to:

• Develop a basing system that provides greater flexibility for US forces in critical areas of the world, placing emphasis on additional bases and stations beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia.
• Provide temporary access to facilities in foreign countries that enable US forces to conduct training and exercises in the absence of permanent ranges and bases.
• Redistribute forces and equipment based on regional deterrence requirements
• Provide sufficient mobility, including airlift, sealift, prepositioning, basing infrastructure, alternative points of debarkation, and new logistical concepts of operations.

Accordingly, the Department has made the following decisions:

• The Secretary of the Army will….
• The Secretary of the Navy will increase aircraft carrier battlegroup presence in the Western Pacific and will explore options for homeporting an additional three to four surface combatants, and guided cruise missile submarines (SSGNs), in that area
• The Secretary of the Air Force will develop plans to increase contingency basing in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as in the Arabian Gulf. The Secretary of the Airforce will ensure sufficient en route infrastructure for refueling and logistics to support operations in the Arabian Gulf or Western Pacific Areas
• The Secretary of the Navy will develop new concepts of maritime pre-positioning. High-speed sealift, and new amphibious capabilities for the Marine Corps…. In consultation with allies and friends, the Secretary of the Navy will explore the feasibility of conducting training for littoral warfare in the Western Pacific for the Marine Corps.
• DoD will also recommend changes in the worldwide alignment of special operations forces assets to account for new regional emphases in the defense strategy.
• The United States will maintain its critical bases in Western Europe and Northeast Asia, which may also serve the additional role of hubs for power projection in future contingencies in other areas of the world.

 

Appendix 2

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES MISSIONS AND ACTIVITIES

SOF Principal Missions – SOF are organized, trained, and equipped specifically to accomplish their assigned roles, as described below, in nine mission areas:

• Counterproliferation (CP) – combat proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons across the full range of U.S. efforts, including the application of military power to protect U.S. forces and interests; intelligence collection and analysis; and support of diplomacy, arms control, and export controls. Accomplishment of these activities may require coordination with other U.S. government agencies.
• Combating terrorism (CBT) – preclude, preempt, and resolve terrorist actions throughout the entire threat spectrum, including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism), and resolve terrorist incidents when directed by the NCA or the appropriate unified commander or requested by the Services or other government agencies
• Foreign internal defense (FID) – organize, train, advise, and assist host-nation military and para-military forces to enable these forces to free and protect their society from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency
• Special reconnaissance (SR) – conduct reconnaissance and surveillance actions to obtain or verify information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning characteristics of a particular area
• Direct action (DA) – conduct short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions to seize, destroy, capture, recover, or inflict damage on designated personnel or materiel
• Psychological operations (PSYOP) – induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator’s objectives by conducting planned operations to convey selected information to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and, ultimately, the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals
• Civil affairs (CA) – facilitate military operations and consolidate operational activities by assisting commanders in establishing, maintaining, influencing, or exploiting relations between military orces and civil authorities, both governmental and non-governmental, and the civilian population in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operation
• Unconventional warfare (UW) – organize, train, equip, advise, and assist indigenous and surrogate forces in military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration
• Information operations (IO) – actions taken to achieve information superiority by affecting
  adversary information and information systems while defending one’s own information and
  information systems

SOF Collateral Activities – Based on their unique capabilities, SOF are frequently tasked to participate in the following activities:

• Coalition support – integrate coalition units into multinational military operations by training
  coalition partners on tactics and techniques and providing communications
• Combat search and rescue (CSAR) – penetrate air defense systems and conduct joint air, ground, or sea operations deep within hostile or denied territory, at night or in adverse weather, to recover distressed personnel during wartime or contingency operations. SOF are equipped and manned to perform CSAR in support of SOF missions only. SOF perform CSAR in support of conventional forces on a case-by-case basis not to interfere with the readiness or operations of core SOF missions.
• Counterdrug (CD) activities – train host-nation CD forces and domestic law enforcement agencies on critical skills required to conduct individual and small-unit operations in order to detect, monitor, and interdict the cultivation, production, and trafficking of illicit drugs targeted for use in the United States
• Humanitarian demining (HD) activities – reduce or eliminate the threat to noncombatants and friendly military forces posed by mines and other explosive devices by training host-nation personnel in their recognition, identification, marking, and safe destruction; provide instruction in program management, medical, and mine-awareness activities
• Humanitarian assistance (HA) – provide assistance of limited scope and duration to supplement or complement the efforts of host-nation civil authorities or agencies to relieve or reduce the results of natural or manmade disasters or other endemic conditions such as human pain, disease, hunger, or privation that might present a serious threat to life or that can result in great damage to, or loss of, property
• Security assistance (SA) – provide training assistance in support of legislated programs which provide U.S. defense articles, military training, and other defense-related services by grant, loan, credit, or cash sales in furtherance of national policies or objectives
• Special activities – subject to limitations imposed by Executive Order and in conjunction with a presidential finding and congressional oversight, plan and conduct actions abroad in support of national foreign policy objectives so that the role of the U.S. government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly

June 29, 1999

SOFAs or other agreements conferring legal status on US forces and personnel overseas have been in effect with respect to the following countries and areas since the years indicated below. Agreements for specific or time-limited purposes and activities (other than the Bosnia Sustaining Force, SFOR) are not included. Classified agreements are designated by (C) or (S), as appropriate. “TIAS” references are to the published Treaties and Other International Acts Series of the Department of State. Other unclassified agreements referred to below have not been published.

