Yellow Revolution 2

Why we should not take surveys seriously
POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr.
(The Philippine Star)
Updated April 29, 2010 12:00 AM

SURE WINNER?: Concern was expressed by a number of readers reacting to our Postscript of April 25 calling attention to propaganda that the only way Candidate X (Noynoy Aquino) who thinks he is a sure winner, to lose is for him to be cheated.

This explains why Candidate X (Noynoy Aquino) has been priming the public for taking to the streets —in a clumsy rerun of EDSA 1986 — to grab back the victory that he claims will be snatched from him.

He was leaning heavily on the reports of survey firms claiming to have interviewed some 2,000 individuals on their presidential preferences.

I was pleasantly surprised to find with the email in my inbox a note from Celia Laurel, the widow of the late Vice President Doy Laurel. She must have been so aggravated by the propaganda that she took time to write.

* * *

SABI NI CELIA: “I was reminded of the 1949 presidential elections, when it was widely perceived that Jose P. Laurel was cheated. Furious Batangueños led by leaders like Col. Poling Valeriano and Francisco Medrano wanted to start a revolt in protest.

“But Dr. Laurel calmed them down saying ‘The presidency is not worth a revolution. — I don’t want to go down in history as the man who plunged the country into a bloody revolution that turned it into a banana republic.’

“At a more recent occasion — the EDSA Revolution to be precise — it is said that when Gen. Fabian Ver begged President Marcos to allow him to fire at the mammoth crowd that had congregated on EDSA, Marcos vehemently objected to the plan and forbade Ver to take any drastic action that would hurt the people even if they were rallying against him and could unseat him.

“Both leaders showed nobility of character and a true and selfless love of country.

“Today things are quite the opposite. As you said: ‘The line being developed is that Candidate X is a sure winner by all indications, including surveys. The only way he can lose is if he is cheated. When cheated, people should take to the streets to claim the victory snatched from him.’

“We are warned that ‘People Power’ would take place.

“As you wrote, ‘this is dangerous and irresponsible.’ Indeed it is! It is obvious they don’t care what happens to our people as long as they have their way.

“EDSA I was a brief shining moment in our history. It was hailed and marveled at throughout the world because it was an uncanny spiritual experience — a revolution — achieved through peace, goodwill and prayers. It was a moment that should always live in our hearts.

“But is ‘People Power 2010’ intended to be peaceful as well? Or is it a dismal foreboding that we shall witness a grim reenactment of the carnage that took place in the Mendiola and Dona Luisita massacres IF we don’t make Candidate X (Noynoy Aquino) win?”

The Present as History: A Narration and Interpretation of Events

THE PRESENT AS HISTORY:
A NARRATION AND INTERPRETATION OF EVENTS
By Gonzalo M. Jurado, Ph.D.

The Landscape

Remember the “Hello Garci” Tapes and the hysteria they created that threatened to rend the national society apart? That was June 2005.

The events unleashed in those days by the playing of the tapes which indicated a woman, said to be President Arroyo, and a man, said to be Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, talking about numerical details of the presidential election sparked the resignation of the so-called Hyatt 10 and their demand for the President’s own resignation. These officials, some of them of Cabinet rank, were joined by a wide band of political and business groups and individuals including a Liberal Party Faction, the United Opposition, the Makati Business Club, and former Presidents Corazon Aquino and Joseph Estrada, Senate President Franklin Drilon, Senators Aquilino Pimentel and Panfilo Lacson, all demanding not just the President’s immediate resignation but her impeachment as well.

A few weeks earlier, Sen. Jingoy Estrada had announced on the floor of the Senate, with absolute certainty, that Mrs Arroyo’s days in the presidency “were numbered.”

The bulk of the media, broadsheet and television, raised the clamor for the President’s resignation or impeachment to hysterical pitch.

Only the intervention of former President Fidel V. Ramos, Speaker Jose de Venecia, and members of Leagues of Local Government Units, who individually and collectively affirmed their support for the President, saved the day for GMA.

