Death Squad Democracy:OPLAN BANTAY-LAYA (A Book Review by Prof. Roland G. Simbulan)

The Phillipines makes a decent representative example of the US' first official exercise in colonial imperialism and formal empire [*], also referred to as "civilizational imperialism" - a project we're presently repeating.

"Lest this seem to be the bellicose pipedream of some dyspeptic desk soldier, let us remember that the military deal of our country has never been defensive warfare. Since the Revolution, only the United Kingdom has beaten our record for square miles of territory acquired by military conquest. Our exploits against the American Indian, against the Filipinos, the Mexicans, and against Spain are on a par with the campaigns of Genghis Khan, the Japanese in Manchuria and the African attack of Mussolini. No country has ever declared war on us before we first obliged them with that gesture. 

Our whole history shows we have never fought a defensive war. And at the rate our armed forces are being implemented at present, the odds are against our fighting one in the near future." - -- Major General Smedley D. Butler, America's Armed Forces: 'In Time of Peace', 1935. 1898-1914: The Phillipines. 

Protesters wearing masks of activist Jonas Burgos protest in a busy street in Manila August 6, 2007 to commemorate the 100th day of his abduction. Jonas, an activist, has been missing since April 2007 when a group of men, widely thought to be an army "black squad", allegedly abducted him from a shopping mall in Manila.  Picture taken August 6, 2007.
REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco/Files

Protesters hold pictures of leftwing activists alleged to have been abducted in the Philippines, during a protest in front of the Supreme Court in Manila in this June 4, 2008 file photo.  Hundreds of activists have been shot dead or are suspected to have been abducted over the past seven years in what is viewed internationally as a "dirty war" by the army against groups it sees as fronts for a violent communist insurgency. REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco/Files

****************************************************************************************
NOTE: THE COLORED AND UNDERLINED WORDS ARE MY ADDED LINKS (click them to open) - Bert
**************************************************************************************************************

THE TOOLS OF DEATH SQUAD DEMOCRACY 
by Roland G. Simbulan

(Book Review of OPLAN BANTAY LAYA: THE U.S.-ARROYO CAMPAIGN OF TERROR AND COUNTERINSURGENCY IN THE PHILIPPINES,Balay Internasyunal, U.P. Diliman, July 29, 2010)

IBON FOUNDATION has published a book that explores the deadly tools of our death squad democracy. 

The ingredients and elements of a classic Third World country are there : A selfish, pro-Western oligarchy that has almost complete control and influence over state power and institutions. Weak and compromised government institutions that cannot render real justice to the weak, and where we see institutionalized impunity to human rights, corruption and abuse of power. Lack of basic social services or even decent social security net. An economic and political system that basically preserves the power and dominance of the local elite and their foreign corporate counterparts in tapping the natural and human resources of a rich country with a predominantly poor majority.

This book examines how this situation is preserved despite people's resistance and struggles for a better life. It examines the emergence of the U.S.-inspired Oplan Bantay Laya (1 & 2) during the Arroyo administration. This counter-insurgency program was used to combat people's opposition not only to the detested Arroyo administration, but also to combat revolutionary Filipino nationalism challenging U.S. interests in the country.

The book tries to provide answers to key questions like:

1. What makes Oplan Bantay Laya distinct from past, failed counter-insurgency programs of previous administrations ?
2. What is the U.S. role in the formulation and implementation of Oplan Bantay Laya?
3. How does OBL compare with other past and present U.S. counterinsurgency campaigns, especially those ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This book tries to fill in these gaps.

The four major parts of the book: Oplan Bantay Laya, U.S. Counter-Insurgency Strategy, Impacts and Implications, and Unfinished Agenda, all weave together a tightly-knit reference on what is in fact a country case study of another failed counter-insurgency strategy and its impact on the Philippines.

If you have watched Christopher Nolan's latest film, "Inception", you will find that "almost every dream is like a nightmare and you wake up just when you are killed or fatally shot in your dream." Oplan Bantay Laya is not the only nightmare. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Norberto Gonzales, Jovito Palparan, et al are also part of the nightmare that devastated our nation for the past nine years, causing untold bloodletting and damage to the life, liberty and safety of our people.

The canvas on which the various authors in this book paint their chapters is splattered with the trail of blood and sickening horror of the extra-judicial killings and disappeared victims of Oplan Bantay Laya, the latest failed but nevertheless, deadly counterinsurgency campaign to inflict our people.

A major contribution of this book is that it firmly establishes the U.S. role in OBL, that is, as part of the U.S. strategy of suppressing revolutionary nationalism and insurgency. It investigates the tentacles of imperial America in directing, advising the political assassination of progressive mass leaders and their sympathizers whose only crime is to work for meaningful social reforms in our society.