Albania (1996)

Antigua and Barbuda (1977) (TIAS 9054)

Ascension Island (1956) (TIAS 3603, 4296, 6308)

Australia (1963) (TIAS 5349)

Austria (1998)

Bahamas (1983) (TIAS 11058)

Bahrain (1971) (TIAS 7263, 8208, 8632) and (1987)(S)

Bangladesh (1998)

Belgium (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Benin (1998)

Bermuda (1991)

Bosnia-Herzegovina (1995, for IFOR/SFOR)

Brunei (1994)

Bulgaria (1996)

Cambodia (1996)

Canada (1953) (TIAS 2846, 3074)

Cote d’Ivoire (1998)

Croatia (1995, for IFOR/SFOR)

Czech Republic (1996)

Denmark (1953) (TIAS 2846, 4002)

Diego Garcia (1966) (TIAS 6196, 7481, 8230)

Dominican Republic (1988)

Egypt (1981) (TIAS 10238)

Estonia (1996)

Ethiopia (1994)

Former Republic of Yugoslavia (1997)

Federated States of Micronesia (1986)

Finland (1997)

France (1953) (TIAS 2846)*

FYROM (Macedonia) (1996)

Georgia (1997)

Germany (1963) (TIAS 2846, 5351, 5352, 7759, 10367)

Ghana (1998)

Greece (1963) (TIAS 2846, 3649)

Grenada (1993)

Haiti (1995)

Honduras (1982) (TIAS 10890, 11256)

Hungary (1996)

Iceland (1951) (TIAS 2295)

Israel (1994)

Italy (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Japan (1953) (TIAS 4510)

Jamaica (1962) (TIAS 2105) **

Jordan (1996)

Kazakhstan (1997)

Kenya (1980) (C)

Korea (1966) (TIAS 6127)

Kuwait (1991) (S)

Latvia (1996)

Lithuania (1996)

Luxembourg (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Malaysia (1990) (C)

Mali (1997)

Marshall Islands (1986) (TIAS 11671)

Moldova (1997)

Mongolia (1996)

Morocco (1982) (S)

Netherlands (1953) (TIAS 3174)

New Zealand (1958) (TIAS 4151)

Norway (1953) (TIAS 2846, 2950)

Oman (1980) (S)

Palau (1994)

Panama (1979) (TIAS 10032)

Papua New Guinea (1990) (TIAS 11612)

Philippines (1998)

Poland (1997)

Portugal (1953) (TIAS 2846)

Qatar (1992) (S)

Romania (1996)

St. Kitts & Nevis (1987)

St. Lucia (1979) (TIAS 2105) **

Saudi Arabia (1953) (TIAS 2812, 5830, 7425) (S)

Singapore (1990) (S)

Slovak Republic (1996)

Slovenia (1996)

Solomon Islands (1991)

Somalia (1980) (C)

Spain (1951) (TIAS 2846)

Sri Lanka (1995)

South Africa (1999)

Sudan (1981) (TIAS 10322)

Sweden (1996)

Tonga (1992)

Trinidad and Tobago (1962) (TIAS 2105) **

Turkey (1945) (TIAS 2846, 3020, 3337, 6582, 9901)*

Turks and Caicos Islands (1979) (TIAS 9710, 9711)

Uganda (1997)

Ukraine (1997, provisionally)

United Arab Emirates (1994) (S)

United Kingdom (1952) (TIAS 2846, 11537) ***

Uzbekistan (1996, provisionally)

Western Samoa (1990)

TOTAL: 92

* Both France and Turkey have resisted the application of NATO SOFA to activities in their territory which are not in support of NATO purposes.

** SOFA provisions of 1941 United States – United Kingdom Lend Lease Agreement apply, and were continued in application by former United Kingdom territories when they gained their independence.

*** The 1952 Visiting Forces Act is a unilateral British statute enacted to supplement the NATO SOFA of 1951 within the United Kingdom. Britain elected this approach, rather than concluding a supplementary agreement with the United States as a sending state. Unfortunately, the Visiting Forces Act does not fully agree with NATO SOFA, particularly regarding claims, and this has led to disputes from time to time.

COUNTRIES WHICH ARE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY REGARDING THE STATUS OF FORCES DATED 19 JUNE 1951 (as of March 2000)

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

COUNTRIES WHICH ARE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY AND THE OTHER STATES PARTICIPATING IN THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR FORCES

DATED 7 JULY 1955 (as of March 2000)

Albania                                                                                      Poland

Austria                                                                                       Romania

Belgium                                                                                     Slovak Republic

Bulgaria                                                                                     Slovenia

Canada                                                                                      Spain

Czech Republic                                                                         Sweden

Denmark                                                                                   United Kingdom

Estonia                                                                                      United States

FYROM (Macedonia)                                                               Uzbekistan

Finland

Georgia

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Kazakhstan

Latvia

Lithuania

Moldova

Netherlands

Norway

US military bases, facilites and activities overseas fall into three general categories:

1. Larger bases or installations with a permanent US military presence, usually comprising combat-capable forces (Attachment A).