As events unfolded, somebody had wiretapped the President in violation of the law against wiretapping. It was said that a member of the Armed Forces, T Sgt Vidal Doble, did it. After investigating the matter, Armed Forces Headquarters concluded that the armed services did not have the technical capability to do that kind of job.

Further, the adverse information about the workings of the Philippine Government that served as cannon fodder for the political opposition had been delivered to them directly by a Philippine-born US marine working in the White House by the name of Leandro Aragoncillo and, in some cases, indirectly through a former assistant of Senator Lacson, Michael Ray Aquino, who had fled to the United States to escape indictment in connection with the Dacer-Corbito murder case. The material had been prepared by the US Embassy in Manila.

In the days that followed, Garcillano, who had gone into hiding, surfaced and appeared before a House of Representatives investigating committee, admitting that he indeed had talked to politicians – to the President once and to others including members of the opposition many times. In response, Congressman Francis Escudero admitted that he had talked to Garcillano during the election period not for himself but on behalf of a constituent. In addition, Congressmen Escudero and Rolex Suplico acknowledged that one day during this period of political turmoil they had visited the US Embassy.

Questions

Even before the tumult had died down and continuing to this day, many observers of the national scene have been asking such questions as:

(1) Could the political and economic forces that got together on that day of June 2005 to unanimously demand the resignation or impeachment of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo have come together by accident or where they organized and coordinated by an Unseen Hand? The diversity of the anti-GMA forces on the one hand and the uniformity of their demand and timing of their actions on the other seem to rule out spontaneous combustion.

(2) How could Leandro Aragoncillo, a US marine whose financial future was assured, or any sensible human being for that matter, have been so short-sighted and so reckless as to jeopardize his lifetime security by violating his government’s State Secrecy Act through delivery of information to anti-government politicians in a foreign land, who were not even in power?

(3) How explain the breadth and depth of the vilification campaign against the President, mobilizing not just the opposition politicians and the anti-Gloria newspapers and television stations but also a business club, an opinion survey entity, leftists groups, and even a few academics acknowledged for their principled championship of nationalist anti-imperialist causes?

Answers

To find an answer to these questions, one has to go back to Angelo dela Cruz (remember him?), the OFW captured by Iraqi militants and threatened to be beheaded if the Philippine contingent in Iraq was not withdrawn. The Philippines had earlier joined George W. Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing” and sent a small contingent to Iraq. Facing an issue of political commitment versus human life, GMA opted for the latter, withdrawing the Philippine contingent to save the life of Angelo dela Cruz. That was July 2004.

This is where the dog is buried. George W. Bush was “dismayed” by the withdrawal. Thereupon, the Bush Administration through its Central Intelligence Agency launched what can be called the Aragoncillo Project, a program of destabilization and vilification aimed at the overthrow of the Arroyo government, mobilizing as its tools everybody in the Philippines that had an axe to grind against GMA.

Was the gathering of the motley group of politicians and businessmen, rightists and leftists, on that day in June 2005 accidental? Who could have done so efficient an orchestration? Was Aragoncillo reckless? Now we know.

It was at about this time that the US government appointed Ambassador to the Philippines – hold your breath -- a former CIA agent. Not long after her arrival, the Ambassador called on President Arroyo and Senate President Drilon on separate occasions. Press statements from the US Embassy released after each visit indicated, when compared, that the Ambassador spent time with the President that was less than one-half that spent with the Senate President. This is standard CIA way of degrading anyone that does not meet its approval.

Thenceforward, with diplomatic niceties out of the way, the Ambassador wasted no time in travelling on sorties to far-flung communities of her country of assignment, distributing goods to poverty-stricken groups, delivering little speeches to rural crowds. These were no innocent acts of charity as the media made them out to be. These were authentic CIA tactics of political interference – in this instance designed to alienate the Philippine government under President Arroyo from its constituencies.

