In 2002, the Philippines was tagged by the US as the “second front” in the “war on terror”, and Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines was launched against the Abu Sayyaf and the Jemaah Islamiya that was purportedly training in Mindanao. The US has since engaged in various activities not defined in the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement such as joining combat operations and conducting intelligence work.

The US justifies their basing in Mindanao in by saying that their presence was requested by the Philippine government. But as a New York Times report in August 2009 showed, the decision to retain US troops in Mindanao was a unilateral move announced by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Unlike in Iraq, there is no time-table for the pull-out of US troops in Mindanao. There are no clear parameters on how they will consider their mission ‘accomplished’. Clearly, the US government is circumventing a constitutional prohibition on US bases. The Philippine Constitution is clear, no foreign military bases absent a treaty ratified by both governments.

New US strategy focuses on Asia-Pacific

The new US defense strategy for 2012, released last January 3 by US President Barrack Obama, will ensure permanent US military presence in the Philippines. According to Obama, “we will focus on a broader range of challenges and opportunities, including the security and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific”.

Download new US Defense Strategy here

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the new strategy aims to “sustain US strategic leadership” by “emphasizing the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East”. The US Joint Force aims to be “smaller and leaner, but agile and flexible, ready and technologically advanced”.

One can say that the US force currently in Mindanao, consisting of 600 Special Forces operatives, conforms to this description.

The main document, Sustaining US Global Leadership, Priorities for 21^st Century Defense, explains the rationale of the so-called “shift”.

“U.S. economic and security interests are inextricably linked to developments in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia, creating a mix of evolving challenges and opportunities. Accordingly, while the U.S. military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region”.

The rise of China as a global power is viewed as one of the main reasons for the emphasis in the Asia-Pacific. “Over the long term, China’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the U.S. economy and our security in a variety of ways… The United States will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that we maintain regional access and the ability to operate freely in keeping with our treaty obligations and with international law.”

Viewed from the Philippine perspective, the conflict in the Spratly’s will remain a key interest of the US since it involves China and what the US believes are restrictions on access to the South China Sea.

It is very likely that US troops will remain in Mindanao in the foreseeable future, based on this new strategy. The U.S. wants its forces to “conduct a sustainable pace of presence operations abroad, including rotational deployments and bilateral and multilateral training exercises” similar to the ones they have been doing in the Philippines since 2002. US forces in Mindanao, for example, are deployed on a rotational basis and are engaged in bilateral and multilateral training exercises among other activities.

The purpose of these activities is to “reinforce deterrence, help to build the capacity and competence of U.S., allied, and partner forces for internal and external defense, strengthen alliance cohesion, and increase U.S. influence”, according to the document.

The only qualifier the US made on its presence operations abroad would be fiscal constraints. “With reduced resources, thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations,” the document said.  One report estimated that the US spends $50 million a year to sustain its troop deployment in Mindanao.

The Western Command (WesCom) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines has confirmed the holding of bigger joint military exercises under the RP-US Balikatan in April this year. It will now involve enlisted men from both countries from all branches of military service.

The US also aims to project its military power amid challenges from states such as China and Iran. “In order to credibly deter potential adversaries and to prevent them from achieving their objectives, the United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged. States such as China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities,” the document said.

The new US strategy is merely a re-echoing of the old US agenda of imposing its global dominance economically, politically and militarily. Any “shift” in strategy can be related to the US’ need to meet new regional “challenges” amid growing fiscal constraints. However, the core agenda remains the same.

Furthermore, continued US military presence in the Philippines is an affront on our country’s sovereignty, and quite the opposite of the US’ stated goals, a threat to regional stability and peace. ###

1. The fight to hold Arroyo accountable – Justice and accountability were key issues for the mass movement this year. Topping that list is the demand to jail Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Several lawsuits against GMA were filed this year by various groups, from plunder to human rights violations. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, seen as Arroyo’s first line of defense, was impeached then later resigned in the face of intense public pressure. GMA almost made good her escape with the Aquino government still unable to file charges in court after 500 days in power. At the last minute, before the SC could uphold its TRO on Arroyo’s Watchlist Order, the Comelec filed before the Pasay RTC a non-billable case of election sabotage. At this time, public clamor to hold GMA accountable was at an all-time high and it would have been disastrous for the Aquino government if it would still have nothing to show for all its anti-corruption rhetoric. For only the second time in 10 years, a former president was arrested, mug shots taken then detained. Still, GMA has not been made to account for her many other crimes against the people as the Aquino government has yet to file charges concerning gross human rights violations and the massive election fraud of 2004. The fight to hold GMA accountable, and the massive pressure on the Aquino government to make good on his promise, has opened up another front in the worsening political crisis. The year ends with the Chief Justice impeached, the Senate convened as an impeachment court, and critics anxious and wary of moves that would make Aquino exercise tremendous control over the Supreme Court in the future.

Photo from Bulatllat

2. The Luisita farmers score legal victory in SC – Seven years after the infamous Hacienda Luisita massacre, the farmers of this vast sugar estate finally won a significant legal victory before the Supreme Court. The SC, in a unanimous vote, ordered the distribution of land to the more than 6,000 farmer beneficiaries of Luisita. The implementation of this order is not going to be easy and the HLI management has filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification. Issues of compensation for the Cojuangco family have also created problems for land distribution. In any case, the organized farmers continue to assert their right to till the land and the occupation of hundreds of hectares of agricultural land continues. The next round in the struggle will be the actual distribution of land.  