Though there is a lot of government rhetoric and even a written blueprint for counterinsurgency to focus on socioeconomic measures to address poverty that is at the root of the armed insurgency and conflict, on the ground, the battlefield approach is still the dominant approach. The Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and the paramilitaries are still the main agencies for counterinsurgency pursuing military objectives. The killings of unarmed social movement leaders, members and sympathizers can only exacerbate the conflict and further feed the flames of armed insurgency.

After Sept. 11, 2001, with the U.S. already thinly spread out in its direct military invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, Oplan Bantay Laya emerges as the alternative strategy to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Philippines. The local insurgency and the Muslim secessionist struggle - long in existence since the late 60s - are transformed into War on Terror - Philippines aka new name Overseas Contingency Operation. The Pentagon bankrolls a Philippine Defense Reform Program where it directs the entire counterinsurgency program and structure of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which now includes Bantay Laya.

Multi-dimensional but essentially political/ psychological in nature, Oplan Bantay Laya or OBL disguised U.S. intervention and covert operations in targeted areas in the country by introducing USAID- funded piece-meal community services, disaster relief and infrastructure, while selectively assassinating local activists and leaders. The tools in this counterinsurgency kit - now also used widely in Iraq and Afghanistan -- include a combination of community/social programs, but it also includes their "special ops " which is to strip out mid-level leaders and coordinators of militant mass movements whom they believe are part of the "political infrastructure" of the armed insurgency.

The public is also targeted by psychological operations to achieve support and demonize targeted sectors. However, the role of Fr. Romeo "Archie" Intengan's indoctrination of soldiers to eliminate all communists, and the Norberto Gonzales - Palparan tandem in the creation of "privatized" anti-communist death squads with the tolerance and support of the AFP/PNP, need to be further explored.

But counterinsurgency campaigns of terror that target unarmed people's advocates can only further radicalize--not terrorize -- the people as is the intention, especially those in the rural areas. The command structure of the military, police and security forces are themselves guilty of these dastardly activities, when they tolerate and encourage these crimes, and where no one is arrested or prosecuted. Police and meticulous detective work, as well as the preservation of vital evidence is necessary for the prosecution of those responsible.

I would have wanted to see included in this book an analysis of the U.S. Special Forces Counter-insurgency Manual which is one of the classified Pentagon documents leaked to WikiLeaks.com 

It has the title, FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL FORCES (1994, 2004 ). What is very revealing is that the manual refers to itself as about, " what the U.S. learned about using death squads and propping up corrupt governments in Latin America and how to apply it in other places." The template and model that the manual uses is El Salvador where killings and torturing were done by the U.S.-backed army and right wing death squads affiliated with it, until the paramilitaries themselves got out of hand that they raped even American missionary nuns who were stopped at a checkpoint, causing massive outrage in the United States. 

According to a 2001 report of Amnesty International, many U.S. -backed right wing governments through their military and paramilitary death squads " committed extra-judical executions, other unlawful killings, disappearances and torture", and obviously with the advise and direction of U.S. military advisers.

A whole gamut of agreements keep the AFP (and even the PNP) under the thumb of the United States: the Mutual Defense Treaty, the Military Assistance Agreement, the Visiting Forces Agreement, the Mutual Logistics and Support Agreement, the Security Engagement Board Agreement. 

The book takes and hard look at the tentacles of Imperial America and the mechanisms of U.S. influence and control from the JUSMAG and the USAID projects concentrated in areas of unrest most contested by insurgency and the Muslim rebellion. Today, an entire contingent of 600 U.S. Special Operations Forces composed of elite SEALS and Ranger Teams provide direction, advise, training, intelligence and even surgical combat operations to many of the AFP's front-line battalions all over the country.

The selection of so-called "quality targets" who are identified for political assassination, abduction, and disappearances can only rely heavily on battlefield intelligence and order of battle lists. This has been upgraded with CIA up-country advisers and U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) technicians who assist to improve the record-keeping ability of the Philippine armed and intelligence services through the provision of special computers.This monitors, records and classifies the rivers of digitized intelligence information that flow throughout the country.

This book outlines the nature of OBL and its different forms, and identifies the local and foreign "agencies" that actually implement it in both lethal and "non-lethal" forms. It studies the emergence and evolution of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine and argues that it is also very much operative in the Philippines. In so doing, it argues that counterinsurgency programs such as the OBL are not intentionally formulated and applied for the Philippines alone, but other places as well.

The dirty wars in Latin America launched by military dictators whose armies were trained and armed by the Pentagon and CIA to suppress progressive movements, and the Operation Phoenix in Vietnam which liquidated as many as 40,000 unarmed suspects in the political infrastructure of the South Vietnam National Liberation Front, to the US training of the Indonesian Kopassus (Army Special Forces Command) which abducted and killed many Indonesian farmers, workers and intellectuals during the Suharto military dictatorship -- all testify that other places besides the Philippines had been testing grounds for this counterinsurgency doctrine -- perhaps with other names.