George W. Bush himself made a personal contribution to the destabilization campaign. On meeting GMA in the halls of the United Nations in New York in September 2005, he made big water of the employment of a Filipina chef in the White House when he could easily have referred to somewhat less trivial state-related matters. If the world did not notice the insult, it was because GMA overshadowed it by her masterful chairmanship of a United Nations General Assembly Meeting at that time.

In July 2007, Aragoncillo was meted by a US federal court a 10-year sentence for stealing and passing on secret US documents. In the Philippines we call this moro-moro. Michael Ray Aquino was sentenced to six years and four months in prison, too harsh a sentence for a forced accomplice.

More recently, the failure of President Barack Obama to receive GMA on several occasions, explained by Washington people as arising from his heavy schedules, was a deliberate snub intended to remind GMA – and the Philippines-- that Uncle Sam remains profoundly displeased over the Philippine government’s failure to stand by the US in Iraq.

And so the destabilization and vilification campaign against GMA rages on, carried out by politicians, businessmen, newspapers and television stations, an opinion survey firm, individuals from left and right, some academics, all of them associating every conceivable wrong-doing with the President. The US ambassador’s political interference continues unabated.

A Comment

It’s been five and a half years since the redemption of Angelo de la Cruz, what conclusion can we derive from the events that transpired over that period of time? Two conclusions. The first is that the destabilization and vilification campaign has succeeded in projecting the President as guilty of all charges of wrong doing, alienating the President from many of her people, as gleefully chronicled by an opinion survey firm day after day. Though a case can be made that GMA is one of our better presidents, some people are convinced she is the worst. In terms of its over-arching objective of toppling the Arroyo government, however, the destabilization and vilification campaign has miserably failed. There are reasons for this.

One, the campaign lacked popular support, Remember the hundreds of thousands of people that the United Opposition promised to bring into Makati to protest GMA’s mandate that never came? Or former President Corazon Aquino’s attempt to rouse another People Power, through a prayer vigil supporting some Fort Bonifacio mutineers, that people simply ignored? Or Sen. Pimentel’s repetitious call for snap elections that fell on deaf ears? Remember how the sidewalk crowds of Makati disdainfully turned their noses up to the Peninsula putschists when these tried to entice the crowds to join them, exposing these putschists’ isolation from the public?

Two, the political opposition, as excellent as it was in its brand of Parliamentary practice, suffered from what can be called litigational infirmity, the lack of ability to back up allegation with evidence or proof. As a consequence, whatever issue it raised, many reasonable people dismissed as plain politicking. The continuous carping, however, did produce a good result for some of the critics: it got them elected to the Senate.

This technical incompetence must be supplemented by the physical cowardice of the military ringleaders who identified themselves with the destabilization effort. Their pathetic surrender at the Peninsula even before a single APC could enter the hotel lobby reduced the whole destabilization program to a comical and ridiculous enterprise.

And three, the media outlets that supported the anti-Gloria crusade did so with such arrogance and self-righteousness they only succeeded in undermining their own cause. As some independent-minded observers wondered, how could these media outlets be so sanctimonious in their judgments when they were merely pushing forward their owners’ interest?

The second conclusion is that some of our leaders in politics and business and many of our opinion makers in media did not mind selling their country down the river, performing the role of stooges of a foreign power, so long as it promoted their personal ambitions. More normally functioning countries have a way of dealing with such behavior as this.

In summary, it must be galling, with Big Brother calling the shots at that, to have thrown at your opponent everything including the kitchen sink and the kitchen itself to destroy her, to have exposed your most meticulously hidden secret for the sake of overthrowing her, only to see her still standing, as strong as ever.

The President continues to preside over the affairs of our country, pushing its development as she sees fit. By all indications, she will remain in office until her term expires, on June 30, 2010.

Dr. Jurado is Vice-President for Finance and Development and concurrently Professor of Economics of Kalayaan College. In this essay he advances of recent events an interpretation that has far-reaching implications to the political sovereignty of our country.

