WHEN INQUIRER.net editor in chief JV Rufino asked John Nery and myself to start blogging for the online counterpart of our mother paper, I leaped at the opportunity to work more closely with John, and with the good folks at INQUIRER.net. But it took me some time to figure out how on earth I'd differentiate this new effort from my own blog.
In the end, it seems to me, the medium defines itself. My own blog is, well, mine -while this one is shared. My own blog is my personal soapbox, and is written for a general audience. Therefore, from the universal (my blog) we go to the particular (this blog), and from the personal, to a joint effort. This blog is very clearly part of the Inquirer family of publications, upholds the regulations and ethics of the whole, and is aimed at a particular kind of reader: you, the loyal reader of the Inquirer.
So to differentiate my writing here from my writing elsewhere, I decided, first of all, to limit my advocacy to my Inquirer column or my blog. Personally, because I have never been a reporter but always, an opinion writer, I happen to think commenting on the political scene necessarily leads to some kind of political involvement. But that that is something I can do in a column and my personal blog, but which doesn't serve the best interests or hopefully, helpfulness, of this blog.
Second of all, this is a current events blog so the takeoff point for each entry here will be the issue of the day as the Inquirer reports it. My purpose here is to amplify or, perhaps even clarify, the issues I personally feel are the most interesting, or relevant on the days it's my turn to comment in this space.
Third of all, if I'm an opinion writer (with a tendency, as the late Teodoro M. Locsin Sr. wrote of himself, to "thunder and shrill" as all opinion and editorial writers do), John Nery is a reporter and an editor. The reporter and editor points out the Who What When Where and Why, though personally I've always felt the first four are so difficult to do professionally that the last, the Why, often gets done least best of all. I think John and I will therefore spend a lot of time focusing on the Whys, from our own perspectives -- which will be different because our professional backgrounds are different.
Finally, John also brought up, in the private e-mail exchanges that took place prior to this blog's birth, that what defines blogging is the idea of a "conversation," and it begins with a conversation between John and myself, and then hopefully between one or both of us and you, the reader. In my personal blog I have the freedom of choosing when to have a conversation or not, and in some ways, a conversation is dispensable over there, because I've always viewed my personal blog more along the lines of the pamphleteers of the 18th and 19th centuries; here, I don't have that luxury. Don't get me wrong -a painful lesson I've learned in that space, is that the price of advocacy is often civility; so this place will be a more civil one, because over here, I'm part of a team.
So welcome and let's hope this blog evolves into something useful for you and me.
For some time now, the question of what Washington, D.C. thinks about the Philippines, and who in Washington is thinking what in particular, has been the grist of news reports and commentary.
This editorial cartoon from the 1930s says it all, to my mind. The test of the mettle of a Filipino leader has always been how he negotiates with Uncle Sam, and the proof of the ability of a Filipino administration is whether it gets a friendly hearing or not from Washington. Pomp and circumstance has always surrounded the sending of delegations to lobby Uncle Sam for this or that. The ill-fated delegation that tried to wrangle a rethinking of test-retake requirement for Filipino nurses affected by the exam scandal, belongs to a tradition as old as the First Independence Mission of 1919.
But there's a difference. Our politicians like going to Washington with all the pomp and extravagance of an Oriental Pasha, because they're playing to the gallery at home ("Look, I am your knight-errant!") and making a point to the Americans they're poised to meet ("You want something done in the Philippines? I'm the man to do it!"). It's part of the political game, but we forget the game was refined prior to independence, and remained relevant, perhaps, to a different kind of Washington in the 40s, 50s, 60s and even 70s, had its "Last Hoorah" in the 80s with Cory Aquino's address to the US Congress, but was firmly buried in the 90s when the US bases closed down for good.
But old habits die hard: we've been conditioned to think we're important to America, though realpolitik on the part of Americans has resulted in a marginal -definitely far from enormous- increase in Philippine importance. American resources have been devoted to lending assistance to the fight against the Abu Sayyaf and the "War on Terror." The problem now is that there's a clash of priorities between our own government and that of the United States. The Americans may be fairly satisfied with what they consider the Number 1 priority, the hunt for the Abu Sayyaf, and how the Philippines is conducting it; but I don't know if we can say the Americans care one way or another about what's the Number 1 effort for our own government -- fighting the NPA.