Counterinsurgency doctrine simultaneously evolved in different locations as a product of similar factors as the various U.S. administrations groped for ways of combating revolutionary nationalism (both Islamic, Marxist and secular), in the Third World. During the Arroyo administration, OBL and U.S. counterinsurgency strategy gained cohesion over time with the recognition and acceptance that its seemingly unrelated components constitute a political / psychological strategy for achieving U.S. objectives. But what about the role of other U.S. allies like Australia and Israel, among others, whose intelligence operatives and special forces are also now actively involved in honing and assisting in local counterinsurgency operations?

OBL was eventually elevated to the status of a de facto national security strategy by the Arroyo administration, which in attempting to justify its illegal stay in power, gave this strategy an overt profile with ideological cohesion and rationale provided by such rabid clerico-fascists like Fr. Archie Intengan and his disciple Norberto Gonzales. In this sense, the Arroyo administration was itself an expression of OBL. For this Arroyo will be remembered as as extrajudicial killer as expressed by OBL-- distinctly stamping our own brand of death squad democracy.

The Alston recommendations found in the U.N. Special Report on Extrajudicial Killings are specific enough. But scrapping the OBL could just produce another counterinsurgency strategy clone with another name as they have done before.

I have always believed that the state can either be a very repressive apparatus that can cause so much misery and suffering to the people, or, if redirected, it can be placed in the hands of an enlightened people to serve its ends and national interests, and to achieve a higher quality of life.

There is the need to resist repression. But, how do we make our government and armed forces work for us instead of being our oppressors and enemies? Transparency and accountability in government are necessary to monitor and check abuses, as well as to make civilian and military agencies accountable for actions that they do. 

There is a need for more and effective Congressional oversight and reform measures on the following:

1. The misuse of military and intelligence funds, not only those under the DND/PNP, but also those under "contingency funds" of the Office of the President, line departments, and local governments.
2. Local intelligence should likewise also be directed at monitoring U.S. intervention in the country as well as other foreign agencies.
3. There should be transparency in sensitive issues as national security to curb abuse of power and authority and so that they cannot mislead or undermine our very own people's security.
4. The Commission on Audit should be tasked to carefully audit any intelligence program, a power COA never had.

The victims of Oplan Bantay Laya await justice, and we all expect that justice be rendered from the new administration that has promised to bring the perpetrators to the bar of justice.

Maybe it would be a kind of redemption if we could unify as a nation against the real enemies of national sovereignty who have divided us through their divide and rule tactics, in order to dominate us. Better still, it would be a kind redemption if justice was rendered to all the victims and the extra-judicial masterminds were punished.

The prospects for peace are always there as they have always been there. If the rest of the developing world is any guide, economic development that benefits the majority of the people is the best road map to lasting peace.

Overall, the book is a major contribution to the literature on the impact of the U.S.- directed counter-insurgency policy, and how and why the old recycled strategies have failed. I hope that the counter-insurgents in the new administration will not fail to read this book.

Source: http://www.cenpeg.org/index.htm

*******************************************

U.S. Brig. Gen. Jacob H. Smith: "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better you will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States." 

Major Littleton W. T. Waller: How young? Smith: Ten years and up. --Exchange on October 1901, quote from the testimony at Smith's court martial by the New York Evening Journal (May 5, 1902). 

General Smith, a veteran of the Wounded Knee Massacre, was popularly known as "Hell Roaring Jake" or "Howling Wilderness".

CIA-admits-US-exports-terror

U.S. behind reign of terror sweeping Philippines

By Teresa Gutierrez
Cebu City, Philippines 

Published Jan 9, 2007 11:38 PM

The International Action Center (IAC) sent a fact-finding delegation to the Philippines Dec. 7 to Dec. 19. The delegation was comprised of IAC National Co-Director Teresa Gutierrez, and Dianne Mathiowetz of the Atlanta IAC. Also on the trip were two representatives of BAYAN USA and a member of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement from New York City.

International Human Rights Day demonstration, Dec. 10, Cebu City, Philippines. WW photos: Dianne Mathiowetz

Jan. 8—Our trip coincided with the scheduled meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which was to take place the first week of December in Cebu City. ASEAN’s main role is to facilitate economic and political penetration of the area for imperialism. However, the Philippine government announced that the ASEAN meeting would be cancelled due to a reported typhoon that was to hit the island at the same time. It was evident, however, that the summit of 25 Asian countries was actually cancelled due to the political typhoon sweeping the country.

Major demonstrations and massive political sentiment against the president of the country, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, were the real reasons the summit was cancelled. As of this writing, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has announced that the ASEAN summit will take place here in Cebu City from Jan. 10 to 15.

One of the most outstanding developments revealed to our delegation was the tremendous wave of repression hitting the Filipino population. Since 2001, over 700 people in the Philippines have been killed or disappeared. The wave of repression against the people is so stark that every week since 2004 approximately two activists have been killed and one has disappeared.