Martial Law in Maguindanao

http://abpquevedo.blogspot.com/
Saturday, December 12, 2009

After Martial Law in Maguindanao, What?

Deeply rooted in Maguindanao is a culture of dominant clan power. A false reading of the situation results in a truncated view of Maguindanao political history. This view sees the phenomenon as the product of one government period, the decade of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Arguably a greater share of the blame could be laid at the door of the present government. But the culture of dominant and changing local power has been with us in the once “empire province of Cotabato,” which included the present Maguindanao, since at least the 1950s. To my knowledge, no government from the 1950s to the present did anything serious to root this out. In the past 60 years, all governments and many politicians from all parties wanting to get votes have cultivated this culture and ignored the periodic violence that erupted. It was a case of mutual political exploitation and expediency. We ourselves, ordinary citizens, have kept quiet in the past 60 years and learned the art of accommodation.

But of course criticism of Martial Law in Maguindanao is really based on total distrust of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Survey after survey is paraded to say that this is the pulse of the people. The stand of small protesting “militant” groups is given disproportionate media exposure. Political oppositionists and personalities from “militant” organizations are interviewed again and again to give their expected negative views on actions of government. In a very real sense the extraordinary amount of media exposure that is given to the opposition in Manila provides a distorted view of the country as a whole...

Martial Law by its nature as a last resort should be of short duration. But precisely because of its brevity, the following will result: one clan will be significantly disarmed; the balance of political and armed power will shift to other clans; private armies will remain though possibly less visible and probably more sophisticated in behavior; the deep trauma resulting from the massacre will persist; rido is not going to be stopped; the legislative, justice, and executive--and electoral--mechanisms will still be in the hands of those related to or have debts of gratitude to various families; and if a member of the rival clan will somehow gain the top post of the province, do we in Maguindanao really believe that the provincial capitol will remain in Shariff Aguak? Even the peace process will be affected by the loyalties of local rebel commanders to their own clans. Hence, the fundamental dysfunctions in Maguindanao will remain after Martial Law.

What do I see as a possible solution? Even now sentiments are strong in Central and southern Mindanao that elections for local offices in Maguindanao should be deferred. Or at least the term of Martial Law should be extended till after the elections. The fundamental suggestion is for us to move forward from partisan political criticism to collective constructive thinking and effective action on this central issue of Maguindanao dysfunction. I respectfully address this to all concerned, particularly the Senate, House of Representatives, the judicial branch and the Arroyo administration, as well as to all of us Maguindanawons.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
December 11, 2009

Private armies and the insurgency

By-product
FIRST PERSON
By Alex Magno
(The Philippine Star)
Updated November 28, 2009 12:00 AM

The standing estimate is that the Ampatuan clan has 800 men (!) under arms. That virtual army is maintained largely at the expense of the state. Government armed and paid allowances to most of these men: a private army operating under the cover of “civilian volunteers” useful for containing the insurgency in the region.

Until this chilling tragedy (in Maguindanao) happened, the authorities found the arrangement concerning “civilian volunteers” a largely functional one. A trade-off was adopted early in the game, many presidencies ago.

Since the AFP did not have enough men and equipment to effectively contain the armed secessionist groups in the area, the “civilian volunteers” functioned as force extenders. In the case of Maguindanao, the “civilian volunteers” were very useful. They kept the MILF trapped in the Maranao areas, with the Maguindanao-speaking areas relatively free of insurgents.

There is a price to pay for that: government tacitly condoned warlords who did their best to contribute to suppressing the insurgency. This has been the unspoken arrangement since the days when these “civilian volunteers” were called BSDUs and then CAFGUs.

The “civilian volunteers” in Maguindanao province provided a crucial buffer, keeping the insurgent groups away from the productive plantations, tuna industries and bustling urban economies to the south. The occasional abuses committed by the warlords, until this week, were a small price to pay for the strategic role of keeping the Maguindanao area and those to the south of the province free of insurgency.