Which brings us to what's been in the news, an investigation mounted by a committee of the US Senate into the human rights situation here at home. The committee is chaired by Barbara Boxter, who is a popular US senator representing a district with a heavy Filipino-American vote, and she belongs to a party challenging the Bush administration's strategies in fighting the "War on Terror."
The focus of reports and commentary have been on the testimony delivered -- and who delivered it -- Senator Joker Arroyo's belief that the hearing represents meddling in our internal affairs, as well as on a delegation led by PNP Director General Avelino Razon. The delegation had to backpedal because it hadn't been invited. The Razon delegation, again, shows that old habits die hard: it's "On to Washington!" but unlike the old days, when the habit began because we had a reason for lobbying Washington, neither the question of our political independence (settled by 1946) nor those of security (settled with our decision to close down bases in 1991, limiting our importance to a minor strategic consideration), guarantees us that most precious American commodity: access to the White House or Congress.
But Senator Arroyo may have a point: why is the US Senate conducting hearings on the human rights situation here at home, when the hearings obviously have little to do with what America's concerned with, the "War on Terror"? The answer lies in how American foreign aid has become tied to the human rights situation in countries receiving that aid. This has been the case, more or less, since the Carter administration. Up for discussion is the US budget, and it contains a portion on foreign operations, which covers our part of the world, involves oversight over US government spending over the past year, and contending views on policy with the executive branch of government (see the PDF for an example of how the US executive responds to challenges on policy raised by the US Congress).
So the answer to Sen. Arroyo is that since the US government gives aid to the Philippines, and our government accepts it, we can't avoid coverage by appropriate US policy tying aid to human rights. What then, is the basis of the Boxer hearing? See the report prepared the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the US Department of State:
This editorial cartoon from the 1930s says it all, to my mind. The test of the mettle of a Filipino leader has always been how he negotiates with Uncle Sam, and the proof of the ability of a Filipino administration is whether it gets a friendly hearing or not from Washington. Pomp and circumstance has always surrounded the sending of delegations to lobby Uncle Sam for this or that. The ill-fated delegation that tried to wrangle a rethinking of test-retake requirement for Filipino nurses affected by the exam scandal, belongs to a tradition as old as the First Independence Mission of 1919.
But there's a difference. Our politicians like going to Washington with all the pomp and extravagance of an Oriental Pasha, because they're playing to the gallery at home ("Look, I am your knight-errant!") and making a point to the Americans they're poised to meet ("You want something done in the Philippines? I'm the man to do it!"). It's part of the political game, but we forget the game was refined prior to independence, and remained relevant, perhaps, to a different kind of Washington in the 40s, 50s, 60s and even 70s, had its "Last Hoorah" in the 80s with Cory Aquino's address to the US Congress, but was firmly buried in the 90s when the US bases closed down for good.
But old habits die hard: we've been conditioned to think we're important to America, though realpolitik on the part of Americans has resulted in a marginal -definitely far from enormous- increase in Philippine importance. American resources have been devoted to lending assistance to the fight against the Abu Sayyaf and the "War on Terror." The problem now is that there's a clash of priorities between our own government and that of the United States. The Americans may be fairly satisfied with what they consider the Number 1 priority, the hunt for the Abu Sayyaf, and how the Philippines is conducting it; but I don't know if we can say the Americans care one way or another about what's the Number 1 effort for our own government -- fighting the NPA.
Which brings us to what's been in the news, an investigation mounted by a committee of the US Senate into the human rights situation here at home. The committee is chaired by Barbara Boxter, who is a popular US senator representing a district with a heavy Filipino-American vote, and she belongs to a party challenging the Bush administration's strategies in fighting the "War on Terror."