3. The fight for justice for human rights victims – 2011 is the year human rights victims landed a strong counterstrike against the human rights violators of the past regime. The Morong 43 and the United Methodist Church slapped GMA with a civil suit for human rights violations. The parents of Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno went after Gen. Jovito Palparan. Political prisoners nationwide pressed for their freedom despite claims of a Palace spokesperson that they did not exist. The family of slain botanist Leonard Co also filed charges against members of the 19th IB in Leyte for the killing of Co and his two companions Sofronio Cortez and Julius Borromeo. Before the year ended, Palparan was a wanted fugitive after a Malolos court issued a warrant for his arrest on kidnapping charges. The Butcher is the highest military official to be charged in connection to human rights violations. As of this posting, he remains at large.

4. People’s SONA 2011- This was the second SONA of Aquino as he observes his first year in office as president. Some 17,000 marched along Commonwealth Avenue to protest the absence of any meaningful change under Aquino’s so-called “daang matuwid”. A giant “Penoy” on board a Hummer was the centerpiece of the march. The crowd reacted negatively to Aquino’s worn-out and continuing reference to the “wang-wang” as a symbol of entitlement, while not commenting on other substantial issues including the economy and human rights. The SONA protest was one of the biggest mass action for 2011.

5. Protests against budget cuts, “Occupy Mendiola” – This year saw students and teachers again striking against cuts in the education budget and other social services. They marched to Mendiola and other public squares nationwide and engaged Aquino apologists in heated debates over the nature and existence of the cuts. Towards the end of the year, students attempted to set up camp at the Mendiola Bridge. Two attempts were violently dispersed by the Manila Police, reinforced by police from other cities and regions. Several were arrested, scores were injured. The overkill security deployment seemed to stem from so-called intel reports received by the PNP regarding the conduct of the activity. It was later learned that the intel reports were merely taken from Facebook and given a different spin by the police. The events at Occupy Mendiola showed that the Aquino regime could be just as ruthless and repressive as the Arroyo regime when it comes to street protests. It is a lesson that the mass movement will take to heart as it gears for bigger battles ahead.

6. Relief ops for Pedring and Sendong victims – The mass movement put in tremendous effort this year to aid victims of typhoons Pedring and Sendong. Central Luzon was severely battered by rains and floods from Pedring, with huge parts of Bulacan, Pampanga submerged. Various groups took the initiative to raise funds and relief goods for distribution to affected areas. But before the year ended, the nation was shocked to see the devastation wrought by Sendong on Cagayan de Oro, Iligan and Negros Oriental. The mass movement again mobilized people and resources for the victims of the deadliest storm for 2011. A lot of work still needs to be done for the victims of Sendong, with relief and rehab operations continuing for the first few months of 2012.

7. People stop MRT/LRT fare hike – The first quarter of 2011 saw the mass movement locking horns with the Aquino government on the issue of fare increases for the MRT and LRT. We attended hearings, protested on train terminals and campaigned furiously against the unjust and anti-people increase. While the LRTA has approved the fare hike, its implementation has been stalled because of public resistance. This is an important victory that continues to benefit hundreds of thousands of MRT/LRT commuters.

8. People pay tribute to Ka Roger – In October this year, the CPP announced that the long-time spokesperson of revolution, the voice of the people Gregorio “Ka Roger” Rosal had passed away in July. There was an outpouring of tributes for Ka Roger, from lightning rallies in public spaces to a nationwide gun salute by the NPA on October 11. On October 15, more than 2,500 people gathered at the University of the Philippines Theater in Diliman to pay tribute to Ka Roger. Present were friends from the media, former government officials and members and consultants of the NDF and GRP peace panels along with the relatives of Ka Roger who travelled from Ibaan, Batangas. A DVD of this memorable event is now available.

9. Protests vs Hillary Clinton – US Secretary of State Clinton’s second visit to the Philippines was met with all sorts of protests. Marches to the US embassy, to Mendiola bridge along with several smaller but high-impact actions. For the first time in the Philippines, the convoy of a US official was stopped by protesters. Paint bombs were hurled at the SUV. Lastly, let’s again give a hand to Marjohara Tucay for standing up and protesting during the Clinton forum at the National Museum. That was an awesome thing to do.

10. Mining firms shut down by NPA– This event made the front pages and headlines of so many media outlets and reverberated even overseas. Three large foreign-owned mining firms were simultaneously raided by the NPA and their operations were stopped. By some coincidence, the documentary show Reporter’s Notebook had earlier done a story on one of the mining firms which showed the extent of damage done by Nickel Asia to the surrounding environment. The docu called “Philippines for Sale” was released a day after the NPA raid. The documentary also showed that the Aquino government was already aware of the destruction caused by the mining firm. The event once again brought to the fore the issue of mining and its effects on communities. A peace advocacy group called on the government to resume peace talks with the NDFP so that the issue of mining can be tackled in the second substantive agenda on socio-economic reforms.