This alarming situation was described to us repeatedly, confirming published reports by several sources. Amnesty International issued a report in August stating its concern over “continued violation of human rights in the country.”

In fact, during the two-week period since we arrived, a total of seven people have been reported missing or killed by the official newspapers of this country.

The findings of the “Stop the Killings in the Philippines Campaign,” published by the IBON Foundation, concluded that, “The pattern of assassinations and political persecution of activists, members of people’s movements, and leftist leaders in the Philippines has become an urgent international issue.”

IBON continued, “While killings and summary executions are not rare in the Philippines, this trend of political assassinations intensified in 2004 during the national elections, and has continued in the last two years—making it possibly the worst period for human rights violations since the Marcos era.”

Behind the wave of terror: U.S. imperialism

The wave of terror currently sweeping the Philippines is part and parcel of U.S. imperialism’s historical and bloody drive to dominate and control the South East Asian region, especially the Philippines. These aims are best capsulated in the words of U.S. Sen. Alfred Beveridge when he said in 1900, “The country that rules the Pacific, rules the world.”

U.S. imperialism invaded and occupied the Philippines and other countries of the Asia Pacific region at the beginning of the 20th century.

Indeed, East Asia is key to imperialist aims to control markets and make ever greater profits. Over 2.5 billion people live in this region—one-third of the world’s population—and their economies are 25 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. Southeast Asia is 9 percent of the world’s population and 5 percent of the global GDP.

The region is home to some of the most strategic countries in the world: China, Korea and Vietnam, which have all been at the center of imperialism’s war drive. Japan, an imperialist country, is a major rival to Wall Street.

According to the Institute of Political Economy, based in the Philippines, the U.S. currently has more than 386,000 U.S. troops deployed in 150 countries, including 70,000 troops in East Asia. There were 850 U.S. military bases in 138 counties as of 2005.

Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are key nations to Washington, used in every way possible to maintain its domination in the area.

The task of these thousands of troops is to make sure that the main strategic objectives of the U.S. are protected in the region. Southeast Asia is of particular interest to the U.S. It seeks to maintain hegemony with its puppet regimes and exclude Japan and China, one reason why the Philippines is key to the U.S. It wants free access to major sea lanes and to deepen and expand trade and investment in the area.

Imperialism carries out these aims at the same time that it drives the Asian Pacific people further and further into poverty and despair. Eliza Griswold, a journalist, writes: “[T]he most pressing problem in today’s Philippines isn’t terrorism or even government corruption but poverty and a lack of social mobility. About 15 percent of its people live on less than $1 a day.”

The war on terror: a basis for re-colonization

The U.S. has operated military bases in the Philippines since 1947. After righteous struggles that shook the country, most of these bases closed in 1992. But with the advent of U.S. imperialism’s so-called war on terror, there is now a concerted effort to once again militarize the Philippines. The rebuilding of official U.S. bases in the Philippines is centered in Mindanao, a primarily Muslim area.

U.S. Navy Commander Adm. William J. Fallon—commander of the U.S. Pacific command—said last March 7, “Southeast Asia is the front line of the war on terror.”

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has not only become a key ally of imperialism, she is a puppet of Washington.

This so-called war against terrorism is in reality a war of terror against the people.

Victims of repression in the Philippines—those who have died as a result of these extrajudicial killings—are mainly people who are fighting against deadly economic policies or who are denouncing the repression: activists, students, labor leaders, journalists, members of people’s movements and leftists.

State terror reigns in the Philippines. The situation is so serious and so critical that even spokespeople of foreign chambers of commerce and transnational corporations have been forced to pay lip service against the repression.

On Jan. 6 the Macapagal-Arroyo administration announced that the government will spend about 10 billion pesos in 2007—a lot of money for an impoverished nation. About $200 million is earmarked for the purchase of attack helicopters and other military equipment, which is a sign that the repression will not only continue but intensify.

Repression breeds resistance

Since Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office in 2001, about 730 people have been killed. (IBON)

They include Bishop Alberto Ramento; Markus Bangit, an indigenous leader of the Malbong Tribe of Tomiangan, Tabuk, Kalinga and the coordinator of the Elders Desk of the Cordillera People’s Alliance; activist teacher Napolean Pornasdoro; Bayan Muna Party (People First Party) members Jayson Delen and Jimmy Mirafuente; Cris Hugo, the regional coordinator of the League of Filipino Students; and Nestle Union president and KMU leader, Diosdado Fortuna. The KMU is the revolutionary workers union in the Philippines and stands for the May 1st Movement.

More than 168 leaders and activists remain missing.

The IAC delegation met with the mother of one of missing student leader, Sherlyn Cadapan. Sherlyn was abducted with another student leader, Karen Empeño, and 55-year-old activist Manuel Merino.