2. Lesser or technical facilities, again with a permanent US military presence, which may be largely civilian contractor personnel (Attachment B).

3. Access rights for US forces to use host country facilities for visits, exercises or training, without a significant permanent US military presence (Attachment C).

Most of these arrangements were established through securing prior approval from the host countries concerned, and negotiating formal agreements with them. In the NATO area, Japan and Korea, host nations generally made state-owned land and structures available without cost. Following Congressional approval, new facilities were then constructed, either by the U.S. at its own expense, or through multilateral infrastructure funding in NATO countries. As a matter of international law, title to those improvements vests in the host nation, which grants use rights to the U.S.

With respect to larger bases or installations, no rent is paid as a matter of principle, and the following considerations apply:

(1) Japan, Korea and Germany absorb a significant proportion of the local support costs of U.S. forces. Other wealthy Allies also make a burdensharing contribution, but to a lesser extent.

(2) U.S. security and economic assistance programs for such countries as Greece, Turkey and Egypt reflect in part their provision of basing or access rights.

The U.S. does pay rent for certain lesser facilities and access rights in Antigua, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Oman and Seychelles.

Attachments D and E respectively list those countries with formal U.S. defense commitments, and those having defense relations with the U.S., but not a formal defense commitment.

COUNTRIES AND AREAS WITH US MILITARY BASES OR INSTALLATIONS

Europe (10) East Asia and Pacific (3)

Belgium, Australia, Germany, Japan, Greece, Korea, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal (Azores), Spain, Turkey,United Kingdom

Western Hemisphere (4) Indian Ocean (1)

Canada, Diego Garcia, Cuba, (United Kingdom) Greenland, Panama

TOTAL: 18

COUNTRIES AND AREAS WITH LESSER OR TECHNICAL US MILITARY FACILITIES

Western Hemisphere (2) East Asia and Pacific (2)

Antigua and Barbuda, Marshall Islands, Bahamas, New Zealand

Middle East/Indian Ocean (1) South Atlantic (1)

Bahrain Ascension Island (United Kingdom)

TOTAL: 6

COUNTRIES GRANTING THE US ACCESS RIGHTS FOR USE OF THEIR FACILITIES

Europe (2) East Asia (5)

Denmark, Brunei, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand

North Africa, Middle East

and Southwest Asia (9) Other Africa (5)

Egypt, Djibouti, Israel, Liberia*, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Senegal, Morocco, Somalia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates

Western Hemisphere (2)

Antigua and Barbuda, Honduras

TOTAL: 23

* Exercise of U.S. access rights is currently in abeyance.

COUNTRIES WITH FORMAL U.S. DEFENSE COMMITMENTS

(By treaty or otherwise)

NATO (15) Rio Pact (22)

Belgium, Argentina,Canada, Bahamas, Czech Republic, Bolivia, Denmark, Brazil, France, Chile, Germany, Colombia, Greece Costa Rica, Hungary, Cuba*, Iceland, Dominican Republic, Italy, Ecuador, Luxembourg, El Salvador, Netherlands, Guatemala, Norway, Haiti, Poland, Honduras, Portugal, Mexico, Spain, Nicaragua, Turkey, Panama, United Kingdom, Paraguay, Peru

Asia/Pacific Bilaterals (4)

Trinidad & Tobago, Japan, Uruguay, Korea, Venezuela, Philippines, Thailand

ANZUS (2) Agreements of Cooperation (2)

Australia, Liberia***, New Zealand**, Pakistan****

Freely Associated States (3)

Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau

TOTAL: 48
* Cuba has been excluded from participation in the Inter American System, including the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.

** The US has suspended its security obligation to New Zealand under the ANZUS Treaty of 1951.

*** By 1959 executive agreement only.

**** By 1959 executive agreement pursuant to 1957 joint Congressional resolution.

COUNTRIES HAVING DEFENSE RELATIONS WITH THE U.S. THROUGH MILITARY COOPERATION, EXCHANGES OR VISITS, BUT NOT A FORMAL DEFENSE COMMITMENT

Partners for Peace (26) North Africa/Middle East (11)

Albania, Bahrain, Austria, Egypt, Armenia, Israel, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Belarus, Kuwait, Bulgaria, Morocco, Estonia, Oman, Finland, Qatar, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan,Tunisia, Kyrgyzstan, United Arab Emirates, Latvia, Lithuania

Other, Africa (5)

Macedonia (FYROM), Moldova, Dijbouti, Romania, Eritrea, Russia, Kenya, Slovakia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Caribbean (2)

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States*, Jamaica

Asia/Pacific (7)

Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Singapore, Taiwan**

TOTAL: 51

* Comprises Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

** No formal diplomatic relations. A foreign mlitary sales relationship is provided by the Taiwan Relations Act, 1979.

Rey Claro Casambre
Philippine Peace Center
ILPS Philippines Chapter

(Paper read at the conference to launch an international campaign against US overseas military bases, September 20-22, 2003, at Chanai, Crete, Greece.)

Introduction

Twelve years ago, in September 1991, the Filipino people kicked out US troops and shut down
US bases in the Philippines.

Today, US troops are back in the Philippines. Permanently, if the US and Philippine governments would have their way. Displaying utter disregard for Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, they have circumvented the constitutional ban on foreign military troops and bases. They did this by sneaking two highly questionable military agreements through the token scrutiny of Congress and the Supreme Court, and ramming these roughshod over the people’s protest and opposition.

