CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND THE RISE OF TRUMP

Because neo-liberalism failed the people, because the promises of capitalism benefited only the likes of Donald Trump and made the poor even poorer...

The US presidential election was decided less by specific gender, ethnicity, race, and migration issues (or identity politics) than issues that matter to class. The rejection of Hillary Clinton (but not necessarily the victory of Trump) is a strong indictment of corporate capitalism personified by Wall Street. Wall Street is seen to be the Democrats' principal veering away from its historical role as the defender of the oppressed.

Similarly, in the Philippines...

We should be looking at the trigger of mass anger and address it instead of self-righteously shouting from lofty bourgeois windows about how we are now held hostage by the choices the idiots and uneducated made that now affect us. Education may come from books and universities but theirs came from experience. Electoral choices may be dictated by desire for comforts and privileges derived from a system that deprives the masses of the ability to survive decently. Theirs are dictated by the deprivation they suffer from a system that showers comfort on the few while sweeping them aside like dead leaves to the periphery.

(Un)fortunately, "We are the many; (you )are the few," goes a song inspired by the Occupy Movement.

If democracy is the rule of the majority, then we have to respect their choices. We keep saying that democracy is the best form of government. Well, in the US, democracy decided that Trump should be President. Those who insist that democracy is the only form of government acceptable in a civilized world must honor the choice of the majority.

But maybe, we need to give democracy a second look.

It seems when capitalism logically advances to its worst anti-poor shape, it negates democracy. Government ceases to be for the people, of the people, by the people. It is for the few, of the few, by the few. The masses can no longer exercise freedom of choice and do not enjoy freedom from want.

So, auspiciously, a dictator must rise to undo the imbalance but not in the fashion of Marcos who became a tyrant to enrich himself and his cronies. This dictator will reverse the wheel to the end that government must make the greater good for the greater number its goal.

Our own Jose Laurel said that the best form of government is an authoritarian regime with an angel on the throne. That angel is biased for the poor and the weak.

Now I am looking for that angel. S/he might be able to show to us that a dictatorship for the poor and marginalized is the true democracy. Why? Access to goods and services gets opened and sustained for the majority who make up the traditionally ignored or forgotten poor.

WHO MADE MARCOS A HERO?

Now, they blame the 16M who voted for Duterte. They say to us: Putang ina ninyo!

Who made Marcos a hero?

You did, by worshipping at the altar of his anti-poor, pro-oligarch economic policies perpetuated by Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Joseph Estrada, Gloria Arroyo, and Noynoy Aquino. You did not protest when Ramos was privatizing public utilities even if you knew this would make life harsher for the poor. You did not protest when Congress authorized foreign plunder of our natural resources. You did not protest when Ramos allowed the oil industry to operate without a leash around its neck controlled by the State.

You did, by keeping quiet when the winter of human rights during Martial Law returned during Arroyo's Reign of Terror. You were apathetic to the thud of falling bodies of more than a thousand activists. You did not even say a word when lawyers and judges were getting killed. You did not say a whimper of protest when people were disappearing just for telling the truth.

You did, by keeping quiet about EJKs during Aquino's time. Indigenous leaders were being killed, disappeared, or tortured for defending their ancestral lands. Environmental defenders were suffering the same fate. Their domains were being militarized and they were being brutalized. You did not mind it when Arroyo and Aquino allowed mining corporations to use the government-paid military to become mining corporations' private security forces to harass indigenous communities. You would not even post a status on Facebook to express solidarity. You posted pictures of your food and travels. You could afford those. Some of you made money to help the corporations abuse indigenous communities and the environment some more. You made money to help companies abuse the rights of workers.

You did, by not speaking out against cronyism after Martial Law. You did not question Kamag-anak, Incorporated, and Kabaralin, Kaklase, at Kaibigan.

You did, by not speaking out against Palparan and his ilk. You did not speak out against the very conditions which made Martial Law a dark period when they resurfaced after the Marcos tyranny.

You did, by condemning the national democratic activists who would take to the streets on a regular basis to expose and reject what is Marcosian in society. You called them public nuisance. You called Renato Jr. Reyes a pest more than once.

You helped make Marcos a hero. Shame on you for doing a Pontius Pilate.

And yes, you made Duterte President. Your endorsement of Marcosian practices made Duterte stand out as the only hope for the poor.

Remove that mote in your eye before you remove the mote in other people's eyes.

This is the time to examine national conscience, not to wash the guilt off your hands.

A LETTER ON DUTERTE FROM A FRIEND IN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND MY RESPONSE

Now, I can reveal this.