In a way, government had little choice. There was not enough money to enlarge the army so that it achieves an effective ratio of superiority over the secessionist guerrilla forces and the isolated communist gangs. “Civilian volunteers” might be a band-aid solution to a strategic vulnerability, but it was the best that could be done.

This is the complex structure of considerations underpinning Gibo Teodoro’s statement that the only way we can get rid of private armies is to enlarge the army. That is a statement made boldly and frankly — even at the risk of many voters failing to get the point.

Gibo Teodoro should know what the complex considerations are. He served an exemplary two years as defense secretary.

The warlords were not about to squander the leverage they enjoyed. They used the private armies to consolidate their local power bases and occasionally pleased their patrons in Manila by delivering votes in their favor. Still, the existence of these private armies is a by-product of a strategic vulnerability of the state, not just the administration.

Until we have enough money to invest in greater military capability to contain a well-armed insurgent movement, we will have to rely on the cheap repressive labor contributed by “civilian volunteers” organized by local warlords...

But something truly disastrous has happened. The arrangement will now have to be abrogated. What that means is that the civilian volunteer groups need to be disbanded, the offending local tyrants made to face the full weight of the law, and the military, although already thinly spread out, must be redeployed to cover the vacuum...

In the wake of this tragedy, the only guys who have anything to cheer about are the insurgent groups and their allied criminal and terrorist gangs. That is the greatest misfortune of this whole thing.

A lethal combination of media and politics

The Kris and Noynoy show on ABS-CBN
FROM A DISTANCE
By Carmen N. Pedrosa
(The Philippine Star)
Updated November 07, 2009 12:00 AM

For some background. In the 70s I wrote a book The Untold Story of Imelda Marcos. It was a straightforward narration of Imelda’s life before she became the First Lady. Marcos and Imelda tried to suppress the book and I had to decide whether I would go on with the book or give it up in the face of extreme pressure and harassment. It became a question of freedom. I chose to go on with the book and began a journey that would lead me from housewife to politics to exile and back at the end of the Marcos years.

While in exile in London, we joined the opposition’s fight to regain democracy. Democrats partnered with vested interests and formed a community to oppose the Marcos dictatorship. At the center of that movement was Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino whose journey turned him from an ambitious politician to become a martyr when he was assassinated in 1983. It was serious stuff. When his widow, Cory Aquino took up the mantle after his assassination, the expectation was she would lead the movement towards reforms not only in the Filipino body politic but in society as well. Alas she was not up to it. She was, they said, a victim of her own class and despite her good intentions, unable to lead the political reform and moral regeneration among Filipinos inspired by the struggle against a dictatorship. Her powerful supporters were amply rewarded and we returned to the pre-martial law status quo.

* * *

(With this background in mind, it) is easy to dismiss the whole she-bang (of the Kris and Noynoy show on ABS-CBN) as showbiz and regarded as just another movie script. The story begins with Cory’s well-attended funeral and its transformation into a political cause for Noynoy’s candidacy and his election as president. It has its appeal and none more strident than ABS-CBN’s Boto Mo, Ipatrol Mo, Ako ang Simula.

Fine. By all means, guard the votes but who and what are we voting for? Those questions seem to have been left out. If it were for someone who would lead us, truly lead us, then it is a meaningful advocacy. But the sorry truth is the guarding of votes only means we are being made pawns of a determined onslaught by oligarchies who do not want change and yet want us to believe that they are campaigning for change.

According to ABS-CBN “we have one year to change traditional politics in our country and we are empowering them through this multimedia campaign.” Only one year? We have been at it for generations.

It will of course be condemned if media were to proclaim their candidate and that this advocacy is part of the grand scheme to get Noynoy elected as President because he will protect vested interests.

The Lopez owned media boasts of its multiplatform structure — television, radio, cable TV, the Internet, and mobile technology. I can bet you it would never be used if it were in support of a strong state capable of regulating the power of monopolies. But for a long time now, it has been clear that the marriage of powerful media and political partisanship is a lethal combination. It has not helped the country move forward. It isn’t about change but about protecting the status quo.