The focus of reports and commentary have been on the testimony delivered -- and who delivered it -- Senator Joker Arroyo's belief that the hearing represents meddling in our internal affairs, as well as on a delegation led by PNP Director General Avelino Razon. The delegation had to backpedal because it hadn't been invited. The Razon delegation, again, shows that old habits die hard: it's "On to Washington!" but unlike the old days, when the habit began because we had a reason for lobbying Washington, neither the question of our political independence (settled by 1946) nor those of security (settled with our decision to close down bases in 1991, limiting our importance to a minor strategic consideration), guarantees us that most precious American commodity: access to the White House or Congress.
But Senator Arroyo may have a point: why is the US Senate conducting hearings on the human rights situation here at home, when the hearings obviously have little to do with what America's concerned with, the "War on Terror"? The answer lies in how American foreign aid has become tied to the human rights situation in countries receiving that aid. This has been the case, more or less, since the Carter administration. Up for discussion is the US budget, and it contains a portion on foreign operations, which covers our part of the world, involves oversight over US government spending over the past year, and contending views on policy with the executive branch of government (see the PDF for an example of how the US executive responds to challenges on policy raised by the US Congress).
So the answer to Sen. Arroyo is that since the US government gives aid to the Philippines, and our government accepts it, we can't avoid coverage by appropriate US policy tying aid to human rights. What then, is the basis of the Boxer hearing? See the report prepared the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the US Department of State:
...Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces; however, some elements of these security forces committed human rights abuses. During the year there were a number of arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings apparently by elements of the security services and of political killings, including killings of journalists, by a variety of actors. Many of these killings went unsolved and unpunished, contributing to a climate of impunity, despite intensified government efforts during the year to investigate and prosecute these cases. Members of the security services committed acts of physical and psychological abuse on suspects and detainees, and there were instances of torture. Arbitrary or warrantless arrests and detentions were common. Trials were delayed and procedures were prolonged. Prisoners awaiting trial and those already convicted were often held under primitive conditions. Corruption was a problem in all the institutions making up the criminal justice system, including police, prosecutorial, and judicial organs. During a brief "state of emergency" in February, there was some attempted interference in freedom of the press and in the right of assembly. In addition to the killings mentioned above, leftwing and human rights activists were often subject to harassment by local security forces. Problems such as violence against women and abuse of children, child prostitution, trafficking in persons, child labor, and ineffective enforcement of worker rights were common. In addition to killing soldiers and police officers in armed encounters, the New People's Army (NPA, the military wing of the Communist Party) killed local government officials, and ordinary civilians, including through the use of landmines, and were suspected in many of the killings of leftwing activists. The NPA also used underage soldiers in combat roles. Terrorist groups committed bombings that caused civilian casualties, and these groups also used underage soldiers.That's the professional opinion of US diplomats. In other words, the US Senate isn't operating in an information vacuum, or is taking only the world of certain groups for it. What the US Senate is thus attempting to get testimony on the matter to see if the report was accurate. What's at stake isn't diplomatic relations between our two countries, but American policy towards our country -and new policies that might have an effect on further aid being conditional on a better human rights situation. It is fundamentally an internal matter of Americans, involving the US Congress and the Executive branch of the US government.
When Inquirer.net editor-in-chief JV Rufino asked John Nery and myself to start blogging for the online counterpart of our mother paper, I leaped at the opportunity to work more closely with John, and with the good folks at Inquirer.net. But it took me some time to figure out how on earth I'd differentiate this new effort from my own blog.In the end, it seems to me, the medium defines itself.... The test of the mettle of a Filipino leader has always been how he negotiates with Uncle Sam, and the proof of the ability of a Filipino administration is whether it gets a friendly hearing or not from Washington.
As long as MLQIII is envolved. It will be one sided aganist the government.
I dare you to expose the the CPP and its violent tactics.
Will you really plant "Pitchay?" see blog on
http://uprootpitchaynow.blogspot.com/
I love good read... kaso hirap basahin. Wrong choice of font?
The US Senate was conducting a hearing on the human rights violations in the RP while its own government is quilty of the worst violations of human rights in its Guantanamo Gulag. What hypocrisy!
I recently spoke with an American professor and two Pinoy academics here in the US about how America views the Philippines now in the 21st century.