Photo from PDI/ANN

My list of mass movement moments of course are for events that happened in the Philippines. But if you look at the global context, 2011 was the year of people’s uprisings and upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East. It was the year of “Occupy Wall Street” and the “occupy movement” that spread worldwide. 2011 was also the year of Wikileaks when the entire trove of cables were finally made public. Right now, our brothers and sisters in Egypt are continue to protest to push the revolution forward. Working peoples in Europe, the US and Latin America have stood up against massive social cutbacks. TIME magazine itself was forced to recognize “The Protester” as its person of the year. But “The Protester” is fighting not for an annual recognition by the corporate media. He/She is fighting for something more fundamental, more basic and more urgent. So expect “The Protester” to be back next year with a greater resolve to fight for change and a brighter future. ###

First he said that “Sa agrarian reform, ang hinahabol ay dalawang  bagay: number one, i-empower mo ung magsasaka upang magkaroon siya ng sariling lupang sasakahin. Okay yung parteng iyon, Ang pangalawang bagay ay: ‘wag natin ubusin ang capital. Ibig sabihin, meron ding just compensation para naman yung dating nagmamay-ari ng lupa ay hindi mo inaagawan ng lupa, bayaran mo ng tama.”

Spoken like a true hacendero.

The proposition that the big landlords of Luisita should be justly compensated is patently unjust. Just look at the history of how the Cojuangco’s acquired the land through a government loan on condition that the land will eventually be distributed to the farmers. Look at how the Luisita landowners evaded land reform by foisting on the farmers the deceptive “stock distribution option” instead of actual land distribution. Just look at how the farm workers toiled on the land under the SDO while the owners reaped the gains and the farmers took home P9.50/day.

“Sana ma-meet yung two objectives. Hindi dapat yung may pinapaboran na isang sektor at isasakripisyo ang isa.  Kailangan sabay-sabay ang lahat ng sector”, he added.

Well ain’t that sheer demagoguery?

To say that the interests of landlords are being sacrificed is like saying Gloria Arroyo is kawawa for being unjustly persecuted. For decades, there was only the interest of the landlord that was advanced. You can see that quite clearly in the economic state of the farm workers versus the affluent living of the majority stockholders of HLI. Now that farmers have a chance to get a small measure of social justice, the president is concerned that landlord interests are not getting the proper consideration that they deserve, that these interests would be sacrificed.

The farmers have earned the right to own the land, for free. The land has been paid for through decades of uncompensated hard work. In the first place, the acquisition of the land by the Cojuangco’s has been assailed as being anomalous.

The second thing he said that struck me was “I don’t think I am competent to comment, I haven’t read the decision… and there are other pressing matters before my table.”

The biggest agrarian dispute in years has been “resolved” by the SC and the president says he has “other pressing matters” before him. This statement should be taken as a sign by all that land reform is not a pressing concern for this administration. Never was, never will be. I pity the DAR and Sol-Gen who  also appealed the decision of the SC along with the farmers. Seems they’re not getting much support from their Chief Executive. The least Aquino could have done was to publicly congratulate his own people, but then that would mean turning his back on his class.

Today we heard Benigno Aquino III speak not as president representing the people, but as a member of the landlord class. We are hardly surprised.

Just compensation? Try telling that to 80-year old Virginia Paligutan who’s son died a red fighter in 2005, six years before the SC ruling. Or to the families of the massacre victims and martyrs of Luisita.

Photo from Bulatllat

While the nation welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court ordering the actual land distribution of Hacienda Luisita, the SC decision presents several problems and challenges for farmers and advocates of land reform. The decision highlights the limitations and problems with government’s land reform program CARPER.

1. The SC decision ordered the compensation of the owners of Hacienda Luisita. By “owners”, we mean the Cojuangco-Aquino family. They will be compensated for the 4, 335 hectares that will be distributed to the farmers. If each hectare is valued at 1,000,000, the Cojuangco’s will receive P4.3 billion. The government will advance a certain amount, and the farmers will have to pay the entire amount through an amortization scheme. No less than President Benigno Aquino III stressed the importance of “just compensation” for the landowners. He also invoked CARPER as the basis for this “just compensation”. What is unjust in this scheme is that the vast estate was unjustly acquired by the Cojuangco’s through a government loan from the GSIS and Central Bank. Public funds were used to acquire the estate with the condition that land would eventually be distributed to the farmers. Furthermore, the farm workers have paid for the value of the land through their sweat and blood, working on the estate for several decades without receiving any of the supposed fruits of their labor. Over the years, the Cojuangco’s got richer and the farm workers were mired deeper in destitution. There is therefore nothing just in paying the Cojuangco’s P4.335 billion which will come from public funds and the pockets of the long-exploited farm workers. The farmers demand that the land be distributed for free.
2. The SC decision did not rule that the Stock Distribution Option scheme was unconstitutional. Only Chief Justice Renato Corona supported the junking of the SDO. It would have been a landmark victory for thousands of other farmers nationwide if the SDO itself, this loophole in the agrarian reform program of the first Aquino regime, was altogether junked. The SDO has been abused by big landlords who wanted to evade land reform and actual land distribution. Instead of actual land distribution, farmers are swindled through shares of stock.
3. The SC decision exempted the 500 hectare land purchased by RCBC. This is controversial because RCBC knew that the land in question was the subject of an agrarian dispute, yet it entered into a transaction with the Luisita management to acquire the land. They claimed that they were “innocent purchasers” but facts will reveal that RCBC , Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (a subsidiary of HLI) and Centennary Holdings had interlocking directors or officials. There is also the land conversion order which reclassified this supposedly agricultural land. The HLI management of course earned a hefty sum from this sale.
4. The SC decision exempted more than 1,000 hectares of land from the coverage of land reform.  Farmers and their lawyers have challenged the basis of this exemption and have pushed that land reform cover at least 6,443 hectares.
5. The P1.3 billion payment by management to the farmers from the earnings of land sale (RCBC, SCTEX) will still be subjected to a lot of accounting wizardry. This amount can still go down if HLI shows that it spent the money for legitimate corporate expenses and taxes.