Yellow Revolution in 2010?

Pieces of a puzzle...
FROM A DISTANCE
By Carmen N. Pedrosa
The Philippine Star)
Updated September 12, 2009 12:00 AM

A civic leader narrated in a recent conference how it was suggested to him by an ABS-CBN anchor to paint the entire country yellow. That is a loud hint of what this chain of events is all about — a color revolution not unlike those launched in countries where the US wants to pursue a policy direction. Color revolutions have been successful in other countries like Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgystan. The pattern of color revolutions is to incite massive street protests after disputed elections. In the Philippines, the “Garci tape” and the resignation of the Hyatt 10 failed to bring the people into the streets. A massing in the streets (for whatever purpose) was finally achieved in Cory’s funeral cortege that is why operatives quickly moved to use the event for a political cause — the anointing of Noynoy as presidential candidate.

Noynoy had the decency to wait for 40 days after his mother’s death before announcing his candidacy, but intense maneuvering for the yellow revolution was already set in motion.

The yellow revolution and the anointing of Noynoy as the presidential candidate of the Liberal Party are endgames of a determined effort to overthrow President Arroyo that began in 2004. So what are color revolutions? Various reports point to the George Soros Foundation that works with elements of the US government to plan and initiate these “spontaneous” events.

It was published in The Guardian that USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and Freedom House have also been directly involved. Both the Washington Post and New York Times also reported on how color revolutions were used for the West’s political agenda. (You can get a listing of donations to the Philippines from the Soros in the Internet. Donations were given to unnamed individuals for “education”.)

Consequently, more countries shy away from color revolutions and avoid any color or flower to describe homegrown grassroots campaigns. In other words, they reject color revolutions because these connote foreign interference and shallow reforms.

The Friedrich Naumann Foundation has partnered with the Liberal Party of the Philippines in pushing a “democratic and liberal” agenda in the Philippines.

The same foundation was accused of being behind anti-China protests over Tibet during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The campaign was planned in its Washington-based headquarters.

The sad truth

Pieces of a puzzle...
FROM A DISTANCE
By Carmen N. Pedrosa
(The Philippine Star)
Updated September 12, 2009 12:00 AM

A lot of friends have said to me they were confused by the rapid chain of events that culminated in the ascendancy of Noynoy Aquino as a leading presidential candidate. How a lackluster senator should suddenly be catapulted to become first in line is being justified because “he is the son of good parents like Ninoy and Cory Aquino”. It may be true that there was a big crowd at Cory’s funeral cortege although it was smaller than the more spontaneous crowds that joined Ninoy’s in 1983. To our dismay we learned that massing crowds has only a short shelf life. Cory’s EDSA revolutions very soon disappointed because these were mere “changing” of the guards. This column would therefore caution confused Filipinos. The crowds may be lauded for paying their respects to a democracy icon but that does not invest them with the right to speak for 80 million Filipinos and their fate in the coming years. We should stand against using Cory’s death to wrest political power even if her son is the vehicle. It would be a step back for our political maturity. The question should be weighed against issues and events outside the Philippines. The well-attended funeral of former President Cory Aquino should be considered in a more modest context.

For years, she had led attempts to call on people to join her in ousting President GMA but there were no takers. The most memorable of these failed attempts was on television for all to see when she wanted to bring in “followers” into the camp to pray.

The military, thankfully, were wiser and asked her to pray outside the camps. The country faced a greater peril if a battle should break out between two camps of soldiers armed to kill each other. Happily, cooler heads prevailed (not from Cory’s peaceful camp) - lives were spared, the republic kept intact and the nation saved from breaking apart.

With that memorable confrontation in mind in which Cory played an unfortunate role I think no one was more surprised than her own family of the sea change that took place because from then on all attempts to bring down the Arroyo government through mobs were resisted by the general public.