Last 24 March 2016, a month after I wrote my Why Rody Duterte article which would eventually become viral, I received an email from a friend expressing his disconcert over my support for Rody Digong Duterte.

My friend is an Amnesty International leader based in the USA who, along with some others I count as friends, has been working indefatigably on human rights issues in the Philippines for decades dating as far back as the Martial Law Years. These people put up the Ecumenical Advocacy Network on the Philippines (EANP). Among the members are Prof. Tim McGloin and his wife, Linda, Prof. Paul Bloom of Amnesty International and his wife Meg Layese who is also President of the Philippine Study Group of Minnesota, Gary King who is Group 37 Leader of Amnesty International, Brian Campbell, and John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. I know how sincere and dedicated EANP is in watching actions of the US government that have an impact on human rights in the Philippines.

In 2013, I joined them in lobbying the US Congress to reduce if not eliminate its aid to the Armed Forces of the Philippines because of human rights violations the AFP committed -by itself or through paramilitaries- especially against indigenous and environmental activists. They asked me to articulate indigenous issues to offices of Representatives and Senators of the US Congress which I did. The efforts of EANP paid off. This was the same group that asked the Lantos Commission to look into the human rights record of the Arroyo administration with the same call to review the military aid. Hearings were conducted by the Commission. Since 2012, the group has been lobbying that the Commission would convene again to look into the human rights record of the Philippines and to give a critical look into its military aids to the government. They also sent Pres. Aquino a signed petition published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer to stop the X-strata Mining in Tampakan. On my request, they sent a letter to the Korean government to stop the Korean Exim Bank from lending P9B for the Jalaur Megadam Project which would displace the indigenous Jalaudnon-Bukidnon. Because of this and efforts of the mass movement of which Jey Aye Alenciaga, John Warner Carag, and Malaya Pinas are part, a fact-finding mission was launched to look into the concerns of the affected indigenous community. They also worked to stop the possibility of Pres. Aquino being given the Nobel.

I am so proud to have been working with EANP and hope to continue doing so in the future.

Anyway, my friend must have been very disappointed in me when he learned I was supporting the Mayor of Davao City. This was his email:

Chyt, I thank you for the plan about a counter-petition to prevent ‘injustice’ in the case of Palparan. He clearly has been a monster, and has motivated many persons in the military, paramilitary and government to torture, murder, (and) (d)isappear people.

I have sent it to my usual 250 friends who do Amnesty International work on the Philippines. Numerous ones have told me they signed the petition you sent.

I have heard you support Duterte. We know about 800 persons murdered by the Davao Death Squads. And he made horrid statements in the past endorsing and promoting it. Conceivably, this rate of murder is comparable to the sins of Palparan himself. And then they started in Cebu City, another 200 murdered.

Has Duterte said anything of repentance, and a desire to deliver law and order without EJE? If there is no change of his heart, I fear he will allow paramilitary groups to thrive, and death squads will proliferate.

Why can we expect these things to diminish under Duterte?

Warm Regards,

xxx”

As soon as I read the mail, I replied:

Hi, Xxxx,

How are you?

We really do find ourselves in a difficult position. I do support Duterte and I am not the only one from the left... I must be breaking your hearts but do hear me out.

We are aware of Duterte's HR record. We will always condemn him for that and will continue trying to make him account. But we are also aware- and have personal knowledge-- that he has a track record of supporting sectors we represent. I do know that he has been supporting the Lumads and has always been one with them in rejecting corporate plunder of indigenous resources. There are almost a thousand evacuees in the UCCP Haran Compound right now. They were internally displaced by the AFP and paramilitaries acting for extractive corporations, some of which are supporting Roxas. Duterte and his family are very protective of the Lumads. Sr. Stella Matutina, the Redemptorist nun given a German recognition for her HR work last year, told me that Duterte's family are giving logistical support to the evacuees and have been rallying local business to contribute to their daily needs. This was confirmed by Cong. Karlos Ysagani Zarate of Bayan Muna and other Mindanao fellow HR workers. What is more, he has consistently opposed US military presence in Mindanao and rejected drone testing. And only he has a clear stand on the coco levy funds--give them to the farmers.

The other candidates do not have the same positions; neither a heart for IPs and basic sectors whose issues we passionately stand for and feel strongly about. Roxas is too oligarchic and too pro-mining. Binay is too corrupt which Duterte is not known to be. Poe is supported by Danding Cojuangco. She already announced she would make Col Ariel Querubin, a San Miguel officer, a cabinet official. She said she would open the Philippine economy to foreign ownership. She promised to appoint PNoy as anti-corruption czar. Claims that she is PNoy's other anointed is not hard for me to believe.