First, the Philippine Senate ratified a “status-of-forces agreement” — the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in May 1999, opening up the Philippines to US troops and equipment for unspecified military activities for virtually unlimited periods of time. Second, the US Defense Department and the Philippine Department of National Defense entered into an “acquisition and cross-servicing agreement”, the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) last November through their respective Defense Departments allows US forces to access or use Philippine installations and to practically set up their own facilities anywhere on Philippine territory.

The arithmetic is simple:

VFA = Status of Forces Agreement ⇒ US TROOPS

MLSA = Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement ⇒ US FACILITIES

VFA + MLSA = US MILITARY BASES.

This time throughout the Philippine archipelago, not just in Clark and Subic (the cites of the big US air and naval bases until 1991). The entire country is now one big US military base.

US Ally or Vassal State?

The Philippines has long been known to be the closest ally of the US in Southeast Asia. But in fact, it is more accurately described as a neo-colonial vassal state. A half century of colonial rule and another half century as a neo-colonial client state has secured for the US an all-too compliant and servile ruling elite and a population that still looks up to the US as a benevolent Big White Brother.

Factions of the ruling elite vie for US support, with the most favored assured of winning the elections and remaining in power. Thus, the US has several stables of aspiring puppets, and enjoys the luxury of allowing whoever could most effectively serve its interest to rule.

What is not too well-known is that outside Malacanang (Presidential Palace), the most trusted and reliable subalterns of the US in the Philippines are to be found not in the civil bureaucracy but in the military: the armed forces and the police. Since its formation under American colonial rule, the Philippine military has always been oriented, trained, supplied and directed by the US. This went on even after the Philippines was granted political independence in 1946 through a series of military treaties and agreements such as the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT, Military Assistance Pact (MAP), and the Military Bases Agreement (MBA).

In 1991, the MBA expired and a draft US-RP Treaty of Friendship which would have allowed the continuation of US Bases was rejected by a Philippine Senate in the face of massive demonstrations for the expulsion of the US Bases. This was followed by a brief period of feverish but low-profile negotiations for a Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would allow the temporary presence of US troops in the Philippines, and an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that would allow the US to use Philippine facilities for training, repairs and other services, port calls, pre-positioning of war materiel, and other logistic support.

Using its assets in the bureaucracy and the military, the US eventually secured the VFA in 1999 despite widespread protest and outrage over its onerous and blatantly one-sided provisions. Joint military exercises have been resumed since then, all of them low-key if not secret.

Up until 9-11. Then President Macapagal-Arroyo loudly proclaimed her government’s all out support for “Operation Enduring Freedom”. In November 2001, she accepted George W. Bush’s offer for US troops and equipment purportedly to help the Philippine military wipe out the Abu Sayyaf, a bandit group once linked to Al Qaeda, with a paltry sum of military and economic aid as a thinly veiled “reward”. Bush and Macapagal-Arroyo would not have been so brazen in cutting this deal and publicly announcing it had not the September 11 bombings occurred.

Enter the Dragon: “Balikatan Joint Military Training Exercises”

In the first half of 2002, more than 3,000 US troops came to the Philippines and participated in offensive operations against the Abu Sayyaf group. The relative ease by which Bush and Macapagal-Arroyo were able to pass off the “Balikatan 02-1” as a legitimate Joint Military Training Exercise in accordance with the MDT and VFA owes not so much to the merit of their arguments as to the overwhelming sentiment that the Abu Sayyaf deserve to be blown off this planet, the sooner the better. The general perception was that the US abundantly had the motivation and the means to locate and pulverize the Abu Sayyaf, the two things the AFP had displayed a miserable lack of, ergo let the Americanos “just do it”.

Protests and objections were not lacking. US Troops Out Now!, a broad multisectoral coalition of patriotic organizations and individuals, condemned “Balikatan 02-1” and the “war against terror” as a mere pretext for allowing the entry of US troops in violation of Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity.

President Macapagal-Arroyo has unabashedly declared that there will be more “Balikatans” in 2003 and in the coming years. True enough, while “Balikatan 02-1″ was underway, another joint military exercise was being held in another island. And as some of the US troops packed up and returned to their home bases, other troops arrived for a joint naval evacuation and rescue exercise. Furthermore, long after the joint training exercises were over, there are still hundreds of US Marines and Special Forces elements left behind at Basilan and elsewhere in Southwestern Mindanao purportedly to finish the public works and construction projects jointly undertaken by the US and Philippine troops as part of “humanitarian operations” in the area and to defend these from hostile attacks.

All these have further proven the critics and oppositors of the VFA right. The VFA will allow the stationing of US troops in the country for indefinite periods of time, not to mention granting them immunity from criminal prosecution for offenses committed while “on duty”.

Recently, the White House, State Department and Pentagon announced that US forces will engage in combat operations in another round of “joint military exercises” against the Abu Sayyaf in Sulu. The US also reportedly proposed that a certain area be assigned as the US’ “area of responsibility” (AOR) where its troops can operate alone, separate from Philippine troops, and not under a Filipino commander3. The Philippine government quickly denied this and signaled the US that they could not get away with such a blatant violation of the constitution.

