Finding the Filipino Path

All analysis aside, there was much to be simply thankful for in the recent change of governments in the Philippines. The sight of hundreds of unarmed citizens linking arms to guard their ballot boxes was a reminder of the living ideal behind the oft-tarnished reality of electoral democracy. The picture of thousands of people stopping tanks and artillery with their bodies and their prayers was a rare testimony to the spiritually rooted political power of nonviolence. And Corazon Aquino's personal qualities of integrity and compassion are extremely rare among the world's heads of state.

But the ousting of the Marcos dictatorship was not a simple matter of good vs. evil. Nothing is ever that simple, especially when strategic U.S. military bases are involved. While the decisive role in forcing Marcos out was played by the Filipino people, the United States clearly played an important part in shaping the process of Marcos' removal and did so in a way that safeguarded U.S. influence in the post-Marcos period.

Before Defense Minister Juan Enrile and Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos moved against Marcos, the Aquino forces were anticipating a political struggle of strikes, boycotts, and massive civil disobedience over a period of months that would eventually end the dictatorship. This would have necessarily involved an alliance between the moderate middle-class reformers of the Aquino campaign and the more radical grassroots organizations of workers, peasants, church people, students, and the unemployed grouped in the BAYAN coalition. In fact, Western press reports in the days immediately after the February 7 election indicated that such an alliance was in the making.

This was a worrisome prospect for anti-Marcos forces in the Philippine military and the business elite--and thus for the United States as well. All three of these players in the Philippine drama wanted Marcos out. But they also wanted the essential balance of wealth and power, including the U.S. Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Station, to remain untouched. They saw the transparent illegitimacy of Marcos' rule as an obstacle to those goals.

But the forces represented in BAYAN and in the banned National Democratic Front (the political wing of the New People's Army) see the overthrow of Marcos as only a necessary prelude to dealing with fundamental questions of social justice and national sovereignty, specifically land reform and the removal of the U.S. bases. Because of the strength of the grassroots organizations throughout the country, a period of nationwide revolt would inevitably result in their attaining a measure of real power in the post-Marcos era, thus moving the "center" of Philippine politics several degrees to the left.

THAT IS THE SCENARIO which was foreclosed by the mutiny of Enrile and Ramos. Instead, the military officers seized the balance of power, and the post-Marcos government has been shaped accordingly. Enrile and Ramos, both longtime Marcos enforcers until Gen. Fabian Ver crowded them out of the inner circle, are still in their old jobs. And the first Aquino cabinet is heavily weighted toward the elitist "center."

As mere U.S. citizens, we may never know exactly how deeply our government was involved in manipulating recent events in the Philippines. We do know that the president's special envoy Philip Habib was in close communication with both Enrile and his old friend Cardinal Jaime Sin, who collaborated closely in the mutiny. In fact, Enrile and Ramos made their move just hours after Habib left Manila for the last time. The history of U.S.-sponsored coups, from Iran to Chile, teaches one to be mindful of such coincidences.

Moreover, leaders of the anti-Marcos mutiny have confirmed that the United States provided them with electronic surveillance data on the movements and communications of troops loyal to Marcos. U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger admits that six dissident-piloted Philippine helicopter gunships, which hovered in defense of the mutineers' camp at a key moment in the standoff, had come fresh from refueling and servicing at a U.S. base. And Sen. Paul Laxalt (R-Nev.), a longtime Reagan crony, boasts that he personally delivered to Marcos the final order, "Cut and cut clean."

Of course, U.S. manipulation of the Philippine political process didn't begin this February. The very idea of a "snap" presidential election, which was expected to pit Marcos against a divided and disorganized opposition, was forced upon Marcos by the Reagan administration. They saw it as a way to re-establish some semblance of legitimacy in anticipation of the chaos that could follow the ailing dictator's death. In fact, Marcos decided to call the snap election during an appearance on ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley" in response to persistent badgering by syndicated columnist and Reagan crony George Will.

But the uniting of the opposition behind Aquino threw U.S. policy into confusion. The Reagan administration has never been comfortable with Corazon Aquino or completely confident of its ability to control her. She had made statements, though later retracted, calling for removal of the U.S. bases. And her calls for a cease-fire and negotiations with the NPA didn't fit the Washington model of counterinsurgency. Even after the fraudulent election, various Washington experts and insiders were still floating scenarios involving a transition of power to someone other than Aquino.

THE FUTILITY OF such strategies quickly became evident in the streets of the Philippines. Aquino reflected the popular will and seized the imagination of the Filipino people in a way that simply had to be accommodated. Which, through whatever combination of intrigue and coincidence, is what happened.

But precisely because of the popular passions the Aquino campaign has unleashed, that is not the end of the story for the Philippines. In the days since Aquino came to power, she has acted against the will of her military patrons by releasing all political prisoners, including the founder of the Philippine Communist Party and the former commander of the NPA. And to add insult to the generals' injury, she personally received the two unrepentant communists in the presidential office. That was important as a sign of an absolute commitment to civil liberties and human rights and also as an indication that Aquino may prefer political accommodation with the guerrillas over the military solution of counterinsurgency.

In Aquino's closest circle of advisers, there is serious talk of a human rights tribunal, on the model of that in Argentina, to try and punish the murderers and torturers of the Marcos era. If conducted freely, such a tribunal would have to indict some of the military men who have so recently rushed to Aquino's banner. Though the implications aren't clear as yet, Aquino seems to really mean it when she speaks of replacing the institutions of the Marcos regime with the "people's power" that brought her to office.

In Aquino's actions so far and in the statements of her closest associates, it is possible to discern the outline of an authentically Filipino reformist political path. At this point, President Aquino's ideas about reform are not sufficient to deal with her country's deepest problems, especially the economic ones. But they could open up the country's political process so that armed struggle would no longer seem to so many to be the only effective route to justice.

The biggest potential obstacle to such an opening is the overwhelming power of the United States, which has loomed over the Philippines for the last 88 years. Ultimately, only a change in U.S. policy, including withdrawal of the bases, will make it possible for the Philippines to find its own path to freedom and justice.

Danny Duncan Collum is a Sojourners contributing editor.