Our politicians still believe that we our so called "special relations" entitle us to being received with pomp and more than due courtesy. But we are received in a business like manner like everyone else. I think the delegation that went to the CGFNS got a treatment of that.
If there be a reason to celebrate the special relations then this is in the historical context, a sort of feel good focus. Ambassador Kenney is in to that, hosting the 100 years of the Thomasites among other events.
As for Senator Joker Arroyo he should not question why the Americans dare to hold their Senate hearings on our human rights situation. Again it is business, the Philippines receives US taxpayers money in aid. They have the right to know how the money is being spent. Also your average American on the street still holds on to democratic values. That political opponents should be assassinated is not in their list of democratic values.
We have heard of our politicians crying out "American meddling in our sovereignty". Please grow up! The US treats us as sovereign. Our priorities do not coincide with theirs, and theirs do not with ours. I think this is good for us. The problem is we don't believe that we are really sovereign. The nursing exam fiasco and our response is evidence of that.
Perhaps our politicians' ideas of sovereignty in the 21st century is like that of Castro's Cuba and Kim's North Korea. Then they can join our very own Marxist fossils, in Utrecht or in Diliman!
I love my country and will support whoever serves the interest of the Filipino people. And that would be competent leaders. Mr. Quezon happens to be an Estrada symphatizer and in-law. Nothing you will ever say will convince me to believe in you. I have never noted anything but partisan analysis in your columns.
re the u.s. senate's "meddling in our internal affairs" in particular on the matter of extrajudicial killings. for the first time i'm glad the u.s. is meddling. one, gma will simply have to get a handle on it or she's out, one way or another.
two, all the media coverage is good information for a largely inadequately-informed public. it's time to start treating our relationship with the u.s. of a. as problematic rather than privileged.
about this new blog on and the no-advocacy policy. but why? frankly i don't see a huge difference: both deal with current events. it's just that in daily dose you monitor whats being said on different issues. here, youre able to focus on an issue and elaborate on it. which is good. but why does the advocacy have to go?
this is what's so lacking in the media na nga. rarely does any one take a stand. puro pa-objective. it does not help much. it would help a lot if some popular media people would take a stand against pork barrel, for instance, or political dynasties, or the e-vat, and then harrass senatorial candidates into taking a stand too, one way or the other. magakaalaman na, o mapag-usapan man lamang.
Do we need to have a user-id to login?
I am an avid reader of www.inq7.net because I believe it is a reliable and fair source of current news and opinions. By adding this kind of blog to inq7.net specially coming from political pundits such as mlq3 will definitely aggrandize its worth.
We have no choice but to follow US' lead on this. Let's face it, we don't have unity in the Philippines. The Moslem insurgency and CPP are just the example and many more. It would take another Marcos to unite us all. For me, the Philippines is still under Uncle Sam's influence anyways. Even here in the United States, there is no single organization that unites the whole FilAm nation.
At first, I am for Estrada but since he did not stand for his right as a leader, to the death, all these confusion came up. He was the legal pres. up to the time of his impeachment. Since he choked, he's still jailed at this time. You think anyone in this world will make "awa" for you, no way. He tolerated and let Arroyo and the Generals had their way. That's how Singson and Gen. Reyes and yes, Pres. Arroyo proved their leadership and determination.
Now that Pres. Arroyo's in power, I think she proved to everyone that she can handle the Presidency and the Philippines. At this time, I think it is best for the gov't to figure out either to ride this until people forgets it or push its way in the US hearings. Get someone like, Reyes, who may still have influence in US Congress, to attend the hearings and asked for the gov't's side to be aired, I mean vigorously pursue it. Gen Razon, if he is still in the DC, should talk his way to attend these hearings. The Philippine govt, I think is very busy on the coming elections. The democratic party's takeover of Congress may have tipped the balance, I mean if the Republicans are still in power, this would not have happened. Gen Esperon should better be visible and answer every query. Since Pres. Arroyo is the sitting President, she better act and get a hold of herself and not just sit around while the CPPs, MILFs, Opposition, FG intrigues are getting all the publicity and points. She better showcase her achievements to the public and not take a background seat. She better talk to Gen. Esperon and get their acts together. I mean all muzzles are firing on the President and Gen. Esperon better come out with a big idea to turn the tide.
