Ask $3 billion a year for ‘light footprint’

March 20, 2012 

BY REY O. ARCILLA
MALAYA

‘Giving up once again sovereignty over parts of our national territory seems almost certain.’

THE United States’ expressed wish “to maintain a light footprint,” a euphemism for maintaining “small” military and naval bases in the Philippines, is beginning to look inevitable.

In an obvious attempt to cushion or soften its impact on the national psyche, there has been a spate of pronouncements coming from both the governments of the PH and the US.

For instance, Foreign Secretary Albert “Amboy” del Rosario said we received $123 million in US defense aid last year (to be increased by $21 million this year, according to him).

On the other hand, the US said we were provided $193 million in grant funds last year.

The two figures combined ($316 million) is a pittance compared to what other allies of the US reportedly get – not less than $3 billion a year (that’s $3,000 million) each for Egypt and Israel and $1.5 billion ($1,500 million) a year for five years for Pakistan! And as far as is known, they don’t even host US military bases or troops!

Are we any less important and strategic to the Americans than these countries? Certainly not, especially with the emergence of China as the predominant power in our region where more than one-third of world commerce passes through its sea lanes! With a combined population of 600 million, the countries in the region are also a large market for American and Western goods.

This is in addition to the strategic importance of the Philippines in the ongoing fight against terrorism. US troops can never hope to set foot on Indonesian and Malaysian soil. And that is why the US has had her sights on Mindanao for years now. Remember the aborted Bangsamoro Juridical Entity which the US tried to sneak in on us with the connivance of Gloria Arroyo and her cabal? Now, the US is reportedly eyeing Palawan as the place for her “light footprint.”

***

The irony of it all is the fact that while Japan has decided to kick them out, we are inviting them in. Australia and Singapore too, reportedly.

But forget about the Australians. For reasons only they know, they consider themselves part of North America or Europe and are therefore, natural allies of the West. Australia, in fact, belongs to the Western European and Others (WEO) group in the United Nations. She is one of the “Others”, together with the US, Canada and New Zealand.

Singapore? She doesn’t even have enough space to allow her people to have single occupancy houses.

The point is, the Americans are expanding their presence in these parts simply to promote and protect their own national interests. They are not doing it for love of us. They are doing it for themselves. We should never lose sight of that inconvenient truth.

So, what to do? Given the seeming inevitability of “going to bed” with the Americans once again, unless President Noynoy Aquino “sees the light” and defies his cabal of pro-American advisers led by his “Amboy” foreign secretary and the Makati Business Club, I guess the best thing to do under the circumstances would be to make the best out of a bad situation – cut the best deal we can.

Seeing as how badly they want and need to establish a greater presence in the region, it is up to our leaders to gauge for themselves (and for the Filipino people) the price the Americans should pay for giving up once more our sovereignty over parts of our national territory and the concomitant assault on our social and cultural interests.

I submit it should be no less than $3 billion a year. We should also do it on a “take it or leave it” basis. If they don’t take it, then we strike a modus vivendi with the Chinese whose blood, after all, runs through the veins of a large number of our people and leaders in both the public and private sectors. Cojuangco, Sy, Ty, Tan, Ang, to name a few. Blood is thicker than water, remember?

***

In my view, Del Rosario provided the clue as to how we should deal with the Chinese when he justified China’s increasing her military spending as a “sovereign right” of a nation with a thriving economy.

He also applauded China’s tremendous economic growth and conceded that “this growth is no doubt benefiting the Philippines as well”.

He then went on to say that with her present economic and military might, “we are relying on China to fully utilize its vast global influence in a more responsible way, especially in terms of promoting peace, prosperity and stability in the region”.

That’s the line we should pursue in dealing with China. I do not believe the Chinese have designs on the region that is different from the US. Both are simply promoting and protecting their respective national interests. Sadly, our interests do not really figure in both their equations.

That said, it would therefore be foolhardy to play the game of pitting the US and China against each other with the mistaken notion that it will serve our interest. That would be disastrous. Remember the story about two elephants fighting and the grass getting crushed under?

In any case, I never believed for one moment that either one will risk armed confrontation with the other for the sake of the Philippines or any other, unless their respective interests are inexorably threatened and they are unable to sort out their differences peacefully.

Meanwhile and at the risk of stating the obvious, the government should continue with the self-reliance program and modernization of the armed forces started in earnest by Noynoy. Without corruption, we can do it in a relatively short period.

***

Reminders (for Noynoy’s action):

1) Filing of charges against officials of the National Food Administration during Arroyo’s illegitimate regime. Noynoy himself said on several occasions that there is documentary evidence to prove the venalities in the past in that agency; 2) investigation of reported anomalies in the GSIS during the watch of Winston Garcia; 3) facilitating the investigation of rampant corruption in the military and police establishments; and 4) expeditious action by the AFP on the case of Jonas Burgos.

***

From an internet friend:

Russ and Sam, two friends, meet in the park every day to feed the pigeons, watch the squirrels and discuss world problems.

One day Russ didn’t show up. Sam didn’t think much about it and figured maybe he had a cold or something. But after Russ hadn’t shown up for a week or so, Sam really got worried. However, since the only time they ever got together was at the park, Sam didn’t know where Russ lived, so he was unable to find out what had happened to him.

A month had passed, and Sam figured he had seen the last of Russ, but one day, Sam approached the park and – lo and behold! – there sat Russ! Sam was very excited and happy to see him and told him so.

Then he said, ‘For crying out loud Russ, what in the world happened to you?’

Russ replied, ‘I have been in jail.’

‘Jail!’ cried Sam. What in the world for?’

‘Well,’ Russ said, ‘you know Sue, that cute little blonde waitress at the coffee shop where I sometimes go?’

‘Yeah,’ said Sam, ‘I remember her. What about her?

‘Well, one day she filed rape charges against me; and, at 89 years old, I was so proud that when I got into court, I pled guilty.

‘The judge gave me 30 days for perjury.’

***

Today is the 320th day of the fifth year of Jonas Burgos’ disappearance.

***

Email: roacrosshairs@yahoo.com