The message however, is clear: US troops are not only here to stay, they will continue to come in greater force and continue to intervene militarily in the country’s internal affairs.

US Global Interests & Military Objectives

If “Balikatan 02-1” and the “war against terrorism” were mere pretexts for US presence, what then were the US troops really doing in Basilan, Zamboanga, and for that matter in all the other “Balikatan” areas? To answer this question, we would need to look at the US’ global military objectives, policies, strategy and tactics

The Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Sept 30, 2001) published by the US Department of Defense candidly states that “US interests, responsibilities and commitments span the world”. The QDRR 2001 explicitly states:

…The global nature of US interests and obligations implies that full spectrum dominance will continue to depend on overseas presence and power projection capabilities.

One can easily see that the US can invoke “US national interest” to justify US military presence and, if necessary, military intervention in any place in the world. In fact, US military strategy is designed to do precisely that.

The US’ conduct of the Afghanistan war showed a clear break from the more passive “multilateral approach” to a more aggressive unilateral approach and military posture. These changes are also reflected in the QDRR 2001, in particular Sections III. Paradigm Shift in Force Planning and IV Reorienting the US Military Global Posture.

The “paradigm shift” is a shift from “rapid deployment” to any given “trouble spot” to “forward stationing” and “forward deployment” in all potential theaters of war. The object is to station or deploy sufficient US forces in all critical regions worldwide in order to deter any threats to US interests in the region; and if deterrence fails, to defeat these threats with a minimum of reinforcements from other theaters or regions. Further, the “paradigm shift” arrogantly and brazenly states that the military posture shall preserve “the President’s option to call for a decisive victory… “including the possibility of regime change or occupation”. We can see in the Iraq invasion and occupation, the application of the QDRR 2001 as an unabashed handbook of US aggression and intervention, in blatant violation of international law.

QDDR2001 envisages the reorientation of US military posture to include, among others:

• increase in aircraft carrier battlegroup presence and homeporting an additional three to four surface combatants, and guided cruise missile submarines (SSGNs)in the Western Pacific,
• increase in contingency basing in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and in the Arabian Gulf….and sufficient en route infrastructure for refuelling and logistics to support operations in the Arabian Gulf or Western Pacific Areas
• new concepts of maritime pre-positioning…high-speed sealift, and new amphibious capabilities for the Marine Corps…. conducting training for littoral warfare in the Western Pacific for the Marine Corps (in coordination with “allies and friends”).

Since 9-11, this “paradigm shift” has already resulted in the establishment of additional bases, forward stationed and forward deployed forces notably in the Balkans, Central Asia, West Asia or the Middle East, and in the East Asia-Pacific Region.

Access or Bases?

It is in the context of the renewed US drive for military bases and access agreements all over the world that the question of US basing in the Philippines should be viewed. Both US and Philippine governments, in attaining the VFA and the MLSA, repeatedly profess that the US is no longer interested in setting up US military bases in the Philippines. The argument is that with the end of the Cold War following the collapse of the East European and Soviet regimes in 1989 and 1991, the US no longer needs these bases and has in fact dismantled many of them worldwide. Further, the US has shifted its strategy to the more economical forward deployment and pre-positioning which would require not permanent bases but mere access agreements with its allies worldwide for limited and temporary use of facilities.

This was before Sept 11. 9-11 gave Bush’s drive a big and timely boost by generating a wave of domestic and international support for his “war vs. terrorism” that translated into a bipartisan Congressional approval of his defense budget. According to the Defense Department’s Base Structure Report the US currently has military bases in at least 38 countries worldwide, not including newly acquired bases, forward bases such as in Saudi Arabia and the Balkans, and considerable troop concentrations in Central Asia (60,000) since 9-11.

Considering (1) the importance of East Asia to US global interests, or more particularly to its drive to expand and consolidate its hegemony, (2) the strategic geographic position of the Philippines in Southeast Asia, (3) the renewed drive of the US to set up military installations worldwide after 9-11, we can confidently conclude that the US is seeking to reestablish and even upgrade its military bases in the Philippines.

Southeast Asia is located at the center of an arc US military strategy refers to as “the East Asia littoral” — beginning with the concentration of industrial and technological power in Japan, Korea, and Eastern China, down to the resources and manpower-rich Southeast Asian countries and the South China Sea through which half — or $500 billion worth– of world trade annually passes, to the Indian sub-continent and the oil-rich Middle East. This arc also encircles China, which the US considers as its potential long-term peer rival.

The 1998 US Security Strategy for East Asia-Pacific Region states:

Maintaining an overseas military presence is a cornerstone of US National Security Strategy and a key element of US military policy of “shape, respond, and prepare”. In Asia, US force presence plays a particular key role in promoting peace and security in regional affairs.

The Philippines is at the center of Southeast Asia, in which the US still does not have a single military base. Strategy studies for the US Armed Forces, such as the Rand Corporation’s, point to the unique geographical and socio-political-economic vantage position of the Philippines as the necessary site for large permanent US military bases.

In addition to the factors above, the enthusiasm with which the Macapagal-Arroyo government supports Bush’ “war on terror” and the relative openness of the population to US presence, are factors that would allow the US to push beyond the VFA and MLSA or for more favorable terms in agreements and treaties.