The young women, both in their early 20s, are students at the University of the Philippines (UP). The three were abducted on July 26, 2006. They were volunteers of the Alliance of Peasants in Bulacan, Philippines.

Six armed men forcibly entered the house where the students were staying. Merino, who was staying at a house nearby, came to help the two young women. All three were forced into a vehicle and driven away. The young women’s parents believe that troops of the 56th infantry Battalion in Bulacan were the ones who abducted the three activists.

The commander of the 7th Infantry Division, based where the abduction took place, told the family that the young women were members of the New Peoples Army, the armed wing of the resistance in the country. The family believes that such statements indicate the military knows the whereabouts of the three.

The mother of Sherlyn Cadapan told me at a demonstration against proposed changes to the Philippine Constitution that she will not stop until she finds her daughter.

Despite the wave of repression sweeping the country, the movement is strong. The abductions and assassinations have not stopped the people’s struggle for self determination and freedom from imperialist domination.

Despite a heavy police presence in preparation for the scheduled ASEAN conference here, the movement organized conferences for Jobs and Justice and against Global Terrorism, as well as demonstrations in the streets, which IAC representatives participated in.

Many of the people who attended these events told of family members missing or dead. But the history of the will of the Filipino people to resist domination is as long as imperialism’s aims in the region. It will be the Filipino people who will ultimately prevail, as seen by the courage and commitment here.

Copies of the IBON Foundation report can be ordered at leftbooks.com.

---

Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news DONATE 

Source: http://www.workers.org/2007/world/philippines-0118/

See also:    CIA-admits-US-exports-terror and
Killing Season in the Philippines (15+ articles on further militarization of our homeland and its brutal consequences to the common tao, during the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regime -- in an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the "unspoken truth".- Global Research)

                       
*******************************  END OF POST **********************************

"Those who profess to favor freedom
and yet deprecate agitation
are men who want crops without 
plowing up the ground;
they want rain without thunder and
lightning.
They want the ocean without the
awful roar of its waters.
This struggle may be a moral one
or it may be a physical one
or it may be both moral and physical
but it must be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a
demand
It never did, and never will." – Frederick Douglass, American Abolitionist, Lecturer, Author and Slave, 1817-1895)
(quoted in Fr.Salgado’s Philippine Economy: History and Analysis, 1985)

*************************************************

Hi All,

The below link will show a short list of my past posts (out of 540 posts so far) which I consider as basic topics about us native (indio)/ Malay Filipinos. This link/listing, which may later expand, will always be presented at the bottom of each future post.  Just point-and-click at each listed item to open and read. 

Thank you for reading and sharing with others, especially those in our homeland.

- Bert

PLEASE POINT & CLICK THIS LINK:  

http://www.thefilipinomind.com/2013/08/primary-postsreadings-for-my-fellow.html

THE MELO Report: Extrajudicial Killings

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: Note: Bold and/or Underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked postings/articles. Forwarding the postings to relatives and friends, especially in the homeland, is greatly appreciated.

To write or read a comment, please go to http://www.thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to the bottom of the current post (or another post you read and may want to respond) and click on "Comments."

“Nations, whose NATIONALISM is destroyed, are subject to ruin.” - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-, Libyan Political and Military Leader)

"Communist" is often no more than the name ascribed to those people who stand in the way of maintaining power; as "national security" is the name given for the reason for fighting "communists".

At the same time, the public has been conditioned to react Pavlovian to the term: it means, still, the worst excesses of Stalin, from wholesale purges to Siberian slave-labor camps; it means, as Michael Parenti has observed, that "Classic Marxist-Leninist predictions [concerning world revolution] are treated as statements of intent directing all present-day communist actions.''

It means "us" against "them". And "them" can mean a peasant in the Philippines, a mural-painter in Nicaragua, a legally-elected prime minister in British Guiana, or a European intellectual, a Cambodian neutralist, an African nationalist - all, somehow, part of the same monolithic conspiracy; each, in some way, a threat to the American Way of Life; no land too small, too poor, or too far away to pose such a threat, the "communist threat"....

What then has been the thread common to the diverse targets of American intervention which has brought down upon them the wrath, and often the firepower, of the world's most powerful nation? In virtually every case involving the Third World, ... it has been, in one form or another, a policy of "self-determination": the desire, born of perceived need and principle, to pursue a path of development independent of US foreign policy objectives.

Most commonly, this has been manifested in (a) the ambition to free themselves from economic and political subservience to the United States; (b) the refusal to minimize relations with the socialist bloc, or suppress the left at home, or welcome an American military installation on their soil; in short, a refusal to be a pawn in the cold war; or (c) the attempt to alter or replace a government which held to neither of these aspirations. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that such a policy of independence has been viewed and expressed by numerous Third World leaders and revolutionaries as one not to be equated by definition to anti-Americanism or pro-communism.