Duterte did kill hundreds. This is not right. But at least- and this is not to defend him-- he did not kill activists from the left unlike Palparan. His death squads do not touch the progressive groups. He seems to limit his bloodlust to his perceived criminals. We fear Duterte's death squad but what about PNoy's and the mining sector's paramilitaries? I believe Roxas will not deviate from PNoy's policy on paramilitaries. Shall I support Binay just because he has no paramilitaries? Shall I support Poe for the same reasons?

Moreover, since the 1990s, Duterte has been working with labor organizations (though I do note what he said about KMU). He is actually credited for many Davao initiatives on women, LGBT, children, and other vulnerable sectors. And it is a fact that he donated an inherited property to the government for the construction of a children's hospice. I know people who attest to his simplicity. Yes, he is a man of contradictions: a man with an iron fist but he is also a man with a soft heart.

For me, personally, choosing to support Duterte was not an easy one to make. I cannot vote for the three others. I have hopes that Duterte will make life less harsh for the Lumads and ease the country from corporate stranglehold. I could be wrong. But I have hopes that this man, despite his flawed character, is not as bad a choice as the others.

“I hope you understand my decision.

Find here my statement issued last February explaining why I decided to go for Duterte. I entertained the idea beginning 2013 when it looked like only he was speaking for the Lumads, and while my mind was then made up, I was ready to be flexible should a better or less bad candidate run. The alternatives then were Roxas and Binay. None of the above. Poe? No , because I have not heard her say anything about IPs. In my statement below, I spared Poe from diatribes out of respect for others in the progressive left who support her.

Best regards,

Chyt

Well, Duterte won by a landslide. I still have to hear from my friend. I know he will never stop fighting to protect human rights in the Philippines and other parts of the world. I know EANP will never rest.

Here I am, very elated that my candidate won. Those days of speaking in caucuses and rallies and other meetings to promote Duterte’s candidacy have contributed even if little to Duterte’s victory. For that, I, as the millions of others who fought for his candidacy despite all odds, claim the right to be part of his conscience, to speak out when he deviates from respect for human rights, and to stand by him when he eases the burden of the impoverished, toiling masses.

I have high hopes in the incoming presidency. I, however, do not believe that elections will fundamentally change things. The mass movement, the different sectors, and the new President must work together to dismantle the oppressive structures.

I hope my friend will eventually tell me, “Chyt, you made the right choice.”

WHY RODY DUTERTE?

...This man, despite his dirty mouth, draws voters and indigenous activists like me. Along with his new "loveteam partner" Miriam Santiago, he is the first among the presidential candidates to notice and denounce the latest atrocity committed against the Lumad: the burning of their evacuation center. He has always championed the rights of the Lumad and has always matched rhetoric with action.

He is a self-confessed killer of people he self-righteously and arbitrarily judged as rapists, murderers, kidnappers, or drug lords, but he has not killed a single activist in the struggle to dismantle structural/national oppression or a single indigenous person protecting ancestral domains. In fact, he has been providing shelter to internally displaced IPs. The other candidates consider IPs invisible - we haven't heard them say anything about the issue even if it is burning right before their very eyes. Two candidates are said to be using the private planes of people connected to abusive mining in IP territory. Any candidate who supports corporate mining on indigenous land is automatically off my list.

So do not judge me, a human rights lawyer and activist before anything else, for gravitating towards this foul-mouthed, dirty old man named Rody Duterte even if my husband, Leandro B. Yañgot, is committed to campaigning for Mar Roxas. With the exception of Grace Poe and Santiago, your candidates have meaner, harsher, and dirtier human rights records. Human rights violations are not just about killing without due process. They are also about neglecting to do your job well or looking at your job as a way to upgrade your burning presidential ambition, resulting in the death of thousands of people in a storm. They are about keeping quiet as a Cabinet official, even if you could have spoken out while DSWD was hoarding and later burying food worth millions of pesos meant for disaster victims. They are about stealing from government coffers millions or billions of pesos that could have gone to alleviating the economic tribulation of the poor. Poverty, hunger, and lack of security in times of disaster are human rights violations, too, as serious as death. At least, death ends suffering but how about those who remain alive? 