This is not a victory for CARPER. Quite the opposite, what happens in the next few months will show that CARPER will make genuine land reform even more difficult, nay impossible.

It is now the collective struggle of the farmers which will ensure that their legal victory (land distribution) will truly be beneficial for all farmer beneficiaries.

I would like to discuss however this protest form called “heckling”. The term of course carries a bit of a derogatory meaning since it assumes that the only intention of the “heckler” is to disrupt a speech. I do believe Marjohara Tucay’s intent was not simply to disrupt Clinton’s speech or disrespect the forum organizers (though that may have certainly been the effect). The protester had a message he wanted to convey and the occasion proved to be the best time to air it. And the message was a valid one. It was about US and Philippine relations, the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement.

When I was a freshman in UP, and a new member of LFS, I was able to observe and join this type of protest action many times. The first time I saw it was when then National Security Adviser Jose Almonte spoke at the UP Faculty Center about the National ID System. We unfurled banners and denounced the draconian measures being proposed by Ramos at the time. We even had a mock ID with Almonte’s face with a Hitler-mustache.

There would be several more incidents. One time an LFS member confronted Sen. Edgardo Angara who spoke before a huge rally against the 50% tuition increase in 1992. Angara said he was listening to the voice of the UP community. The LFS activist stood up and took the microphone and said that it was during Angara’s time that the tuition rates started rising. (Of course it is debatable if such an action was correct from a ‘united front’ point of view, but that’s how it happened.)

Years later, it would happen again, this time in the halls of Congress. Several activists had gathered inside the session hall. We had wanted to air our demands for greater subsidy for education, so we stood up in the gallery and shouted “Education budget dagdagan!” and we were quickly dragged out of the venue. I remember having my shirt ripped and seeing some of my colleagues’ hair being pulled by the security personnel.

Our violent “dispersal” and the problem of low education budget made the news. An inquiry was sought by the House. I forget which committee it was but we were all asked to appear before the hearing which sought to probe the manhandling we experienced at the hands of the House Security .

The congressman presiding the hearing berated me and asked if that was how things were done in UP. He asked if that was how we acted inside the classroom, if it was normal for us to shout at and disrespect our teachers and so on.

That congressman would later on become a senator and then president of the Philippines.

That was my first encounter with Benigno Aquino III.

So much for probing the violence done to students protesters. All that seemed secondary to “good manners and right conduct” while inside the august chamber.

Still, that wouldn’t be the last time something like that happened. During a hearing on the budget for tertiary education at the Lower House, we again unfurled banners and shouted slogans. We again were dragged from the room and thrown out of the building. I remember seeing some colleagues dragged across the floor and the metal detector at the South Wing falling over.

There would be other notable instances of “heckling” such as the one done by a Cavite State University student council chair Maria Theresa Pangilinan who led students in unfurling a banner against Gloria Macapagal Arroyo during their commencement exercises. There was RC Constantino who attended a press conference by proponents of Arroyo’s charter change and who stood up and criticized former House Speaker Jose de Venecia while the presscon was ongoing. The incident here was when a columnist of the Inquirer stood up and threw water on RC. Then there were the UP students who threw eggs at Gen. Hermogenes Esperon during his visit to UP.

Recently, there was Ces Santos, the student council chair of UP Manila who “heckled” Aquino during his 100 days “Ulat sa Bayan”. Santos condemned the budget cuts in education.

So the practice is not really new. It is a valid form of protest especially since the voices of the marginalized and oppressed are often not given space in mainstream media. Protesters tend to do everything to get their message across especially on most urgent issues or during occasions when issues that need to be discussed are being downplayed by our institutions including the media.

It’s not simply “kulang sa pansin” because that’s just trying to seek attention for no reason at all.

Everyday the ruling system bombards us with lies and half-truths through various apparatus, including the media. It is therefore understandable for protesters to up the ante so to speak.

“May tamang lugar naman para sa protesta. Kailangan bang bastusin yung bisita?”

Ah, but for the protester, that IS the right time and place. That is the perfect opportunity for the message to be aired and heard. That is the perfect time to confront the powers that be.

Call it asymmetrical warfare. The ruling elite have their corporate media and the entire ideological state apparatus while the dissenter only has his voice and a sheet of paper and a few seconds of precious time before being clobbered.

I don’t expect some of my friends to agree with these views, and I respect their opinions. I’m sure many of them mean well, while others are just not used to these types of confrontations.