It is sad, enraging and disgusting to see many Filipino commentators and/or journalists either ignore,downplay or dismiss these killings by the government/military as universal happenings (i.e. "normal" events) in other (Third World) countries and thus indicating their lack of respect for the lives of dissenters who come from the ranks of the common tao; these same political opinion-makers write and talk as if they really knew what democracy is; or they imply that democracy is only for the powerful.

"To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them." - Michael Parenti

[The UN Report by Philip Alston in pdf version and free at the blogsite]

**********************************

The Melo report: prospects and limitations
RENATO M. REYES, JR.
BAYAN Secretary General Delivered in a forum at the QC Sports Club March 14, 2007

Introduction
On February 22, after insistent demand from the European Union, the United Nations special rapporteur, the Catholic Church, the public and the media, the Arroyo government finally and grudgingly disclosed the controversial “initial” report of the Melo Commission. The release of the report came after UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings.

Philip Alston delivered a scathing criticism of the Philippine military and national government over the continuing killings of activists. The highlight of the Melo report was its implication of the military in the killings, particularly M/Gen. Jovito Palparan. However, the report cleared the president and her administration of any liability. It would appear that the Commission endeavored to come up with a “win-win” report that assuaged both local and international outrage over the killings, while shielding the President from accountability. The report however, still managed to draw the ire of the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Gen. Hermogenes Esperon who to this day, to use Philip Alston’s words, is in still a state of almost total denial about the military’s role in the killings.

The findings of the Melo Commission are the ff: 1) the military, not the N PA, in involved in the killings of activists, 2) there is some circumstantial evidence to hold Palparan and some of his superiors responsible for the killings based on the principle of command responsibility, 3) there is no state policy that sanctions the killings of activists. For some, the conclusions drawn by Melo may appear good enough, especially in a time when government accountability is so hard to come by.

The findings of the Commission may have even exceeded the expectations of some quarters. But for those who are in the line of fire of the bonnet-clad, motorcycle-riding death squads, the report still has a long way to go in terms of pinpointing the root causes of the extrajudicial killings. At the end of the day we ask: are the conclusions and recommendations enough to put a stop to the killings?

Shaky start
The Melo Commission was created by Arroyo on August 21, 2006 and was tasked to investigate the root causes of the extrajudicial killings of activists and journalists in the Philippines. The Arroyo government said that the creation of the commission was an earnest response to the widespread killings. From the beginning, the formation of Melo Commission drew mixed reactions. Opposition figures like Sen. Aquilino Pimentel and Sen. Jamby Madrigal were not convinced the Commission would do its job.

Amnesty International issued a memorandum addressed to the Arroyo government with proposals on how the Commission can meet international standards for investigative bodies. More importantly, human rights advocates and the families of victims of extrajudicial killings were wary of cooperating with the commission. Bayan has already stated in a previous paper the reasons why activist groups did not participate in the hearings of the Commission. These reasons were grounded on an analysis of the current state policy of repression and in relation to recommendations of AI regarding the formation of an independent commission – standards that the Melo Commission failed to live up to.

The non-participation of victims and activist groups has been made an issue by the Arroyo government as the reason why the Melo report was incomplete, hence not fit for public release. In fact, the administration even insinuated that the victims, from the very start, did not want the Melo Commission to succeed in its mandate, as if their non-participation was some kind of premeditated plan to sabotage the Commission.

The Arroyo administration now wants to make the victims the scapegoat for whatever shortcomings the Melo Commission had. In sum, the reasons for the non-participation of activists formations are: 1) the commission was not independent, 2) there was a valid concern that the Commission was created to clear Mrs. Arroyo of any liability, 3) the commission did not take a victim-centered approach, 4) the commission did not have the means to protect witnesses who would come forward to testify in public hearings, 5) the commission lacked powers and means to conduct a thorough-going investigation on the root causes of the extrajudicial killings.

The central issues here are the commission’s independence, mandate and powers. It all boiled down to a question of trust. In sharp contrast to their non-participation in the Melo probe, the human rights groups fully cooperated with the Alston mission. The UNSR obviously gained the trust of the victims and the organizations.

Melo tags the military
The Melo report, despite all its shortcomings, was at least clear on one thing: the military was involved in the killings of activists. The report convincingly demolished the usual police and military line which pointed to an alleged “internal purge” by the New People’s Army as the reason for the activist deaths. The Melo report, however, blamed only a “small group” within the military as responsible for the killings, singling out M/Gen. Jovito Palparan as one of one of those principally responsible. In the words of the Commission, “there is some circumstantial evidence to support the proposition that some elements within the military or connected to the military are responsible for the killings.” Regarding Palparan’s involvement, the report says that “(he) and perhaps some of his superior officers may be held responsible for failing to prevent, punish or condemn the killings under the principle of command responsibility.”