Friends, if your main criterion in choosing a candidate is his/her position on who should or should not get buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, that to me is not enough. Besides, the other candidates may be anti-Marcos and spewing anti-Marcos rhetroic but where were they and their families during the anti-Marcos days? When they got to the helm of power, what did they do to reverse the after-effects of the Marcos presidency? One pandered quite solicitously to foreign interests, and indefatigably worked for the same Marcosian solutions to economic ills - the solutions friendly to hacienderos, abusive domestic and foreign corporations, the elite. One claims to be indigenous but what has he done for indigenous peoples? He ruled a city that benefits immensely from the oppression by corporations of indigenous communities. The big corporations wantonly plunder ancestral domains and pay taxes as residents of his city. His city gets a large share from the Internal Revenue Allotment. His city is rich because of indigenous sacrifices and unabated suffering, among others. The resource-rich LGUs where the IPs are remain to be this country's poorest and they deal with the environmental degradation wrought by corporate pillage. Very Marcosian situation. You are anti-Marcos? How can you support these candidates who continue the same anti-people policies of Marcos?

I am indigenous and I look at the world with indigenous eyes. I am engaged in development work and work with communities. I hold office in my shoes and where they take me, and not in some posh four-cornered room. I look at the world from that vantage. For that matter, I look at the elections with the same eyes. I will vote for a candidate who has been kind to the most oppressed people in this country, who are fighting to protect the country's last living lung (even if he is condescending at times. I have not forgotten that he said, "Let an Ifugao or Badjao run, but please... not an American." I wish I could force him to gargle with the strongest laundry soap.).

And he is not "epal". In fact, he seems to be destroying his own campaign. He exaggerates his flaws and does not talk about the Samaritan acts he did for people in distress. But actions speak louder than words.

So, please stop asking why I, a human rights lawyer, am supporting Duterte who supports a Marcos burial in Libingan  ng mga Bayani and I will stop asking why you are supporting one I perceive to be anti-people. :-) With the exception of Grace Poe and Miriam Santiago, the candidates are all killers, all human rights violators, all evil.

I chose the least evil.

MARGIN OF APPRECIATION UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

by: CHERYL L. DAYTEC

        Litigation is fallible. As the satirist Ambrose Bierce defined it, it is “a machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.” Yet, in dealing with difficult issues involving human rights  calling for political judgment, it is still the best adversarial process there is, short of a revolution or political upheaval. None superior or less inferior to it has been contrived yet.

The adoption by the Strasbourg organs of the doctrine of  margin of appreciation  is not so much  an acknowledgment that “litigation is not the best procedure for dealing with matters of political judgment”[1] as it is a recognition of the fact that it is vulnerable  to flaws. Supranational bodies concerned with international human rights adjudication are confronted with similar  issues  with similar if not identical factual backdrops involving various  states.  Yet, this does not mean that they will  resolve all  cases by the same token. It may happen that  the political, socio-economic or cultural substructures of  similar issues raised against states are  each peculiar on its own.  To treat these unequally circumstanced states equally  is to discriminate.

Having said this, I agree  that “decisions about human rights are not a technical exercise in interpreting texts, but judgments about political morality.”[2] As a general rule, in exercising judicial review, it is not the province of courts to inquire into the wisdom of acts of sovereignty, otherwise they end up supplanting it.  But to observe metes and bounds set by the   political question doctrine  which is a bar to interpretation in domestic settings  is to give states an argument with which to legitimize human rights abuses. The obvious compromise is the application of the  margin of appreciation doctrine under which  supranational courts will scrutinize the necessity of the use of  a coercive measure or the derogation from obligations  or limitation of fundamental rights by states on the basis of the political morality thereof.

If decisions were about legal hermeneutics, supranational bodies can just pull the wool over their  eyes and invoke the doctrine of stare decisis.  In principle,  this doctrine is not controlling but in practical terms, there is nothing that stops them from citing precedents. Considering the volume of decided cases,  texts of human rights conventions have  been  construed in every possible way. Interpretations that may appear conflicting  lend credence to the fact that human rights conventions are living instruments.  Their interpretations insofar as   balancing  polarities created by  divergent interests in  a political community is evolving   with  the socio-political milieu. They are much  larger   than their  texts. Beyond cavil then, international human rights adjudication is not about expertise in text interpretation  because expertise cannot  be achieved when the meaning of a text is  ambulant, i.e.,  it is never final. What may be mastered is the science or art of judging the political morality of acts of states involving the use of coercive power.