What I don’t respect however is how the powers that be lecture us on good manners and right conduct when their entire class existence is based on violence and oppression against the majority. When they inflict indignity and humiliation against the poor on a daily basis. When their vast landholdings are just plain obscene.  And when they bomb sovereign nations back to the Stone Age without the slightest hint of remorse.

Para sa akin, yun ang bastos.

The October 26 visit to the Philippines of US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Kurt Campbell should be viewed as significant, coming as it is 6 years after the Subic rape incident involving four US Marines and a Filipina. Of course the US would now argue that no rape ever took place and proof of this was the acquittal of the principal accused, Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, by an appeals court which reversed an earlier conviction by a lower court. The acquittal of course was surrounded by questionable circumstances.

But beyond the verdict of the courts, what the Subic rape incident did was expose the lopsidedness of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement. The VFA, which was ratified by the Philippine Senate in 1999 (but not by the US Senate), sets the legal framework for the treatment of visiting US troops.

On November 1, 2005, a Filipina was raped inside a van and then left half-naked on the sidewalk in the former Subic US military base. Four visiting American soldiers were arrested. Their defense: only one of them engaged in consensual sex with the victim. The victim meanwhile said she was intoxicated and tried to resist the sexual advances of Smith. The other US soldiers cheered as the rape took place.

The Subic rape case triggered a controversial custody issue involving Smith, the US embassy and the Philippine government.  While a Philippine court took jurisdiction over the rape case, Smith and his co-accused Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier, Lance Corporal Keith Silkwood, and Lance Corporal Dominic Duplantis  were placed under the custody of the US embassy in Manila because this was what the VFA supposedly mandated.

When a guilty verdict was issued by a Regional Trial Court, Smith was handed a life sentence and ordered detained at the Makati City Jail. His three other co-accused were acquitted and were immediately spirited out of the country back to Okinawa.

Wikileaks cables showed that the US embassy protested Smith’s detention in a Philippine jail and put considerable pressure on the Philippine government to get Smith back in US custody pending the appeal of his case.

In a cable dated December 4, 2006 (06MANILA4880), Kenney said that she and the Deputy Chief of Mission “protested vigorously to senior GRP officials over Smith’s detention in Philippine custody.”

“In recent days and weeks, Ambassador and senior Embassy officials had underscored to senior Philippine government officials that, in the event of any convictions, the U.S. would retain custody, as provided by the VFA, until the end of all judicial proceedings, including appeals.  We have urged that Smith’s defense attorney, as well as the Philippine Department of Justice, immediately file a new motion for reconsideration of the custody issue (as well as on the verdict itself),” Kenney reported.

The US protests seemed effective since Kenney reported that “Philippine Cabinet officials are conferring with President Arroyo to seek a way out of the impasse over custody triggered by Judge Pozon’s order.  The Secretary of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs have released statements supporting the view that Smith should be in U.S. custody during his appeal, according to VFA”.

The US embassy and the Philippine’s DFA reached an agreement to transfer Smith back to the US embassy just a few days after his detention at the Philippine jail. The transfer sparked protests from cause-oriented groups and lawmakers. This served as a cause of action for various groups to go the Philippine Supreme Court and ask for the nullification of the VFA.

The Supreme Court, voting 9-4, upheld the constitutionality of the VFA but would go on to say that the transfer of Smith was not in accord with the VFA. The court ordered the transfer of Smith to a Philippine facility after negotiations between the US and Philippine governments. The court did not specify the timeframe of the transfer. This gave the Philippine government and Smith’s lawyers time to appeal the SC decision.

It was during this period that Smith’s appeal on his rape case with the Philippine Court of Appeals was decided. Smith was acquitted, thus making the issue of his custody moot and academic. Smith was immediately flown out of the Philippines by the US government. The acquittal was met with protests and criticism from various sectors.

VFA custody provisions remain unresolved

The Wikileaks cables clearly show that there were problems in the custody provisions of the VFA. In one embassy cable dated April 27, 2009 (09MANILA903), after the acquittal of Smith, US ambassador Kristie Kenney admitted that custody provisions of the VFA were ambiguous and that clarifications had to be made.

“Given ambiguity in the VFA about both where custody lies following initial conviction of  U.S. servicemen and detention facilities where they should be held, we believe it is important that we begin discussions on how we clarify these undesignated requirements and whether there is a more workable, less debilitating, custody process,” Kenney said

And for all its insistence of keeping custody of Smith, the US embassy admitted that it was not capable of serving as a detention facility.

“The last three-and-a-half years have clearly demonstrated that U.S. Chancery grounds are not appropriate detention facilities to hold such servicemen in custody, not least because Mission personnel have neither the resources nor expertise to serve as jailors.  We believe that the unusual situation of having a diplomatic facility as a place for detention should be clarified in future discussions with the Philippine government,” Kenney said in the confidential cable.

In the same cable, then Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo told Kenney “that he was pleased with the outcome of the case, attributing the success on the excellent collaboration the Philippine government had enjoyed with the Embassy”.

Romulo said that “with several thousand U.S. servicemen currently in the Philippines for the Balikatan bilateral (military) exercises, it was imperative that both sides completely followed the letter of the VFA”.