Good topics for Pres. Arroyo and Gen. Esperon to pursue would be: the strong economy; AFPs winning on terrorism in the South; get a good English speaker for the military to defend it (communication in the English language is a huge factor especially if Ms Kinney is asking and cannot answer it right there and then); our cooperation with the US military and cannot afford for the US aid to stop(imagine the gains against the terrorists, and losing it just like that); take out other countries' reps in Mindanao except the US Army's(what the are they doing in Mindanao anyways?).
Good luck Mrs. President and Gen. Esperon, you still have time!! If you'll just sit around and ride it out, maybe it would be tantamount to being guilty on the AFP's alleged killings. Don't give up and again, you still have time!!
Even I'm worked abroad I always reading inquirer everyday through the net because for me, this is the only online news paper in the Philippines that always up to date. I commend all of you guys!
No doubt, why inquirer is the leading news paper in the Philippines and to OFWs. :)
The presence of Philippine military officials at the US Senate committee investigation, even if they were not invited, would have been an opportunity for the committee members to confront them directly of the accusations against military abuses. The excuse given by the US senators that the participation of military officials at the hearing would intimidate civilian witnesses is preposterous. By their own admission, they are saying they have no control over Filipino military even in US soil! In effect, they only heard one side of the issue, the leftists'.
Re "US meddling in our internal affairs." Beggars can't be choosers. We receive aid from the US, the US taxpayers deserve the right to know where there money is being spent. Simple as that. If we don't want someone poking into our business, then stop receiving money which in the first place we knew had strings attached to it. Regarding Romy's comment on Guantanamo, it is not hipocrisy. Why do you think George Bush is in hot water? It's because of his policy on terror, and Guantanamo is just an offshoot of such policy.
Funny how Democrats get front page treatment in the Philippines when they hold hearings on the Philippines. As if there haven't been dozens of US Congress and Senate hearings that have tackled foreign aid to the Philippines all these years. But of course those were run by Republicans and didn't hear the testimonies of leftist "bishops."
It's really been that way since around 1912 and we will see a renaissance of the US Anti Imperialist League again all the way to 2008, which will reprise those elections of a century ago, only in the context of the War on Terror and on Iraq.
The Dems failed to pass a resolution yesterday to pull the troops back by 2008, but I daresay they will eventually succeed.
It will however be a test of Barbara Boxer's real commitment to human rights when she looks to see where her constituents, the Fil-Ams stand. They may turn anti-war along with the rest of the US population, but they have been largely pro-GMA and anti-communist all this time.
Commentary
Sana kasama rin si Conrad de Quiros sa blog na ito. ano kaya ang magiging itsura ng "conversations" nina Manuel at Conrad?
Great news! Two of my favorite guys in one space. Wishing both of you the best -- I'll be visiting quite often for sure.
I like this blog... john and manuel... surely we'll get lots of infos... Ayos ito! Mabuhay Ka John! ikaw din Manuel!
"I love my country and will support whoever serves the interest of the Filipino people. And that would be competent leaders. Mr. Quezon happens to be an Estrada symphatizer and in-law. Nothing you will ever say will convince me to believe in you. I have never noted anything but partisan analysis in your columns.-Mike"
You should look first at Manuel's other blog or articles. Discover that he is writing in the most responsible and fair manner.
Of course, if he is writing about Arroyo a lot.Arroyo is the incumbent leader.As newspaper writer you write what isthe latest and what is hot out there. Otherwise, you will end up without any reader.There is a gold mine of interesting stories about the present administration.
As much as you are entitled to your opinion -so does he. He has always been fair.Go read some of his articles and you will see.
Of course, if your heart is with Arroyo; no matter how he presents his opinion in a fair manner.You will always find his opinion to be biased.
Peace be with you mike!-
nookie
Ronald Allan Ordonez
Cyberjaya,Malaysia