Phil-Am Relationship as the Most Volatile and Sensitive Issue to Blog About
Posted on Friday, 24 October 2014
Phil-Am
Relationship as the Most Volatile
And
Sensitive Issue to Blog About
By Apolinario Villalobos
I have always been careful when blogging
about politics, more so with Philippine-American relationship, but still take
the risk by going to the extent of coming out with hard-hitting views against
local politicians, and sometimes the United States. The Philippine politics is
just a small fleck compared to the global politics that involve superpowers,
like the United States. In most cases, third world countries like the
Philippines, become pawns when these superpowers discuss matters for their own
benefits and advantage. And, in this global political play, many things are
involved, some are even unbelievably happening. Manipulation of the weak by the
strong becomes the norm.
On the other hand, the issues between the
Philippines and the United States as regards mistrust, betrayal, etc. are
deeply- rooted, so sensitive that most writers stay away from them, unless they
are ready with hard proofs to prove their allegations. In Manila, all we see
during rallies of leftist groups are anti-American slogans and even US
flag-burning rituals, enhanced by chants about being a US “puppet” of whoever
is the current president of the country. This scenario did not change since the
time of the early presidents. Even the supposedly spirit behind the “People
Power Revolution”, Cory Aquino, was not spared. There are so many underlying
reasons for these that require thorough presentation before they can be
understood and appreciated. Of late, noticeable are the absence of most of the
principal participants of the first People Power Revolution during its
subsequent commemorations. There are big reasons why they are suddenly
distancing themselves away from the supposedly historic event. And, they are
about politics that dwell on the Philippine-American relationship.
Basically, the Philippine system of
governance was born out of the American ideology. Unfortunately, not even the
several changes that the Philippine Constitution underwent, have successfully
transformed it into one that centers on a “pure” Filipino ideology, based on
the people’s cultural diversity and economic needs. Even the latest
ratifications during the time of Cory Aquino, contained biased provisions that
are still tainted with American influence. This is the reason why there is a
general feeling of ambivalence among the Filipinos today, on the move to ratify
the Constitution drastically, to make it a truly Filipino Basic Law. For, how
can that be possible with general apprehensions in the light of the corrupt
image of the administration and the two law making bodies? Mistrust and
perceived betrayals are again the reasons.
In addition to the aforementioned reality,
the economically and militarily frail country is faced with threats from
different sectors. This weakness, though not expressed out of pride, could be
the reason why the government entered into the Visiting Forces Agreement with
the United States which in the eyes of many is biased in favor of the latter,
especially, on the aspect of custody of erring members of the US contingent
while on Philippine shore. Specifically, for the US to hold in custody their
soldiers who committed a crime in the Philippines, though hearings are
conducted in the Philippines, is for many Filipinos “foul”. The Jeffrey Laude
murder has emphasized this supposedly “biased” provision, a replayed situation,
since the early Nicole rape case.
The current Agreement is the second for the
same purpose – joint exercises on the shores of the Philippines. The question
is why did the government hastily finalize the agreement without considering
the lesson from the Nicole rape case? Was there an oversight?...or was it done
deliberately? If only those who
represented the Philippine government observed utmost care and sensitivity to
the general sentiment of the Filipinos, there could have been no problem on the
issue of custody. Also, had there been more care on the part of the local
government of Olongapo in giving appropriate caution to the locals who view the
“liberty” or “rest and recreation” binges of the Americans after the joint
exercises, as a source of revenue, finger-pointing may have been avoided. As
reported by field radio reporters from Olongapo, the city is divided in their
feelings toward the Laude case. Those who are earning honestly from the
American soldiers on “liberty” or leisure are blaming those who use
questionable ploys to earn.
Jeffrey Laude was suspected as a sex worker
who initially went into bargaining for his/her service as mentioned even by a
friend, before going with the suspected American soldier to the motel. And,
yet, he/she is supposed to be scheduled for marriage to his/her German fiancé.
During later interviews, another friend of Laude denied the sex worker issue.
In the first place, Laude was not supposed to be hanging out in such kind of joint, if he was fair to his/her
German fiancé. So who committed fault here?
The latest issue on the Visiting Forces
Agreement, muddled by the Laude case has just added more lesions to the already
stinking issue about Philippine-American relationship. Ironically, as I have
mentioned many times in earlier shared views, the purported nationalistic
Filipinos who cry anti-American slogans are themselves, dreaming of holding on
to a passport stamped with a US visa. And, where was the Commission on Human
Rights on the day when the Laude case exploded? Did the CHR people come out in
place of the President who has no habit of going to wakes of people he does not
know? Is the act of the CHR, another belated cover-up, which is the tendency of
the present administration?
I personally perceive the Visiting Forces
Agreement as a ploy to show some borrowed muscles to the Chinese who keeps on
advancing on the western maritime front of the country. It is unethical for the
President to express this. As regards the issue on custody, how can the US
allow its citizen to stay in a stinking Philippine jail some of which are
pitifully filled to the rafters? The Philippine government extends assistance
to its citizens that have figured in drug activities in other countries, even
go to the extent of appealing for the calling off of a death sentence. So how
can the US be blamed for protecting its citizen, too, and who still has to
undergo trial, yet, on a foreign shore? Also, there is another question on the
fickle justice system of the Philippines. So how can the US government leave
its citizen at the mercy of such system, by letting him languish in a stinking
jail for a case that may take years to be resolved?
Finally, Atty. Harry Roque should know
better than instigate his client, the Laude family into loudly protesting the
supposedly injustice committed on their member, Jeffrey, by the suspected
American soldier. The mother and the sister of Jeffrey even went into dramatics
by insisting that they just want to ask the suspect why he committed the crime.
What if the American will tell them that Jeffrey did not honor the agreed cost
of service by asking for more after their act, or that Jeffrey tried to steal
something from him? Will Jeffrey’s mother and sister accept the allegations
calmly? Nobody in his right mind will commit such crime without any reason at
all. The question on the gender of Jeffrey is out, as the sexual act was
supposedly concluded which implied acceptance on the part of the suspect.
On the other hand, as a lawyer, Atty. Roque
should show restraint for the sake of reason and fair justice. No amount of shouts can put the suspect in
jail, this early. Trial has not yet even
started, but, Atty. Roque acts as if verdict has already been handed down in
favor of the suspect.
I am not taking sides. I am just amplifying realities already
presented by the different media for fair information of the public. If ever
conclusions have been drawn by viewers, I would like to presume that these are
their personal opinions that should be respected. Sensitive issues should be
perceived with open mind so that due and diligent scrutiny can be made. There
are so many factors that must be considered, aside from the immediate ones that
surround them. Some may not even be visible unless patiently researched. They
are deeply-rooted and cling to other issues that involve security and economy
of countries concerned. Most importantly, we should not resort to finger-pointing.
Discussion