Finally, the question must be asked, if the Abu Sayyaf and the Al Qaeda were only pretexts for re-establishing a “robust” and eventually permanent presence of US troops in the Philippines, who are its real targets? Evidently, the targets are those whom the US considers its long-term enemies. Foremost is the CPP-NDF and New People’s Army, which it includes in its list of “terrorist organizations”, just as it targets all anti-imperialist organizations, armed and unarmed, that oppose its world hegemonic designs.

No less than US State Secretary Colin Powell confirmed this in his remarks to Nepalese King Gyandera and Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in Kathmandu last January 18:

“You have a Maoist insurgency that’s trying to overthrow the government, and this really is the kind of thing that we are fighting against throughout the world.”

Filipino people join the struggle against all overseas US bases

There is now a broad and strong people’s movement against US military presence and intervention in the Philippines and in the East Asia-Pacific region. It consists of individuals and mass organizations of workers, peasants, youth, women, indigenous peoples, and various professionals. The Filipino people have not too long ago succeeded in throwing out US military bases in the Philippines. There is no doubt that they can once again muster their collective strength to oppose the renewed US intervention not only in the Philippines but in the entire region.

The difference is that today, they are more aware of the internationalist dimension of their struggle, of the fact that they must fight not only US intervention in the Philippines but also the US war of terror in the region and all over the world. Just as their victory against the US bases was brought about by the Filipino people’s unity in struggle, they now close ranks with the peoples of the world opposing all overseas US military bases, and fighting US imperialism and war.

In this regard we would like to report that the ILPS Philippines Chapter and individual ILPS member organizations in the Philippines are coordinating or in touch with anti-bases, anti-nuclear and anti-imperialist formations in the East Asia-Pacific especially in Japan, Korea and Australia.

Many of these formations have recently come together in an International Solidarity Mission in the Philippines last year. Last March, an International Conference on US Military Activities and the Environment was held in Okinawa, Japan. Next week, on Sept. 28, the Fremantle Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG) will hold a protest action against the US Navy’s “Sea Swap Exercise” and against US military presence in Western Australia in general. I propose that this conference send its message of solidarity and support for this action.

There is an urgent need and a strong potential for reviving, rebuilding and further revitalizing an anti-bases network and campaign in the East Asia-Pacific region, and link it to an international network and campaign to oppose and shut down US overseas military bases.

A lot of study, research, education and propaganda must be done. In this connection we propose that this conference be a part of the current effort to set up an ILPS study commission on the concern for peace against imperialist wars of aggression and intervention and against nuclear and other weapons of genocide and mass destruction. This is without prejudice to contributing to other study commissions likewise related to the issue of US overseas military bases. The forthcoming activity Mumbai Resistance next January is one opportunity for holding these fora.

We propose further the immediate holding of sectoral and multi-sectoral, local and regional conferences, seminars and other fora for exchanges of information and experiences, for building linkages, networks and formations, and for planning and coordinating various actions.

The ILPS Philippines Chapter is prepared and willing to do its part in this important endeavor.

###

 

<< BACK

(Impact on Policy by Obama’s Presidency)

Prepared by Rey Claro Casambre for the Workshop on US Aggression and Military Intervention, Conference of Lawyers in the Asia-Pacific, September 18, 2010, SMX Convention Center, Manila, Philippines.

VIEW SLIDE PRESENTATION

Brief Historical Background

The 20th century is beyond doubt the bloodiest and most violent century that mankind has ever seen. Much of that blood is on the hands of US imperialism.

From the beginning and up to the present, it has been US monopoly capital that dictates its global imperial thrust and policy, including or especially that in the Asia-Pacific region. It is thus the incessant drive for profit by exporting capital, exploiting cheap labor, and plundering the resources of weaker countries it subjugates and dominates that dictates the US’ global policies from trade to diplomacy to war. Also from the beginning, up to the present, this very same imperial thrust to oppress and exploit other peoples, has been carried out under the glossy mantle of altruism and benevolence, in the name of democracy, world peace, universal freedom and prosperity. Thus, human rights violations, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been committed over and over again not just in the name of world peace but even in God’s name.

>>> US aggression and military intervention in Asia-Pacific began at the turn of the 20th century, along with the rise of modern imperialism.

Using the blowing up of the US battleship Maine at the Havana harbor in Cuba as a pretext, the US declared war on Spain in 1898 and sent its invasion and occupation forces across the Pacific to seize the Philippine Islands from Spain and turn it into its colony and strategic military outpost and springboard in Asia,

By the accounts of its own generals, 1/6 of the population of Luzon or 600,000 Filipinos have been killed or died of disease after three years of the Fiipino-American War. This figure would rise to up to a million or around 1/6 of the Filipino population by the end of the pacification campaigns in 1916. The Filipino-American war was a virtual laboratory for US imperialism’s counter-guerrilla and counter-insurgency tactics that it would use and develop further in many more interventions and aggression especially in third world countries.

The emergence of the US from the Second World War in 1945 as the preeminent, most prosperous and most powerful, if most unscathed imperialist power on the globe allowed and thereafter used its military superiority to engage in aggression and intervention to preserve its supremacy and expand and consolidate its global hegemony.

