It's the political program, my friend

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
4/3/2006



“Ka Mentong, its funny how people are afraid of military rule when they don’t realize what kind of rule we have now.” a text to my radio program said. I recognized the cell phone of a young AFP officer. It was prompted by the opposition from some colleagues of my support for fugitive of conscience Greg “Gringo” Honasan and the activism of the military for reform in the AFP and in society. Indeed, the rule of the civilian politicians in the Philippines has been miserably disastrous and it has worsened as each year passes. Why do people still put up with it?

Would a military government be any worse than what we have today? My very sincere and earnest young officer friend who texted us agonizes over the widespread resistance to the idea of military rule when he knows how sincere they are and how much they, the young officers, are sacrificing in order to be able to present an alternative leadership. Many of them are still detained, a great sacrifice for young men whose careers and family life are just beginning but public appreciation seems to be too stingy and fleeting.

There are military regimes that have left bloodstained tracks of heinous crimes against their own people. They have permanently smeared the image of military regimes. Gen. Pinochet in Chile, Gen. Videla if the “desaperasidos” fame in Argentina, Gen. Stroessner in Paraguay, Noriega in Panama and others have left indelible blood stains; but the U.S. supported them with special efforts from the likes of Kissinger, Schultz, and Bush Sr. Most were eventually prosecuted by the U.S. too for human rights violations. Does this mean all military leadership and regimes are terrible?

There are great military leaders who led their country to successful reform and modernization. Foremost is military commander Kamel Ataturk of Turkey who’s credited as “Father of Modern Turkey”; there’s Col. Gamel Abdel Nasser who led Egypt out of the monarchism and restored the pride of the Arab world; Gen. Park Chung Hee became president and led the industrialization of South Korea; Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek who led Taiwan to prosperity. Most of these leaders first established various forms of military juntas for a while but “civilianized” eventually.

Gen. George Washington as a young man started his military career as an adjutant in the colonial military defending Virginia from French incursions. Later Washington returned to tending his estates and was perpetually in debt to his London agents like all American landlords at that time, until he was drafted by the fledgling U.S. Congress to lead its Continental army against the British. Washington became the first president of the United States of America, but he led a civilian government. Other military men became U.S. presidents, Eisenhower was one who became among the very best.

President Eisenhower was ironically the first to warn the American people about the growing danger of the “military-industrial complex” which today has become the real menace behind U.S. imperial policy. Eisenhower’s warning echo President Abraham Lincoln’s alarm about the danger of “corporations” or the money power taking over the Republic, and it is U.S. civilian leaders like Schultz, Cheny, Rumsfeld and Rice controlled by the oil-industrial/military- finance cartels that is leading that country to ruin.

There are heinous military and civilian leaders and regimes. What makes one set terrible and other good is not the attire they wear but the political program they champion and fight for. Look at the record of history, those military or civilian leaders who have aspirations of economic and political independence and sovereignty, modernization and industrialization, secularism and republicanism – they’re the ones remembered well in history. Look for what leaders say, not what they are wearing; but while military leaders can be very good leaders, it is indeed important to “civilianize”.

Under the present global “democratic” political culture to fail to civilianize first or as soon as possible is to earn the opprobrium of the world community. Former colonel and now Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is the best example, having launched a coup and failed, spent two years in prison but finally winning in elections as a civilian candidate. Chavez did, however, keep up one thing through his decade of waiting for success – he constantly preached his “Bolivarian Revolution” and his struggle to alleviate the poverty of his people.

Chavez stood squarely against the exploiters and oppressors like the large U.S. corporations and oil pirates, and profits once repatriated to the U.S. he redirected to his people through nationalization. We have not seen as daring a Filipino military or civilian leader yet except President Estrada in his “para sa masa” program, and he has further elaborated this in his adoption of the “program for a viable Philippines” to include “debt moratorium” and other measures that addresses the root of the Philippine crisis. Other aspiring leaders will have to address these same issues.

Gloria’s program is enrichment of the corporations and impoverishment of the people. They’re engaged in much obfuscation including the propaganda against military leaders and strong nationalist leadership. We are today under the dictatorship of the “Washington corporatocracy”, their local politico-bureaucrat-economic dummies. Apolinario Mabini espoused a nationalist dictatorship to resist and win against the greater foreign imperial dictators. The vital point is: a nationalist program of governance is the key and salvation.