In deferring to a state’s political judgment on a matter involving sensitive cultural, religious or national issues, a supra-national human rights court must not compromise universal values of morality. This is the lowest level it should go to. Otherwise, it becomes  a toothless body, shaved of its relevance in humanity’s unending struggle  to protect inalienable rights.  As  foundationalists argue,   “political morality is derived from  universal, immutable first principles that can be apprehended by rational reflection,”[3] which is not a faint echo of Yash Ghai’s assertion that human nature is universal, knowable by reason.[4]

For example, a state with a debt-ridden economy needs to generate revenues. After resorting to taxation, the national treasury remains cash-strapped. It has “white elephant” assets, the maintenance of which is further eating a sizable chunk of the national budget. To pave the way for mining as  source of revenue, it  expropriates the remaining  ancestral domains of indigenous peoples over the latter’s objection. The said domains are their source of livelihood, culture base and sacred grounds. Most of indigenous territories have been taken over  by the state in the past for development projects in the name of national interest.   The expected revenues from mining will pay part of the state’s debt and provide the much needed funds for  the state’s operation.  The state offers compensation beyond the properties’  fair market value to the affected peoples.  Is the act of expropriating the indigenous territories  politically moral?

 If I were the supranational court, I would rule that the state’s action is indefensible. Under Art. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in no case may a people be deprived of their means of subsistence,  an immutable principle. The taking of ancestral lands deprives the indigenous peoples of their means of subsistence. The act is tantamount to  cultural genocide  as indigenous peoples are attached to their land, divorced from which they become culturally extinct. Balanced against the  national interest sought to be served, which may be addressed through the sale of idle assets, the  taking of these peoples’ ancestral domains has far more onerous consequences and is politically immoral, infringing on the non-derogable right to life.   

---

[1] A.H. Robertson and J.G. Merrils. Human Rights in Europe. Manchester-New York, Manchester University Press, 1966, p. 190

[2] Ibid., p. 204

[3] Amstutz, Mark. International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics. Lanham: Rowland and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; p. 12

[4] Yash Gai. “Universalism and Relativism: Human Rights as a Framework for Negotiating Interethnic Claims” in  21 Cardozo Law Review (1999-2000),  p.1096.

THE REAL PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVE

by CHERYL L. DAYTEC

Bae Bibiyaon Ligkayan Bigkay, the only female tribal chieftain in Mindanao, proved her mettle by dressing down North Cotabato Congresswoman Nancy Catamco for the latter's act of further exposing the indigenous  Manobos to militarization and human rights violations. The Manobos fled their village and sought refuge in Davao City because of military and paramilitary Alamara's presence. They were subjected to daily harassment and had to parry accusations of being members of the revolutionary group New People's Army.

For media mileage and political points, this cerebrally-unendowed pathetic excuse for a Congresswoman named Nancy Catamco brought the police to Davao City to aid her in forcing the Manobos to return to their village. The trespass into the sanctuary provided by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) was definitely brutal. Scores were hurt.

Using Orwellian parlance, Catamco  announced that she was rescuing the more or less 700 Manobos  from their place of refuge (Figure out that one yourself.)  She acted with condescension while professing to be indigenous herself. When the people- whose culture looks up to sincerity more than power- expressed incredulity when she gave a litany of promises, she   raised her voice at them  and called them stinky. And this is the shocker: She chairs the House of Representatives committee on indigenous peoples.

Undaunted by the indigenous people's rejection of her "assistance," Rep. Catamco  returned to them and tried to give the same old, poisonous wine in the same old poisonous, bottle. She engaged in a virtual  monologue which was essentially double talk.

Then  an old woman spoke. She had no script. She had sheer courage and the issues of her people. Her rhetoric was shorn of euphemisms and subservient tone. She was defiant. For five minutes, she gave a loud  voice to sufferings  that demand to be heard. Each time Rep. Catamco tried to interrupt, she would say, "Shut up! Listen!" That is what representatives should do more than talk: Listen to their principals, the people they claim to represent in the august body called Congress.

All of us who articulate indigenous concerns cannot measure up to the courage and eloquence of  Bae Bibiyaon Likgayan Bigkay. Step aside and forget your ambitions to go to Congress to represent IPs. She's The One!

Let us demystify that body called House of Representatives. To it, let us elect people who walk the streets, not people who walk on clouds. Let us send issues, not ambition. Let us send solutions, not problems. Let us send true-to-life stories, not fairy tales. Let us send hearts, not money. Let us send selflessness, not greed. Let us send human beings, not gods and goddesses.

Let us send this woman.

POWERPLAY

by: Mike Joseph Barcena, Don Aldrin Chantioco, Maychelle Ablog, Charlotte Cariño, Novy Marie Cruz, Irish Mae Fang, Mary Grace Ngo and Aira Pacheco and Rhomellie Tang

Since time immemorial, China has been considered as the foremost leader in trade and commerce. The role of the Chinese in the Philippines transcended hundreds of years before the Americans alighted their presence in our country. From then to now, almost everything we wear from clothes, shoes, belts, to the supplies we use around us such as toys and kitchen utensils are from or made in China. This could substantiate the foundation of the close relations between China and the Philippines.