In another cable dated September 18, 2009 (09MANILA2000), Kenney again admitted problems with the VFA but cautioned against renegotiation.

“Post would welcome a review by US Government lawyers to determine the best approach we can take to clarify the custody provisions.  Following such a review, Mission would aim to establish this clarification through quiet discussions that would allow us to reach a common understanding with the Philippine government without the need to formally renegotiate the entire VFA,” Kenney said.

During the 2010 presidential campaign, President Benigno Aquino III promised to review the provisions of the VFA in relation to the custody of erring US troops because of the problems encountered in the Subic rape case. A review panel involving the Office of the Executive Secretary, Department of Justice and the DFA was formed but no results have been released. ###

Other links:

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/153081/Subic-Rape-Case-Timeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subic_rape_case

http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/subicrapecase/

Youth and student activists of the 1990’s fondly remember the radio and TV interviews of Ka Roger. Whether it was discussing the policies of the revolutionary movement, explaining NPA tactical offensives, releasing prisoners of war, or discussing the Second Great Rectification Movement, Ka Roger’s distinct voice and simple language brought the news of the revolution to the entire nation.

Somehow Ka Roger appealed to youth activists in the 90’s. Maybe it was the critical and creative surge coming from the rectification movement which swept entire mass movement. Or perhaps it was Ka Roger’s simple yet profound ways of explaining issues to ordinary people, a skill that is sometimes lost on many intellectuals. Or the fact that Ka Roger himself was once a student activist from the Golden Gate College in Batangas, and a member of the Kabataang Makabayan (KM).

The man who would become the voice of the Philippine revolution came from humble beginnings, from a middle peasant family according to the statement of the CPP Central Committee. It was from this life of poverty that he would come to know of the national democratic alternative and struggle.

“At a young age, Ka Roger was witness to poverty under an oppressive and exploitative system. He worked hard even as a child in order to help his family. From grade school to his second year in high school, he was for eight years a servant at their landlord’s household. He became an avid radio listener and read comic books as a pastime. Poverty forced him to stop his schooling for several years. To continue his formal education, he peddled mosquito nets and other goods that he bought on credit from loan sharks. He traveled far and wide to different provinces. Wherever he went, it was the same face of poverty and oppression that he saw”. – Statement CPP Central Committee, October 9, 2011

He would join the ranks of the revolutionary forces of the CPP-NPA-NDF in the area known as Southern Tagalog. He would gain national prominence as spokesman of the Melito Glor Command. After two decades, he would become CPP spokesperson in 1993.

Ka Roger inspired a generation of Filipino youth activists to serve the people in the countryside. Some of them are known today as martyrs of the revolution. Many continue their revolutionary work in various capacities. Activists in the 90’s were awed by pictures of Ka Roger in a mountain camp working on his laptop computer and reading the latest newspaper, before giving interviews to the media.

Ka Roger, his wide smile, and his laptop in an NPA camp

Activists were thrilled to hear news of huge gatherings to commemorate the anniversary of the CPP. His December 26 statements on radio were mini “national situationers” that also gave updates on the status of the revolutionary forces. Activists followed Ka Roger’s radio interviews, especially his lively interactions with DZRH anchors Joe Taruc and Deo Macalma. Ka Roger’s on-air duet of “Lumang Simbahan” with Tiya Dely is now the stuff of broadcast legend.

Many educated youth responded to Ka Roger’s call to the masses to send their best and brightest sons and daughters to join the revolutionary struggle. He helped them understand the need for thoroughgoing social transformation. He challenged them to study Philippine society beyond the confines of the classrooms.

Next to CPP founding chair and NDFP Chief Political Consultant Jose Ma. Sison, Ka Roger was perhaps the most recognized face, the most photographed figure, of the Philippine revolution.

That Ka Roger died not in enemy hands but because of an illness, in a way, shames the reactionary armed forces. It is no secret that they have tried but failed to arrest Ka Roger on many occasions as the recent CPP statements show. Till the end, Ka Roger eluded capture by the AFP.

During the past years, the AFP alternately spread rumors of Ka Roger’s demise while offering him medical assistance. As the cliche goes, rumors of his death were greatly exaggerated by the AFP.  Ka Roger’s 2011 New Year’s Day message was another rebuttal of those rumors

The CPP said that if ever Ka Roger died, it would not be kept a secret. He would be given the highest honors for his work in the revolutionary movement. A look at the CPP website will show just that. A grayscale image of Ka Roger, his name and the years 1947-2011, are now splashed on the homepage. In perhaps the first of its kind, all units of the New People’s Army nationwide will be in formation to give Ka Roger a gun salute on 12 noon of October 15.

The national democratic movement and the masses have lost one of their best and brightest sons with the passing of Gregorio Rosal. It is however to Ka Roger’s credit that he inspired a generation of Filipino youth who will carry on the unfinished tasks of the Philippine revolution. ###

Photo from Marco Valbuena

The mining firm was shut down after the NPA raid. Photo from PDI/ANN

The Aquino government was well aware of the destructive effects of mining in Claver, Surigao de Norte even before the attack by the New People’s Army took place last October 3. No less than the Presidential Adviser on Environmental Protection and the head of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau were informed of the practices of Taganito Mining Corporation according to a recent TV documentary.

