Download PDF of this full issue: v20n1.pdf (10.6 MB)

From Liberation: Touching Base

By Nicole Felipe

The following article is taken from LIBERATION, the magazine of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines.

"Let us sit down and try to settle our differences by talks. And if we cannot, by all means, let us do so by arms."

It was a puzzling statement that Cory Aquino declared before the graduation class of the Philippine Military Academy last February 19. While seeming to indicate government's willingness to negotiate with its adversaries, it also showed an over-eagerness to fall back on the use of arms to resolve its conflicts with other political forces. Put simply, the sincerity of Aquino's openness to renewed talks was suspect. Nonetheless, the statement struck a responsive chord in the National Democratic Front (NDF).

Three days after Aquino's speech, NDF official Satur Ocampo declared the revolutionary organization's willingness to once more explore common grounds for renewed negotiations with the government. That same day, NDF international representative Luis Jalandoni issued a statement from Utrecht, The Netherlands, suggesting the possible mechanisms by which such talks could take place.

A good starting point for talks, said Ocampo, would be the Aquino regime's position of the U.S. bases. "Maybe there can be a breakthrough if President Aquino makes a formal declaration that her government will not extend or renew the RP=U.S. Military Bases Agreement (MBA). That could possibly be a positive starting point.

For the NDF, it was the second time in two months that it declared its willingness to pursue the peace question. In its Christmas message the NDF said: "(We declare our) willingness to again explore with all sincerely interested parties the possibility of a comprehensive settlement of the political, economic, social and military issues underlying the armed conflict."

Earlier, groups such as the coalition for Peace, had also raised the question of peace talks between the government and the NDF.

In an interview with LIB, Ocampo explained why the NDF has chosen the issue of the U.S. bases as a starting point: "During the 1986-87 talks, we tried to reach common ground through the question of land reform. But we have since given up on achieving a consensus on this issue. Subsequent events have shown that the government's Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL falls short of the NDF's idea of what a genuine land reform program should be. We thought that perhaps there are other areas we could explore."

The immediacy of the bases issue made it a logical choice. "This is an urgent matter because the (RP-U.S. Military Bases) Agreement will end in 1991. The regime's stand on this issue could spell the difference between continuing U.S. domination vis a vis national independence. Thus," said Ocampo, "It would somehow change our view of the Aquino government if it would make a categorical statement that it would not seek a continuation of the bases agreement. Such a stand would pave the way for communication and exchange of ideas between the government and the NDF, about how best to work together for the national interests of the Filipino people."

Meanwhile, a number of groups and individuals have already expressed support for the NDF's peace initiative. In response to a proposal from Jalandoni, the PDP-Laban political party said it was willing to act as an observer to any peace talks that might take place. The Catholic Bishops Conference has also designated Bishop Antonio Fortich as the church's liaison person in case iof negotiations. Sen. Wigberto Tanada lauded the NDF's announcement, saying that any effort to bring peace to the country should be welcomed. Sen. Joseph Estrada, an outspoken critic of the U.s. bases, said: "(The) Americans should dismantle the bases to bring peace to the country."

U.S. bases: Instruments of war

As far back as 1969, U.S. Senator William Fulbright had already observed that American interest in its bases in the Philippines would cause the U.S. to "always resist any serious change int eh political and social structure of the Philippine government." To the U.S., a Philippine government that is pliant to American dictation but repressive of nationalist movements is the best guarantee for the bases.

Thus, the growth of a strong mass movement towards the end of the '60's that called for the dismantling of the U.s. supported Marcos regime seriously disturbed Washington. Marcos' subsequent declaration of martial law extended his hold on power, quelled open opposition to the bases, and caused the U.s. government to heave a sigh of relief. It therefore came as no surprise to hear U.S. officials who later came to investigate martial law conditions in the country admit that the "military bases and a familiar government are more important than the preservation of democratic institutions."

Just as the United States propped up the repressive Marcos regime for two decades, it is now actively supporting the Aquino regime's brutal efforts to suppress the progressive and revolutionary movements in the Philippines, which see the U.S. bases as the most concrete manifestation of U.S. neocolonial rule in the country.

Much of the AFP's wherewithal for repression is derived directly from the presence of the U.S. bases. For one, the Military bases Agreement specifies that the Philippine armed forces would be guided and directed by a permanent advisory group of U.S. military officers called the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group of JUSMAG. "It is U.S. military advisers who have taught the AFP how to become more systematic in its use of the most brutal methods of terrorizing the people," said Ocampo. "Hamletting, forced evacuations, mass arrests and raids on barrios are standard counter-insurgency measures derived from the US. experience in its war of intervention in Vietnam. Now, these measures are being applied intensively in the Philippines."

As part of the compensation it pays the government for the bases, the U.S. also supplies the AFP with weapons and other war material. The extent of U.S. anxiety over the growing insurgency can be seen from the new compensation package approved after the 1988 review of the MBA: of the $260 million ear-marked for military and economic support, $200 million are in the form of "military assistance," an amount eight times bigger than the $25 million Marcos received in 1983. On the other hand, the Economic Support fund is down from $95 million in 1983 to $60 million in 1988.

The realignment of components in the bases compensation package can only point to the U.s. negation of the deeper roots of the insurgency. Instead, it is determine to pursue a militarist strategy to defeat the revolutionary forces. In enhancing the AFP's capability to escalate its unjust war against the Filipino people, U.S. imperialism and the U.S. bases stand as the biggest stumbling blocks to peace.

"But the attainment of peace is not just a question of booting out the U.S. bases," said Ocampo. "The bases serve as the main instruments for maintaining U.S. hegemony over the country's military, political, economic and cultural affairs. For example, with the bases here, the U.S. is able to dictate economic policy through the IMF-World Bank. The IMF-World Bank aims to perpetuate a neocolonial economy whose inequities lie at the root of our people's poverty. Poverty is at the heart of massive unrest. Because of this, our people are rising up to fight. Thus, the removal of the bases," he said, "will have far-reaching implications."

"We see the Aquino regime as a tool of U.S. imperialism. Like the Marcos regime and all other past regimes, its political, military, economic and social policies are being dictated upon by the U.S. However," Ocampo stressed, "a clear-cut statement from Mrs. Aquino that the bases would go after 1991 would be a departure from the now established pattern of dictation."

Unfortunately, initial reactions from the government have not been encouraging. Spurning the NDF's offer, Aquino said, "They must surrender first." Former government peace negotiator Teofisto Guingona remarked, "The NDF is in no position to make conditions." House Speaker Ramon Mitra, who also represented the government in the 1986-87 peace talks demanded that Ocampo first present his "credentials" to prove that he was authorized to speak for the NDF. Days later, Aquino modified her position but remained essentially opposed to the holding of talks "because no formal offer has been made" by the NDF.

The answers are a disturbing echo from the past, when the first round of peace talks collapsed after the government insisted that the NDF disregard its own political program and bow to the will of the government.

"If the Aquino government persists in side-stepping the issues we have raised by citing all sorts of technicalities and peripheral questions," said Ocampo, "then there is no immediate need for us to go to the negotiation table. Mean-while," he continued, "the NDF will go on working for the political unity of the broadest numbers of our people. It is only through this that we can be rid of the bases. It is only through this that a just and enduring peace can prevail in our land."

—Nicole Felipe