The Philippines maintains its ties with China through investments, trade through import and export, contracts such as road constructions and its most popular example of the most controversial NBN-ZTE deal wherein the Philippine government is forced to choose between the Filipino’s plight to disregard the contract or to allow it to remain to foster still our relationship with China.

On the other hand, the Philippines and the United States have also maintained close ties with each other. Considering the Philippines’ history under the Americans, this is not at all surprising. Trade relations, the scrapped balikatan exercises and the new born visiting forces agreement, to investments and diplomatic envoys between the two countries, it is not difficult to conclude that Philippines and US truly have close relations.

Although this existing relationship is friendly, independence is an indispensable hidden and at the same time very evident factor that is present and revolves with every transaction.

In a peripheral perspective, we must consider a deeper analysis of the RP-US relations and put into context that the US would like to maintain world hierarchy in which it is the world superpower and has dominant control over a number of resources from 3^rd world countries.

However, with the passage of time, economies outside that of the US have started to emerge as its worthy competitors. We have Europe,, Japan, North Korea, and even India as the worlds biggest democracy raising its economy and establishing a respectable political standing in global politics. But among these, China is the most outstanding. Bill Clinton was correct all along when once he announced that, “The 21^st century belongs to Asia.”

Now, given the US and China as “competing” states for world’s superpower, the Philippines, who happens to maintain close diplomatic ties with both countries, is caught in the crossfire. We now, ask ourselves, will the close ties between China and the Philippines, affect the Philippines’ relations with the US.

With the premises stated earlier, we can safely conclude that there will be changes in the relationship between RP and the US. To put it bluntly, this change is quite inevitable given the situation.

RP-China relations could not have been given great importance or notice by the US if not for the fact that China is starting to challenge America’s power. And since the Philippines is caught in between China and US, triangulation of power takes place. The US may use Philippines to “pull down” China and China may do vice versa.

The US however, can definitely not let go of the Philippines as an ally, no matter how many threats of doing so are thrashed to the government. Basically, the Philippines is its gateway to Asia, considering its strategical location and considering that it is the only Asian nation with a president as a “puppet” for US rules and commands. This undoubtedly would be the situation considering the image of America up to its previous president George Bush. However, with the emergence of a new leadership under Barack Obama, we begin to be uncertain of what kind of relationship we would be expecting between US and the Philippines.

There are many factors that affect RP-US relations and the Philippines’ relationship with China is only one of them. With Obama as a new president, and with his evidently opposite way of handling America’s economy and international relations, we may see a more positive change in this new leadership and we may assume that it will not give any negative sight on the improving relations between China and the Philippines.

(The authors are Political Science students of St. Louis University. This essay was prepared for the subject Foreign Relations.)

"ONE TIN SOLDIER" and THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

on the bulk of the earth’s last frontiers- the remaining genetic diversity, minerals, forests, among others.

One Tin Solder

Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago
'Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley folk below
On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath a stone
And the valley people swore
They'd have it for their very own

Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of Heaven
You can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day
On the bloody morning after who...
One tin soldier rides away

So, the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill
Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers, we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there"

Now, the valley cried with anger,
"Mount your horses, draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain people
So, they won their just reward
Now, they stood beside the treasure
On the mountain dark and red
Turn the stone and looks beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said

Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of Heaven
You can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day
On the bloody morning after who...
One tin soldier rides away

Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of Heaven
You can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgment day
On the bloody morning after
One tin soldier rides away.
.

JESUS CHRIST AND CHRISTMAS COMMERCIALISM

by: CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YANGOT

“Jesus is the reason for the Christmas season,” says a message circulating in cyberspace.

December 25 is the presumed birthday of Jesus Christ. This is debatable because when he was born, shepherds were out watching their flocks at night. In those days, flock-watching in the fields was possible from spring to autumn. During winter, the sheep were sheltered in the shepherds’ homes. Israel’s temperature can drop to really low levels in winter. It must have been lower in the old days when global warming was unimaginable. The biting cold posed an insurmountable obstacle to shepherds attending to their flocks at night.