In Asia it ruled over the Philippines and controlled Japan and had the biggest and most powerful military bases in the region. It set up the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), a military or security alliance to prevent socialism from spreading from Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea and North Vietnam and deter the growth and spread of national liberation movements in the region. The US intervened in Korea to install its own puppet government in the South and prevent unification of North and South by subverting elections which Kim Il Sung of the DPRK would have won handily. In 1954 the US was poised to take over South Vietnam from the French when the latter left after the defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

The second half of the 20th century was marked by the US’ strong military presence in the region with large military bases and stationed troops in Korea, Japan and the Philippines and complete naval supremacy in the whole Pacific and Pacific coasts except the Russian coast on the Pacific. This strong presence was justified by the US and accepted by most countries in the region as a necessary counterfoil to the expansionist designs of China and the USSR. The Cold War was a handy excuse to maintain forces and conduct a host of military activities in the region. Nonetheless, US aggression and intervention in Indochina resulted in their defeat and the victory of national liberation forces in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Wherever there were US military bases,

The US lost its excuse for maintaining a large military force in Asia-Pacific, as elsewhere in the world, with the collapse of the USSR and Eastern European regimes in the early 90s, and with China’s opening up to the world capitalist system with the ascension of Deng Hsiao Peng to power in the late 1970s.

US Presence, Geopolitical Interest and Objectives in Asia-Pacific

The US Pacific Command stands as a symbol and expression of US power and its geopolitical interest in the Asia Pacific. It is the biggest of the US armed forces’ regional or theater commands, with 325,000 troops or 1/5 of the US armed forces. The diagram below, taken from its website, sums it up:

– (covers) 36 nations encompassing about half of the earth’s surface (another US PACOM document counts 48 countries within its area of responsibility)

– home to more than 50% of the world’s population (the population of East Asia is 1/3 of the world population)

– world’s six largest armed forces (China, US, Russia, India, North Korea, South Korea)

– Source of about 1/3 of US trade (USD 1.3 trillion worth or ½ of world trade passes through the waters of Southeast Asia)

– World’s three largest economies (US, China, Japan)

– Five nations allied with the US through mutual defense treaties (Australia, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Japan)

US PACOM has 325,000 troops, 1/5 of the total US armed forces. One hundred thousand (100,000) of these are based in Japan and Korea alone.

These troops, specially the US Special Forces are also some of the most engaged in actual war or committed to “hot spots” such as in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Long before 9-11, the think tank Rand Corporation, came up with a study stressing the need for a permanent US military base in the Philippines especially for its long-range bombers. (see illustration)
US Aggression and Militarism under the Bush-led “War on Terror”

• The 9/11 attacks on the US became a new and effective pretext for the US to once again employ its military superiority to the hilt to expand and consolidate global hegemony , seize and control strategic resources, prevent the rise of a peer rival and ensure its preeminent position as sole superpower. It employed the combination of deception and force, with coercion and force as the main and decisive instrument.

The Bush regime conjured all sorts of lies (eg WMDs in Iraq), stirred intense fear and terror in the population, and invoked the name of God to justify or get away with wanton human rights violations and violations of international law such as violations of national sovereignty, disregard for UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, The USA PATRIOT ACT, practice of rendition and detention in secret locations, targeted assassinations, degrading and inhumane treatment of detained suspected terrorists such as in Guantanamo and Abu Graib, etc are only some of the most notorious crimes of terror perpetrated by the US under the Bush regime in the name of “counter terrorism”.

Everyone knows now that the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan in order to install a friendly regime that would allow UNOCAL to lay out oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean. Further, occupying and having US military bases in Afghanistan would tighten US control over the region flanking China to the west. The military plans for invasion and occupation were complete long before 9/11. The US special forces and other troops used in the invasion had been training for years in the nearby Central Asian republics to familiarize with the terrain.

In January 2002, a few months after the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush declared Southeast Asia as the “second front in the war against terror” and promptly increased its forward presence and activities in the Philippines. The pretext was to crush the Abu Sayyaf, a small bandit group of Islamic militants whose leaders had trained and fought with the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan under the US CIA. In the same month, then US Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Nepal, offered the King and Prime Minister of Nepal US military assistance in going after the Nepalese revolutionaries led by the CPN-M, declaring that, “You have a Maoist insurgency that’s trying to overthrow the government, and this is really the kind of thing we are fighting all over the world.”

Numerous documents described the vision and design of the neoconservatives in preserving US supremacy through unilateralism and sheer military might backed by heavy spending for the military, at the same time feeding the military-industrial complex with fat contracts and government funding. But the neoconservatives’ design for global domination through the “war on terror” could not be fully implemented because of financial constraints arising from the global economic crisis, and political difficulties arising from prosecuting a basically unjust war.

US Aggression and Militarism in Asia-Pacific under Obama

The financial elite who decide and dictate US policy and global affairs – those in the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and/or the Council on Foreign Relations — saw in Obama an effective instrument for “changing the face” of US imperial designs, with Bush’s ‘war on terror” already discredited and having difficulties even in maintaining, much less leading, its alliances.

Candidate Barack Obama campaigned –and won the Presidency – largely on a promise of reversing the Bush policies in pursuing what he called a “dumb war”, as well as allowing the bankers to screw the economy. But President Obama early on conceded that the “war on terror” was necessary to protect the USA and preserve world peace, stability and progress. He had since reversed not Bush’ policies and thrusts in relation to the War on Terror, nor on the US and global economy. but his own word and most of his promises.