In the TV documentary “Philippines for Sale” aired last night on Reporter’s Notebook in GMA7, Presidential Adviser on Environmental Protection Neric Acosta was shown actual footage of destructive large-scale mining operations in Claver, Surigao del Norte. Neric was visibly shocked and even exclaimed ‘My God, anu yan?’.

The documentary was shot weeks ago but was aired just last October 4, a day after NPA raided three mining companies in Surigao del Norte. The unnamed mining firm shown in the documentary was actually TMG, the same company that was shut down by the NPA raid last October 3.

In the interview on GMA7, Acosta was quoted as saying that the mining firm shown in the footage was clearly violating environmental laws and that it needed to be stopped or cleaned up. “If it violates environmental laws, like Clean Water Act….masusunod ang environmental laws, wala na dapat yan. Itigil mo yan, o palinisin mo yan.”

Meanwhile, MGB director Leo Jasareno said they have already dispatched a team to investigate complaints by local residents on the environmental destruction caused by the mining firm.

The question we should also be asking is, why was the government not doing anything to address the concerns raised by the affected sectors in Surigao? What became of the MGB probe? What did Acosta do after he saw the damning footage of large-scale environmental destruction? Perhaps there would not have been NPA attacks had the government done its work to protect the environment and regulate the entry of foreign mining firms in the country.

From the footage we saw, the environmental destruction was real. The local residents and indigenous peoples were severely affected. One mother was clearly in despair after the coastline that they depended on for livelihood was completely destroyed by the laterite coming from the mines. “Dati ito puti ang buhangin, ngayon puro putik na,” one mother said. She could not help but cry over what happened to their community.

What was clear from the documentary was that there was no concrete response yet from the government.  What was also clear from the documentary is that these things are taking place with impunity under the Mining Act of 1995.

The issue is beyond the NPA raid. The problem is government’s inaction on complaints by residents on the ill-effects of large-scale foreign mining.

Acosta and the MGB should explain what concrete actions have been undertaken in response to the people’s concerns and to the questions raised by the TV documentary. They should release the report of the investigating team that the MGB dispatched to Claver, Surigao del Norte.

The AFP meanwhile, keeps on downplaying the incident as a mere extortion case. This is intended to cover up for their own incompetence, diminish the economic, political and environmental issues related to mining in Claver, Surigao del Norte and to obscure the connivance between the AFP and the large-mining firms. The mining company concerned was already quoted in the media that the NPA had not demanded money.

Mining issues are part of the agenda in the peace talks between the NDFP and the Philippine government, especially in the topic of social and economic reforms. Rather than discontinuing the talks because of the NPA attacks, the PH government shoud pursue talks and take up issues such as large-scale foreign mining, envinronmental destruction and correct utilization of mineral resources. ###

The public relations event smacks of US nuclear hypocrisy when one considers the historical relations we’ve had with the US and its nuclear weapons.

Based on a declassified document from the independent non-governmental organization National Security Archive based in the George Washington University, the US government had previously stored nuclear weapons in the Philippines, during the time of the Marcos dictatorship. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB197/nd-17c.pdf

According to the “Top Secret” document issued in 1969 from the US State Department, Marcos was informed of the storage of nuclear weapons in the Philippines (presumably in the former US bases) as early as 1966.

The memo said that “divulgence of the fact that nuclear weapons are stored in the Philippines, and have been there for many years without prior consultation with the Philippine government, would greatly jeopardize US-Philippine relations, particularly on the eve of presidential elections scheduled on October 11”.

The memorandum was issued in response to a Senate inquiry led by Sen. Stuart Symington into CIA operations in Laos and the storage of nuclear weapons anywhere. The memo sought to provide instructions on how to deal with questions of nuclear weapons storage and what to do if sensitive information on nuclear weapons in the Philippines would be divulged to the media.

The State Department was concerned that giving a “no comment” reply to the Senate probe would only confirm the existence of nukes in the Philippines.

The memo proposed that there was a possibility that sensitive, and potentially embarrassing information, would be leaked to the media, the State Department and Secretary of Defense will– off the record — admit to the existence of nukes in the Philippines, but will request Senate committee members not to divulge the information.

According to the memo, Marcos knew of the weapons and the US Senate sub-committee presumably knew as well.

The National Security Archive, which hosts a wide range of declassified US documents, “is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” according to its website.

US nuclear hypocrisy is when it acts as if it is concerned with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while on the other hand, retaining the world’s biggest stockpile of nuclear arms. It acts as if it is concerned with nuclear weapons entering the Philippines despite having secretly stored nuclear weapons in our country without informing our government.

This chapter of our history should be revisited and the US should be called to task for its deception. This is another proof on why we should never allow the return of US bases in the country.

In the inauguration, US Ambassador Harry Thomas said that “the US and the Philippines have a long history of cooperation and shared many bonds and common values. These shared values are shown here today with our mutual commitment to improve security and safety in the maritime shipping industry,”

The so-called shared bonds and values are tainted with US deception. The US also has a long history of connivance with the puppet and dictator Marcos in concealing the presence of nuclear weapons in the Philippines.

Problems with VFA

Under the Visiting Forces Agreement, Philippine authorities have no way of determining if warships entering the country are carrying nuclear weapons. Philippine authorities are prohibited from inspecting US ships.