Moreover, when Jesus’ birth was drawing nigh, Augustus Caesar ordered a census in the Roman Empire and everyone was mandated to be counted. In Jesus’ place and time, you did not wait for census officers to knock on your door. You had to register in the town of your lineage. Which was why the young couple, Joseph and the very pregnant Mary, hit the road to Bethlehem, the town of King David who was Joseph’s ancestor. An important undertaking like a census could not have been scheduled in winter when the weather was harsh for travel.

Historians say that December 25 was deliberately chosen as it was also the day Pagans honored the sun god Mithras. The celebrations were synchronized to accelerate the acquiescence by pagans to Christianity when it was declared as the Roman Empire’s official religion. In other words, choosing December 25 was a calculated political move.

That aside, it remains that Christmas has always been traditionally about Jesus Christ. And yet, it is not about him at all. The crass commercialism characterizing the season goes against everything he advocated.

Jesus is one of the leading figures in human history. Christians believe that he came as God. There are not a few skeptics who doubt this. But no one can deny that he came as a man. In a world of misery and greed such as the one we have today, it is worth looking into his life, at least as a man. He had more than a mouthful to say against greed and oppression.

He lived a life of purpose. “I came,” he said, “that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly.” By they, he was referring to the poor and the oppressed. To propagate his ideology, he chose members of the working class as assistants. He and his disciples walked the streets and went to all corners their sandaled feet could take them to preach about loving one’s neighbors as loving oneself and doing unto others what one wanted done unto oneself. He exhorted everyone to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the sick, share resources. He put the welfare of others above his personal comfort. The issues of the poor and the powerless found a champion in him.

A recurring theme in his speeches was socialism or something akin to it. He said that one cannot serve both God and wealth. Once, he delivered a sermon and, at midday, commanded that the loaves and fishes in a boy’s lunch basket be shared by everyone. At another time, a rich man asked him what he needed to do to have eternal life. Jesus recited the Ten Commandments. The young man said, “I have done all of that. What do I need to do further?” Jesus told him, “Sell your possessions, give to the poor.” The man of immense wealth left with a heavy heart for he could not do as Jesus asked. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven,” Jesus remarked sadly.

The booty capitalists of our days are worse than the rich man Jesus encountered. Not only do they refuse to share their wealth (unless sharing means tax deductions for them), they also exploit the working class’ labor to expand their capital. They have resorted to all schemes imaginable to steal the actual pecuniary cost of the proletariat’s sweat. Mining companies are raking in billions of pesos from the muckers’ labor. Everyday, the workers risk their lives as they descend into the bowels of the earth to look for gold. And the mining companies boast, “We pay the miners more than the minimum wage.” Hah! The minimum wage is not necessarily decent wage. What is legal is not necessarily moral. I bet my life that the Philippine minimum wage law would not impress Jesus especially as it was crafted by an institution protective of booty capitalism’s interest.

Jesus disdained profiteers. When he went to a temple, there were so many merchants - money changers and people selling doves. In those days, doves were sacrificed in the temple by the poor who could not afford sheep and goats. Enraged, Jesus turned the tables upside down, cracked a whip he made and drove out the merchants while denouncing them for converting the temple into a den of thieves. The merchants must have been reaping more profit than what reason permitted. Why else did the reasonable Jesus call them thieves?

The profiteering in those days is nothing compared to today’s. For instance, the oil companies keep raising prices to intolerable levels using the fluctuation in the world market as excuse. Then they reduce the price but do not go back to the previous level. And consumers feel grateful for the reduction, not realizing they had been had.

The Philippine landlords just sit around waiting for profit from the peasants’ harvests. The latter have become prisoners of the earth owned by the former. In spite of its deficiencies, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) could have helped break, by a little stretch, the chains of the peasants’ bondage were it not for lackadaisical if not insincere implementation. Worse, it was to end this month. Farmers, with bishops and priests, went on hunger strike to pressure Congress to extend the CARP and reform the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. But the “Honorables” were bent on ignoring the call, giving a token extension of only six months. Many of them are landowners themselves who are too greedy to even consider parting with a square meter of their hundreds of hectares of land. They are more interested in concocting ways to extend the Arroyo Regime which fiercely protects their interests. This regime does not serve the masses made up of workers and peasants. It serves the profiteering oligarchy and their wealth.

Christmas is no longer an occasion to celebrate the life of a man who turned the tables of profiteers upside down. It is the Feast of Capitalism as we are pressured to do a lot of spending, even beyond our means. The real winners of the season are the booty capitalists who, through multimillion advertisements make us feel guilty when we do not hit their malls to shop until we drop. Christmas insults Jesus’ teachings.

Che Guevara, a man born to privilege, chose to spend his life promoting socialism and dismantling structures of capitalism. The profiteers hated him. After his death, they raked in enormous revenues selling his image.