In Asia-Pacific, the Obama regime has escalated tension in Northeast Asia with its year-long joint military exercises with South Korea. Using the sinking of a South Korean boat allegedly by the North Korean navy, the US and South Korea have embarked on the biggest military exercises involving 20,000 US and 56,000 US troops, 200

China – and for that matter any thinking person — has every reason to believe that these military exercises are directed more against China than against North Korea, especially with the US’ insistence that they would hold naval exercises on the Yellow Sea, within striking distance of Beijing and other major Chinese cities. China has long been identified by US policymakers as the most likely peer competitor of the US within 10-20 years.

Obama has not rescinded the US’ assertion that never again will it allow a competitor to even come close to challenging its supremacy. Obama has not taken back the US’ assertion of its “right to preemptive strike”— including or especially a nuclear attack – against any threat to its supremacy, and that includes even its allies. In this connection, the Obama regime has stepped up the US anti-ballistic missile program

Neither has Obama made good his promise of closing down the Guantanamo prison and stopping the practice of extraordinary rendition – using Special Forces operatives to grab suspected terrorists wherever they are and secretly whisking them off to secret “terrorist” prisons for interrogation and detention. Worse, the practice of “targeted killings” – a euphemism for assassinations – has increased under the Obama regime, nearly always accompanied by civilian “collateral damage” and destruction of civilian properties and infrastructure.

One of the campaign promises Obama has kept, though, was to increase US military presence and activity in Southeast Asia. Just recently, one of its mightiest war machines, the USS George Washington Carrier Group, docked in Manila ostensibly for rest and recreation. In the US field manual on Stability Operations, this is properly called a “show of force”.

Doubtless, all of these are dictated not so much by what US official documents and even military manuals call “US national interest” but the interest of a small group of financiers – the same parasites who have created the global financial and economic crisis and then used the regimes they control to siphon off trillions of public funds into their pockets. The US government under Bush and Obama have made possible the unprecedented reconcentration of immense wealth into the hands of a few finance capitalists while causing widespread hardship and suffering of billions of people all over the world

Obama continues to use deceit to cover up the real intentions and action of the US. He claims to have kept his promise of ending the combat role of the US and withdrawing US troops from Iraq. But in fact more than 50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, not counting mercenaries or “outsourced” troops under the US command. Obama proudly announces that the only mission of the remaining troops are (1) to train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces, (2) conduct counter-terrorist actions, and (3) protect US personnel and installations. What Obama does not say is that by current US military doctrine, all three missions (which belong to a wide range of military operations euphemistically called “stability operations”) inevitably involve combat operations.

The Obama regime has of late attempted to give a new and more benign face to its wars of aggression by ‘civilianizing” it and stressing the “primacy of non-military means”, even avoiding the use of the phrase “war against terrorism” and preferring to use “war of counter-insurgency” instead. But on the ground, the reality is that coercion and force, not deception, are the main instruments for suppressing resistance and protext, and for perpetuating the status quo.

Conclusion: Impact on Human Rights and Conflict

Peace and Human Rights have been two of the first casualties in the US-led “war on terror”. The sovereignty of nations have been flagrantly trampled upon. US troops are being given free reign to commit gross human rights violations with impunity. However, this is not without resistance.

(In the Philippines, leaders and activists of progressive organizations were systematically assassinated, arrested and tortured, involuntarily disappeared. Many more became victims of gross human rights violations committed with impunity by state security forces.
From the beginning, the intolerable hardships and suffering brought about on the people by the plunder of weaker economies and wars of aggression and intervention have pushed more and more people to protest and fight for their rights. Deception, pretexts, promises and excuses invariably work only at the start. The reality on the ground – the suffering and hardships, injustice, increasing poverty and death, etc. – inevitably reveal the truth. The more the people perceive the truth about the root causes of their misery and hardship. and find that strength is gained through collective action, the more that deception fails and force is increasingly resorted to by those who wish to retain the status quo.
Corollarily, the less the people perceive the truth about the roots of their hardship and miseries, about the role of state terrorism and imperialist aggression and intervention in suppressing their struggles in the name of “peace and security”, the less organized the people are in struggling for their rights, for justice and freedom, then the more that deception can succeed in perpetuating the ruling system that oppresses and exploits them.
The current global financial and economic crisis has wrought further hardships and misery on the peoples of the world. But it also allows more and more people worldwide to see and understand the roots of their suffering and pushes them to unite in common struggles to bring about genuine change.

This underscores the role which progressives – including you, progressive lawyers – can and must play. You can play a unique role in raising the awareness of your clients and strengthening their unity and resolve as you support their legal struggles. Laws, like wars, are basically intended to preserve and perpetuate the ruling system; and the harshness and anti-people bias of law is moderated only by the rights won through hard struggle by the people. Lawyers can serve the people well by defending, standing with and speaking for them in the courts of law. But no amount of arguments in the courts, even by the best and most courageous people’s lawyers, can liberate the people from the oppressive and exploitative system that those courts are designed to preserve. Peace and human rights cannot flourish where there is systemic oppression and exploitation by imperialism and its local reactionary partners. People’s lawyers need to combine their efforts inside the courtroom with the people’s struggles, as well as their own, outside.

Not being a lawyer, it is best that I leave the elaboration on this point, and acting upon it, to you.