Source: Center for Research on Globalization
Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook
[Editor's Note: Author's selected quotations and analysis]
Preface
The world is facing a very unpredictable and potentially dangerous situation in North Africa and the Middle East. What began as a memorable, promising, relatively nonviolent achievement of New Politics - the Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt - has morphed very swiftly into a recrudescence of old habits: America, already mired in two decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sporadic air attacks in Yemen and Somalia, now, bombing yet another Third World Country, in this case Libya.
The initially stated aim of this bombing was to diminish Libyan civilian casualties. But many, senior figures in Washington, including President Obama, have indicated that the US is gearing up for a quite different war for regime change, one that may well be protracted and could also easily expand beyond Libya.1 If it does expand, the hope for a nonviolent transition to civilian government in Tunisia and Egypt and other Middle East nations experiencing political unrest, may be lost to a hard-edged militarization of government, especially in Egypt. All of us, not just Egyptians, have a major stake in seeing that that does not happen.
The present article does not attempt to propose solutions or a course of action for the United States and its allies, or for the people of the Middle East. It attempts rather to examine the nature of the forces that have emerged in Libya over the last four decades that are presently being played out.
To this end I have begun to compile what I call my Libyan Notebook, a collection of relevant facts that underlie the present crisis. This Notebook will be judgmental, in that I am biased towards collecting facts that the US media tend to ignore, facts that are the product in many instances of investigative reporting that cuts to the heart of power relations, deep structures, and economic interests in the region including the US, Israel, and the Arab States as these have played out over the last two decades and more. But I hope that it will be usefully objective and open-ended, permitting others to draw diverse conclusions from the same set of facts.2
I wish to begin with two ill-understood topics: I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition, and II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?
I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition
1) Historically:
"If Muammar Al Gaddafi behaved paranoid, it was for good reason. It wasn't long after he reached the age of 27 and led a small group of junior military officers in a bloodless coup d'état against Libyan King Idris on September 1, 1969, that threats to his power and life emerged - from monarchists, Israeli Mossad, Palestinian disaffections, Saudi security, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), British intelligence, United States antagonism and, in 1995, the most serious of all, Al Qaeda-like Libyan Islamic fighting group, known as Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya. The Colonel reacted brutally, by either expelling or killing those he feared were against him."3
2) National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL)
"With the aim of overthrowing Libyan strongman Muammar Khadafy, Israel and the U.S. trained anti-Libyan rebels in a number of West and Central African countries. The Paris-based African Confidential newsletter reported on January 5th, 1989, that the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army. The group, called The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, was based in Chad."4
"US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan."5
"The FNSL [National Front for the Salvation of Libya] was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other 'opposition' in Libya.... The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of 'atrocities' and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya."6
3) National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO),
"The main group leading the insurrection is the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition which includes the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). The NFSL, which is leading the violence, is a U.S.-sponsored armed militia of mostly Libyan expatriates and tribes opposed to al-Qaddafi."7
4) Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG)
"The LIFG was founded in 1995 by a group of mujahideen veterans who had fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Upon their return to Libya they grew angry about what they viewed as the corruption and impiety of the Libyan regime and formed the LIFG to create a state that would show what they believed to be the true character of the Libyan people.
The most significant LIFG attack was a 1996 attempt to assassinate Gadhafi; LIFG members led by Wadi al-Shateh threw a bomb underneath his motorcade. The group also stages guerilla-style attacks against government security forces from its mountain bases. Although most LIFG members are strictly dedicated to toppling Gadhafi, intelligence reportedly indicates that some have joined forces with al-Qaida to wage jihad against Libyan and Western interests worldwide. ....
As recently as February 2004, then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "one of the most immediate threats [to U.S. security] is from smaller international Sunni extremist groups that have benefited from al-Qaida links. They include ... the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group."8
"In recent days Libyan officials have distributed security documents giving the details of Sufiyan al-Koumi, said to be a driver for Osama bin Laden, and of another militant allegedly involved in an "Islamic emirate" in Derna, in now-liberated eastern Libya. Koumi, the documents show, was freed in September 2010 as part of a "reform and repent" initiative organised by Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi's son....
The LIFG, established in Afghanistan in the 1990s, has assassinated dozens of Libyan soldiers and policemen. In 2009, to mark Gaddafi's 40 years in power, it apologised for trying to kill him and agreed to lay down its arms. MI6 [British Intelligence] has been accused in the past of supporting it. Six LIFG leaders, still in prison, disavowed their old ways and explained why fighting Gaddafi no longer constituted "legitimate" jihad. Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, another freed LIFG member, denied the official claims. "Gaddafi is trying to divide the people," he told al-Jazeera. "He claims that there is an Islamist emirate in Derna and that I am its emir. He is taking advantage of the fact that I am a former political prisoner."
Derna is famous as the home of a large number of suicide bombers in Iraq. It is also deeply hostile to Gaddafi. "Residents of eastern Libya in general, and Derna in particular, view the Gaddadfa (Gaddafi's tribe) as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have 'stolen' the right to rule in Libya," US diplomats were told in 2008, in a cable since released by WikiLeaks.
The last 110 members of the LIFG were freed on 16 February, the day after the Libyan uprising began. One of those released, Abdulwahab Mohammed Kayed, is the brother of Abu Yahya Al Libi, one of al Qaida's top propagandists. Koumi fled Libya and is said to have ended up in Afghanistan working for Bin Laden. Captured in Pakistan, he was handed over to the US and sent to Guantánamo Bay in 2002. In 2009 he was sent back to Libya.9 US counter-terrorist experts have expressed concern that al-Qaida could take advantage of a political vacuum if Gaddafi is overthrown. But most analysts say that, although the Islamists' ideology has strong resonance in eastern Libya, there is no sign that the protests are going to be hijacked by them.10
"Fierce clashes between [Qadhafi's] security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." [3] This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain.... The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG's next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-MI5 officer David Shayler. [4] While Shayler's allegations have not been independently confirmed, it is clear that Britain allowed LIFG to develop a base of logistical support and fundraising on its soil. At any rate, financing by bin Laden appears to have been much more important. According to one report, LIFG received up to $50,000 from the Saudi terrorist mastermind for each of its militants killed on the battlefield." [2005]11
"Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks."12
“In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited ‘around 25’ men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are ‘today are on the front lines in Adjabiya.
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters ‘are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,’ but added that the ‘members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader’.
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, ‘including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries’.
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against ‘the foreign invasion’ in Afghanistan, before being ‘captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan’. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.
US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.” (“Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,” Daily Telegraph [London], March 25, 2011)
5) Transitional National Council
"A RIVAL transitional government to the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi looks set to win US and other international support as momentum builds to oust the longtime dictator.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed yesterday that the Obama administration was reaching out to opponents of Colonel Gaddafi. She said the US was willing to offer ‘any kind of assistance' to remove him from power.
Protest leaders who have taken control in Libya's eastern cities claim to have established a transitional "national council" that amounts to rival rule. They have called on the country's army to join them as they prepare for an attack on the capital, Tripoli, where the Libyan leader retains control.
Confident the Libyan leader's 42-year rule was coming to an end, Mrs Clinton said yesterday: ‘We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gaddafi.'"13
6) Facebook
"He [Omar El- Hariri, Chief of Armed Forces for the Transitional National Council] remained under close surveillance by the security forces until Feb. 17, when the revolution started. It was not initiated by prominent figures of the older generation, he said, but began spontaneously when Tunisia and Egypt inspired the youth. ‘Children of Facebook!' he declared, in English, with a broad smile."14
7) Oil
"Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.
The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the ‘Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general" of the company.
The Council also said it "designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."15
Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook
II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?
Robert Fisk, "Libya in turmoil: America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels;
Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi," Independent, March 7, 2011:
"Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a "day of rage" from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington's highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.
Washington's request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 ....
But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain - even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.
The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi's armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.
Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi's strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato - not least from Republican members of Congress - to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.
US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya's functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi's opponents.
For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi's private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.
Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.
The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission's existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West's lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.
Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi's jet.
An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi's own VIP airport.
Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: "Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?"
Malta air traffic control replies: "Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan."
But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.
After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.
Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.
If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.
Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region. "16
"Libya rebels coordinating with West on air assault," Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011
"Reports from the region suggest that the Saudis and Egyptians have been providing arms. Though U.S. officials could not confirm that, they say it is plausible."17
"Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011:
"CAIRO-Egypt's military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.
The shipments-mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition-appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The Egyptian shipments are the strongest indication to date that some Arab countries are heeding Western calls to take a lead in efforts to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy rebels in their fight against Mr. Gadhafi in Libya. Washington and other Western countries have long voiced frustration with Arab states' unwillingness to help resolve crises in their own region, even as they criticized Western powers for attempting to do so.
The shipments also follow an unusually robust diplomatic response from Arab states. There have been rare public calls for foreign military intervention in an Arab country, including a vote by the 23-member Arab League last week urging the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
The vote provided critical political cover to Western powers wary of intervening militarily without a broad regional and international mandate. On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted on a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone in Libya and authorizing military action in support of the rebels.
Within the council, Lebanon took a lead role drafting and circulating the draft of the resolution, which calls for "all necessary measures" to enforce a ban on flights over Libya. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have taken the lead in offering to participate in enforcing a no-fly zone, according to U.N. diplomats.
Libyan rebel officials in Benghazi, meanwhile, have praised Qatar from the first days of the uprising, calling the small Gulf state their staunchest ally. Qatar has consistently pressed behind the scenes for tough and urgent international action behind the scenes, these officials said.
Qatari flags fly prominently in rebel-held Benghazi. After pro-Gadhafi forces retook the town of Ras Lanuf last week, Libyan state TV broadcast images of food-aid packages bearing the Qatari flag.
The White House has been reluctant to back calls from leaders in Congress for arming Libya's rebels directly, arguing that the U.S. must first fully assess who the fighters are and what policies they will pursue if they succeeded in toppling Col. Gadhafi. U.S. officials believe the opposition includes some Islamist elements. They fear that Islamist groups hostile to the U.S. could try to hijack the opposition and take any arms that are provided.
The Egyptian weapons transfers began ‘a few days ago' and are ongoing, according to a senior U.S. official. ‘There's no formal U.S. policy or acknowledgement that this is going on,' said the senior official. But ‘this is something we have knowledge of.'
Calls to Egypt's foreign ministry and the spokesman for the prime minister seeking comment went unanswered. There is no means of reaching Egypt's military for comment. An Egyptian official in Washington said he had no knowledge of weapon shipments.
The U.S. official also noted that the shipments appeared to come "too little, too late" to tip the military balance in favor of the rebels, who have faced an onslaught from Libyan forces backed by tanks, artillery and aircraft.
"We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can't be so visible," said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began.
"Weapons are getting through," said Mr. Souflakis, who says he has regular contacts with Egyptian officials in Cairo and the rebel leadership in Libya. "Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help. The Americans don't want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn't do it if they didn't get the green light."
Western officials and rebel leaders in Libya said the U.S. has wanted to avoid being seen as taking a leadership role in any military action against Mr. Gadhafi after its invasions of Iraq and Afganistan fueled anger and mistrust with Washington throughout the region.
But the U.S. stated clearly it wants Mr. Gadhafi out of power and has signaled it would support those offering help to the rebels militarily or otherwise.
A spokesman for the rebel government in Benghazi said arms shipments have begun arriving to the rebels but declined to specify where they came from.
"Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it's coming from, that has been classified," said the spokesman, Mustafa al-Gherryani.
The U.S. official said Egypt wanted to keep the shipments covert. In public, Egypt has sought to maintain a neutral stance toward the rebel uprising in Libya. Egypt abstained during the Arab League's vote calling for the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone on Mr. Gadhafi, according to people familiar with the internal Arab League deliberations.
Hundreds of thousands of Egyptian laborers are believed to still be in Libya.
On the other hand, the Egyptian military's covert support for the rebels suggests that it has calculated that Mr. Gadhafi is unlikely to remain in power, at least in the eastern half of the country, and therefore Egypt is eager to begin to build good relations with the rebels.
Rebel forces in the past 24 hours appeared to make some progress fending off pro-Gadhafi forces' assaults and have rolled out new weapons for the first time since the uprising began last month. Among them are rebel tanks that have taken up positions on the front lines in recent days. Rebels also launched fighter-jet attacks on government positions on Wednesday for the first time so far.
The tanks and fighter jets are believed to have been among the weapons seized by rebels from defected units of the Libyan army in the eastern half of the country, but they have received spare parts or trained mechanics from outside the country to help them deploy them, some rebel officials have speculated.
-Sam Dagher and Adam Entous contributed to this article.18
Benjamin Gottlieb, "Egypt Arms Libyan Rebels As Gaddafi's Conquest Continues," NeonTommy Annenberg Digital News, March 17, 2011:
Arms shipments from Egypt's military have begun flowing across the border into Libya with U.S. knowledge, Libyan rebels and U.S. officials said Thursday.
Made up mostly of small arms, such as assault rifles and ammunition, the shipments are the first confirmed reports of an outside government supporting rebel fighters with weapons. Rebels have been loosing ground for days against pro-Gaddafi forces aiming to end the conflict before foreign intervention plans are finalized.
Although the U.N. approved a "no-fly zone" over Libya late Thursday, rebel forces fear that any planned foreign intervention would be too little to late.
The shipment of arms indicated an unusually bold response by an Arab nation intervening in a conflict outside its borders. There have also been rare public decrees for the West to intervene in the conflict - the Arab League voted 23-0 last week encouraging the U.N. to impose the "no-fly zone" over Libya.
In spite of reports of arms flowing across the Egyptian boarder, Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Menha Bakhoum told Reuters that Egypt would not be involved in any military intervention in neighboring Libya.
"Egypt will not be among those Arab states. We will not be involved in any military intervention. No intervention period," Bakhoum said.
Bakhoum was responding to comments by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Thursday that discussions were on the table regarding Arab involvement in U.S. and European intervention in the conflict.
Clinton has said repeatedly that the U.S. desires involvement from a neighboring Arab nation in any planned intervention.
A Libyan rebel government spokesman in Benghazi, Mustafa al-Gherryani, said rebels have begun receiving arms shipments from neighboring nations, however he declined to reveal their origin.
"Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it's coming from, that has been classified," he said.19
Yoichi Shimatsu, "Mideast Revolutions and 9-11 Intrigues Created in Qatar," New America Media, March 1, 2011
"It may puzzle and perhaps dismay young protesters in Benghazi, Cairo and Tunisia that their democratic hopes are being manipulated by an ultra-conservative Arab elite which has underhandedly backed a surge of militant Islamist radicals across North Africa. Credible U.S. intelligence reports have cited evidence pointing to Qatar's long-running support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and jihadist fighters returning from Afghanistan.
The links to Qatar uncovered by anti-terrorism investigators in the wake of 9-11 need to be reexamined now that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an on-and-off affiliate of Al Qaeda, has seized armories across half of the North African country. Libya's well-stocked arsenals contain high-power explosives, rocket launchers and chemical weapons. LIFG is on the State Department's terrorist list.
Most worrying, according to a U.S. intelligence official cited by CNN, is the probable loss of chemical weapons. The Federation of American Scientists reports that, as of 2008, only 40 percent of Libya's mustard gas was destroyed in the second round of decommissioning. Chemical canisters along the Egyptian border were yet to be retrieved and are now presumably in the hands of armed militants.
After initially letting slip that the earliest Libyan protests were organized by the LIFG, Al Jazeera quickly changed its line to present a heavily filtered account portraying the events as ‘peaceful protests'. To explain away the gunshot deaths of Libyan soldiers during the uprising, the Qatar-based network presented a bizarre scenario of 150 dead soldiers in Libya having been executed by their officers for ‘refusing to fight'. The mysterious officers then miraculously vacated their base disappearing into thin air while surrounded by angry protesters! Off the record, one American intelligence analyst called these media claims an ‘absurdity' and suggested instead the obvious: that the soldiers were gunned down in an armed assault by war-hardened returned militants from Iraq and Afghanistan....
According to a Congressional Research Service report of January 2008, ‘Some observers have raised questions about possible support for Al Qaeda by some Qatari citizens, including members of Qatar's large ruling family. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Qatar's Interior Minister provided a safe haven to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed during the mid-1990s, and press reports indicate other terrorists may have received financial support or safe haven in Qatar after September 11, 2001.'
The national security chief, