|
We are not really surprised by the report that the
Bush administration is lowering its military aid to the Philippines
for the coming budget year. In any reckoning, US$15 million is
definitely small as a yearly aid to a country that helps Washington
in its antiterrorist agenda in Asia.
Are we returning to the period of
benign neglect, the period when the United States Congress reduced
aid to RP after the Philippine Senate junked the bases treaty? Or
have we become less important as a military ally in the eyes of US
military planners?
The amount is nothing compared to
previous Washington aid to the Philippines, specially during the
time when it maintained military bases here, and even after the end
of the Cold War. The amount could not even make a dent in our annual
purchase of military equipments.
The main reason for the reduction
has to do with the bad shape of the American economy. As everybody
knows, the United States is about to go on a recession, a status
that has been confirmed by many US economists. That should also
explain why the budget cuts have been applied to many US allies.
In its last year in office, there
is no compulsion for the Bush administration to push for a more
aggressive public relations among Asian countries. Besides, there
are no flashpoints right now in Asia that threatens Washington and
that would need the participation of the Philippines. The North
Korean problem can be contained while the problem in the Spratleys
is so limited, involving only the symbolic visit of the Taiwanese
President to an island Taipei is claiming.
The United States helps the
Philippines by training our soldiers and giving some equipment for
the anti-terrorism campaign in Mindanao. That kind of assistance,
allocated outside the present Congress aid, will not increase
because the Bush administration is satisfied that the anti-terrorism
campaign is going well.
Is the present budget cut
indicative of the coming US foreign policy thrust in Asia? Does this
indicate that, with the crisis in the American economy, Washington
would limit its presence in this region? These should be asked,
specially since the extent of the US foreign aid program would be a
big issue when the US elections reach a high pitch in the coming
months.
JDV should form own party
Now that Speaker Jose de Venecia
has been ousted, he should consider forming his own political party
that reflects his newfound crusade. He could develop a new party
with the following as plank: a moral revolution, peace process and
anti-corruption. That should be easy for JDV to do because he has
already a core in the congressmen who voted for him in the last
speakership fight. Perhaps, he could count on Congressmen Edcel
Lagman and Antonio Cuenco as stalwarts of the new party.
There is no place for de Venecia
in the ruling coalition now. After that valedictory speech, his
standing in the ruling party has become untenable. He has no choice
but to leave the Lakas party which he helped consolidate after the
death of Raul S. Manglapus.
I have always looked at JDV as a
passionate exponent of the parliamentary and the party system. In
his recent trip to Beijing where he was granted audience by the
Chinese Prime Minister (despite the bad publicity here of China
state firm ZTE), JDV called for subsidy to political parties.
This is a proposal that would
definitely reform our political system, freeing it, as JDV said,
from the stranglehold of the gambling lords and other misguided
entities. This is a practice in parliamentary states and if JDV can
make it happen in the Philippines, he would have a reason to
reemerge as a principled leader in our country.
One of the crusades of JDV is the
peace process which he has championed since the peace talks of 1992
in The Hague, Netherlands. Up to this moment, it is only JDV who has
a line of communication with the National Democratic Front leaders
in Utrecht. Unfortunately, this advocacy of JDV has failed because
of noncooperation from security and military officials.
|