Like Che Guevara, Jesus Christ, the man who disdained flagrant commercialism, is its biggest victim on his birthday.

CLEAR THE TABLE FIRST!

by: CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YANGOT

At this time, we need charter change like we need a hole in the head.

Whether the change is to be proposed by a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly, the result is the same: it will provide an opening for Gloria Arroyo to mess with the Constitution and consign the Filipinos to more years in the economic and political desert called the Arroyo Regime.

On the occasion of the Ten Outstanding Students of the Philippines Alumni Association reunion last week, I had the privilege to chat with RFM Food Corporation President Jose "Joe Con" S. Concepcion, Jr. He said that if it is unavoidable to change the constitution, he prefers a Constitutional Convention to Congress acting as a constituent assembly. According to him, proposed constitutional amendments will be reflective of the people's will when coming from a constitutional convention because the members are elected by the people.

But so are the members of Congress. Theoretically, they are representatives of the people. Perhaps, JoeCon did not tell me that he believes, as I do, that Congress, particularly the House of Representatives has long ceased to articulate the people's issues. It chose to be Arroyo's sycophant, her weapon against the Filipino forces out to dislodge her, her asylum from political doom. It is nauseating how its members can cavalierly throw out an impeachment complaint like it were some piece of trash. In 2005, some of the Representatives even had the gall to say they were voting against impeachment for the sake of their children and grandchildren.

Even a Constitutional Convention may turn out to be Arroyo's lapdog. What guarantee is there that elections for Concon members will float up the people's will? In this country, elections are sham proceedings. Were they free, clean and honest, Arroyo would not be calling the shots in Malacanang. With the desperation with which she wants charter change, she can field candidates as she fielded party lists of her political mold. Then she can just make a call to COMELEC Commissioners. And many of the COMELEC commissioners are not exactly above question. But again, that is precisely why they were appointed. The Arroyo Regime can survive when the moral fiber of the institutions in this country are weakened. And it has so far flourished because the courts, the House of Representatives, the COMELEC among others have been morally debilitated by electoral fraud and political appointments.

Charter change is neither about solving the Mindanao crisis, nor about boosting the economy as House Speaker Prospero Nograles claims. Didn't his boss boast not more than once that the Philippine economy has never been better? Stripped naked, the "cha- cha" moves are about Arroyo's obsession to cleave to power. And she has reasons to extend her term, not the least her desperation for impunity. Her crimes against the Filipino people are myriad and power is her only shield from prosecution. She believes that while President, she is immune from suits even if the Constitution, unlike the previous ones, has no provision to this effect. There is a Supreme Court all too willing to sustain this illusion of hers. The surest buffer from old age in prison is a lifelong claim to the presidency. That requires charter change, unless she declares martial law as some fear.

I have another reason to believe that "cha-cha" is about impunity. The Philippines already signed the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court. All that is left to make the Philippines a party to the treaty is for Arroyo to indorse it to the Senate for ratification. Deliberately, she is sitting on it. Why? She is succumbing to US pressure, some quarters suspect. George Bush, to dodge liability for the terror acts he committed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, unsigned the treaty. But I suspect that the US pressure is not nearly as important as Arroyo's selfish reasons. Under the treaty, she may be held liable for the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances committed under her watch, even while she is sitting President. Before the ICC, the Arroyo Supreme Court cannot come to her rescue to cloister her from criminal suits. She cannot invoke immunity. The thick shield of impunity with which her government is committing human rights violations will be smashed once the Philippines becomes a party to the Rome Statute.

Desperately, Arroyo has contrived every situation possible to justify charter change. The worst is the failed memorandum of agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. She dangled some promises that not only she could not keep but also she would not keep. The MILF, driven to extreme anger, ran amok and massacred people.

The mass slaughter fitted well into Arroyo's plans. At last, an excuse for charter change was delivered to her in a silver platter, never mind if it was drenched in the blood of the innocent. And she said, "The problem in Mindanao justifies the need to shift to federalism."

You do not just shift to federalism at the snap of Arroyo's finger. The country's fundamental law which provides for a unitary government has to be amended. When Arroyo preached on the merits of federalism as the solution to the Mindanao question, she was campaigning for charter change. She wants it so much, and when she wants it so much, it must be bad for the nation.

I heard the arguments for charter change and I must admit that some are worth pondering. But before we talk about charter change, let us first clear the discussion table.

While the clutter called Gloria Arroyo is all over the table, the discourse cannot begin.

(This article also appears in the Northern Dispatch Weekly.)