However the commission also said that whatever “circumstantial evidence presented before the Commission and the inferences it draws therefrom are probably grossly inadequate to support a criminal conviction.” According to the report, the military, or at least a small group within, is responsible for the killings. The report cited motive, capability and opportunity as the three basis for blaming the military for the killings. The report says that in a great majority of cases, “the only explanation for the victims’ death is the fact that they were allegedly rebels or connected with the CPP-NPA.” The Commission considered the testimony of Esperon and Palparan who both considered legal Leftist groups as “enemies of the state” that should be “neutralized”. Indeed from our actual experience, there is a direct relationship between communist-labeling and the murder of activists.

It is a common occurrence that victims are first subjected to a vilification campaign, being tagged as communist sympathizers or leaders, before being assassinated. Despite the testimony of Esperon that the “neutralization” of the “enemies of the state” involves a “holistic approach”, the Commission did not discount the fact that there may be some elements who would take a “direct approach” to neutralizing their enemies. The assertion that the military is involved in the killings runs counter to the view that the NPA is responsible for the killings. The Commission in fact totally discredited the “NPA purge” theory that the police and military have been peddling for some time now.

The Melo report said that the PNP findings that the victims were killed by the NPA for alleged financial opportunism did not hold water since only two victims were alleged finance officers of the NPA according to the PNP’s own investigation. Moreover, the report said that if there was really an ongoing purge, it would have been advantageous for the military to bring to their side the possible victims of the purge, instead of labeling them as “enemies”. Ironically, what clinched the Commission to junk the “NPA purge” theory was no less than Palparan himself. In his usual display of arrogance, Palparan said he did not believe in the “NPA purge” theory and was skeptical of the reports. (Perhaps he wanted to take credit, even indirectly, for the murders of legal activists.)

As for the criteria of opportunity and capability, there was no doubt that the military possessed both. Of course Gen. Esperon argued in his letter to Melo that the NPA also had the military capability to conduct these assassinations. However this assertion can only be dismissed for lack of any plausible motive. In the words of the Commission, “with the CPP-NPA out of the question, only a group with certain military capabilities can succeed in carrying out an orchestrated plan of eliminating its admitted enemies.”

The Commission also pinned Palparan for various statements he made to the media wherein he himself established the motives for the extrajudicial killings. Extensive quotes from print and broadcast interviews showed Palparan’s approval of the political killings. The notorious general did not categorically deny that his men may have been involved in the killings, even boldly declaring that he may have inspired the killers. The Commission does not limit its findings to Palparan but also “some of his superior officers” though none were named.

The Commission has invoked the principle of command responsibility in blaming Palparan and “some of his superior officers” for the killings. Under this principle, the superior officer is responsible for the crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish them. Palparan for his part knew that the killings were being done under his watch but did nothing to stop and investigate these crimes. No other superior officer was mentioned as being responsible for the killings like Palparan. In the course of the report however, the Commission did cite that Gen. Esperon merely called Palparan three times on the cellphone when confronted with allegations of extrajudicial killings.

The report also said that the AFP leadership did not take any steps to investigate Palparan, saying that no complaint was filed that the AFP could act on. This is however is not true since the AFP top brass merely had to refer to existing cases vs Palparan filed before the Department of Justice, the Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on Appointments. For some, the findings of the Commission may be enough. Such a public indictment of high ranking military officials, even if based on circumstantial evidence, is very rare under this administration and is certainly most welcome. But as we said earlier, blaming one or two generals won’t stop the trend of violence against legal activists.

Where the Melo report came up short
What is frustrating for activists and victims is that the Melo Commission wittingly insulated the Arroyo presidency from any responsibility in the killings. The Commission made a sweeping remark when it said that there is no policy from military and civilian superiors (underscoring ours) that sanctions extrajudicial killings of activists. This claim has no factual basis in the report. The Commission did not need the testimony of witnesses and victims to prove whether there is indeed a policy or not. The Commission merely had to take into account everything that has been said by the commander-in-chief, her cabinet, her security advisers and the top brass of the police and military as well as everything that the government didn’t do to address the problem.

The communist-labeling of legal organizations is by itself a policy declaration commonly heard from cabinet officials as well military and police officials. As one lawyer observed, the military hierarchy has conditioned the minds of its intelligence officers and enlisted men to think of the political left as “enemies of the state”. These soldiers tend to act adversely against a perceived enemy by “neutralizing” or “liquidating” him/her. The Commission appeared not to have undertaken any investigation (as far as we can read in the report) of any “civilian superior” of the military, including cabinet officials such as Norberto Gonzales, Raul Gonzalez, Eduardo Ermita, former defense secretary Avelino Cruz and newly appointed defense secretary Hermogenes Ebdane. Having not investigated any of the policy makers, it is quite dishonest for the Commission to conclude that no policy exists. One does not prove the non-existence of something by simply ignoring the relevant facts

Most telling of all was the Commission’s seeming ignorance of the State of the Nation Address of Mrs. Arroyo where she gave immense praise to Palparan for his achievements in the counter-insurgency campaign. At that time, it was a well known fact that Palparan’s “achievements” wherever he went was the body count of activists piling up. Can this not be reasonably construed as tolerance and encouragement by the commander-in-chief? The Commission also took at face value everything that Gen. Esperon said regarding the all-out war policy being a “holistic approach”.

The report did not strive to establish a direct relationship between this “all-out war policy” (the counter-insurgency campaign as a national policy) and the rise of political killings. For example, the report did not take into account the existence of Oplan Bantay Laya nor was there any reference in the report of this already publicly acknowledged counter-insurgency plan of the government. Neither was there a sufficient discussion of the publicly known AFP propaganda material “Knowing the Enemy”. What made us conclude that the report is intended to clear the administration from the beginning were the gratuitous comments of the Commission that “the president, as usual (was) on top of the situation”. Or that the “formation of the Commission shows the seriousness of the President in dealing with the issue.”

These statements betray the bias and limitations of the Commission. It obviously won’t investigate its own “creator”. For all its talk about “command responsibility” and how this applies to senior military officials, the report doesn’t seem to believe the same principle applies to the commander-in-chief. President Arroyo in theory may be held accountable, but this is only implicitly stated. In fact, the report goes to great lengths to show that Arroyo cannot be held accountable under the principle of command responsibility because she allegedly undertook steps to stop the killings.

The “small group within the military theory” loses credibility when one examines the nationwide scope and frequency of the killings. When one maps out the regions where the killings take place, and when one factors in the frequency of the killings, the “small group theory” stretches the imagination. Unless the small group being pertained to by the Commission holds top positions in the AFP leadership, we cannot subscribe to this theory.

Impact of the findings
The Palace hope was that with the report, Arroyo would be able to show the international community that she’s doing something to address the killings. However, the report also exposed the Arroyo administration and the entire military institution to severe criticism here and abroad. This would explain why, despite its weaknesses, Malacañang at first did not want to make public the report. Politically, the Arroyo administration is in a losing situation because whatever pronouncements and promises she makes, the fact remains that the government has not been able to stop the killings.

Even the UN rapporteur was not fully satisfied with the findings of the Melo Commission and was amazed that the President would extend the term of a commission the victims did not trust. The positive impact of the report is that it raised the involvement of the military in the killings and discredited the “NPA purge” theory of the police and military. The negative aspect of the report is that it, without any ground and against all evidence, let Arroyo off the hook, as well as the entire military institution, limiting the blame to a few bad eggs in the AFP. While publicly indicting military officials like Palparan, the same report said that there was not enough evidence for criminal proceedings. And while laying the blame on some rogue soldiers, the report went on to clear Arroyo of any culpability and accountability.

Also among the recommendations of the Melo report is the formation of special courts to try cases of activist killings, and the strengthening of the Commission on Human Rights. Will the Melo report provide long-term solutions and strike at the root causes of the killings? No. Recent events would show that the killings continue. Already two activists have been murdered after the release of the Melo report. Both were killed in Mindanao. So long as the Melo Commission refuses to go deeper into policy issues, there can be no long term solutions.

Investigations into policy pronouncements, programs and other issuances may not necessarily need the full cooperation of victims. It would need the cooperation of the cabinet officials who will be investigated. While the Melo Commission demands political will on the part of government to stop the killings, it remains to be seen if the Commission has the political will to investigate the policy makers including the President as commander-in-chief. From the looks of it, the Arroyo cabinet will remain a bunch of untouchables as far as the Melo probe is concerned. This raises serious doubts on the independence and mandate of the Commission. Bayan for its part reiterates some concrete steps that the government can take in order to stop the trend of extrajudicial killings of activists.

Some of these recommendations are supported even by the limited findings of the Melo report. The recommendations include:
1. Stop the communist-labeling of legal activist groups accused of being “front organizations.” The communist tag on legal activists is by itself a policy pronouncement of the government and clearly preludes violent attacks on said groups.
2. Arroyo should issue a direct and categorical order to the AFP to stop all military operations directed against legal activist organizations.
3. De-militarize areas where there is a high incidence of extrajudicial killings.
4. Relieve military officials in areas where there is a high concentration of extrajudicial killings to pave the way for impartial investigations which can be conducted by but not limited to the Commission on Human Rights.
5. The filing of the appropriate cases versus the military officials implicated by the Melo report in the cases of extrajudicial killings. These can be brought to the special courts assigned by the Supreme Court. In relation to this, police officials who have covered-up cases or bungled investigations should be relieved of their command.

The ball is now with the Arroyo government. Either it decisively stops the killings or face mounting local and international pressure that could lead to its thrashing in the upcoming mid-term polls and further isolation from the people.

Source: http://www.bayan.ph/downloads/march14_The%20Melo%20report.htm