The US government’s hi-tech nuclear detection device, unfortunately, does not apply to US warships that freely enter the Philippines under the past and present administrations. We will never know if these ships are bringing in nuclear weapons, nuclear waste or other weapons of mass destruction. ###

Confidential and secret cables released by Wikileaks from the US embassies in Manila and The Hague in the Netherlands show how three governments worked together to designate as “terrorist” Jose Maria Sison, chief political consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in peace talks with the Manila government. The move may have been part of Philippine government’s pressure tactics on the NDFP during peace negotiations. However, the move would not yield the Philippine government’s desired results.

Sison, the Communist Party of the Philippines and New People’s Army were included in the US terror list in August 2002, right after the Manila visit of then Secretary of State Colin Powell. He was soon after also included on the EU “terrorist list” of organizations and individuals upon the requests of the US and PH governments. His bank account was subsequently frozen, denying him social benefits accorded to refugees living in the Netherlands.

Terrorist-listing as leverage

The US, Dutch and Philippine governments engaged in acts that were inimical to the peace talks between the NDFP and the Philippine government.   The Philippine government used the terrorist listing as leverage against the NDFP. There was intense pressure was brought to bear on Sison: from the  deprivation of social benefits, threats to his life, and even arrest and detention. The matter of the terrorist listing became a prejudicial question in the peace talks.

In a 2005 meeting with US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo said that the NPA’s “delisting as a foreign terrorist organization depended on a demonstration or proof of sincerity… such as entering into a cease-fire or new peace talks.”

The same leveraging tactic was echoed by Presidential Peace Adviser Annabelle Abaya in a discussion with US Ambassador Kristie Kenney in November 2009. Abaya noted that Sison’s delisting by the EU “would eliminate some of the GRP’s leverage over him” and that “the GRP preferred Sison to remain designated as a terrorist” but admitted that “talks had not succeeded during his time in the EU list”.

US intervention, through the terrorist listing, had a very negative impact on the peace talks.  It was a move that was aimed at forcing the NDFP to surrender to the Philippine government, even without addressing the roots of the armed conflict. This negates the inherent character of the talks which were primarily aimed at finding solutions to the root causes of the armed struggle. Arroyo appeared more interested in getting the NDFP to surrender than in addressing the substantial issues in the peace negotiations. These issue include human rights, socio-economic reforms, political and constitutional reforms, and the disposition of forces.

After a long legal battle, Sison was eventually removed from the EU “terrorist list” in November 2009 based on a ruling by the European Court of First Instance. It appeared that the Dutch “terrorist listing” was done only in relation to asylum proceedings and was not based on actual crimes or terrorist activities.

Prior to the delisting, the US and Dutch governments did everything they could to keep Sison on the list, according to the secret cables.

Sison was arrested and detained by the Dutch government in 2007 on suspicion of ordering the killings of two people in the Philippines. Sison was eventually released and the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence. As revealed in previous news, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo told the US ambassador in Manila that Philippine and Dutch governments reportedly collaborated for years to build a case against Sison, but even this could not stand judicial scrutiny.

US opposed de-listing despite lack of evidence

In a confidential 2009 cable from the US embassy in Manila, US ambassador Kristie Kenney vehemently opposed the delisting of Sison by the EU, even if no new information or evidence was available to support his retention in the list.

“The absence of new information does not negate the very significant information we have had for some time regarding Sison.  If Sison and the NPA were to reject their past actions and pledge not to engage in such activity again, there might be some grounds for revisiting their designations, but on the contrary they refuse to agree to a ceasefire and continue to carry out kidnappings and killings.  Under the circumstances, removal of Sison’s terrorist designation is inadvisable,” Kenney said.

In a secret cable from the Netherlands in May 2009, the US embassy in The Hague sought advice from the US State Department on how keep Sison on the terror list amid the looming decision of the EU Court of First Instance nullifying his inclusion in the list. The cable said that the Dutch government was seeking US assistance because Sison was included in the terror list upon the request of the US government.

The US embassy in The Hague cited the inability of the Dutch police, intelligence services and the US embassy in Manila to provide any new information that would justify keeping Sison in the list.

The absence of new evidence or information came despite the massive seizure of NDF documents and equipment during the raids on the NDF office and houses of NDF personnel in the Netherlands by the Dutch authorities in August 2007. The Dutch police seized everything they could get their hands on–computers, disks, papers related to the peace process, personal belongings– and still they could not produce a shred of evidence to support the terrorist listing. Sison was also arrested and detained in this raid.

In another cable from The Hague dated October 2009, the US embassy again sought new information that could justify the retention of Sison in the terrorist list. The cable described a bilateral meeting between US and Dutch officials in Brussels where they discussed how to appeal an adverse EU ruling. The Dutch and US officials feared that the UK and German governments opposed the Dutch position and that majority of countries in the EU would not likely support a Dutch appeal.

The US embassy in The Hague also said that information provided by the Philippine government linking Sison to money-laundering activities was “insufficient to support prosecution in the Netherlands”.

In a separate cable issued from the US embassy in Manila, US authorities hinted at the possibility of rendition or deportation of Sison from the Netherlands to the Philippines, but cited as a stumbling block Sison’s status as a judicially recognized political refugee under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. ###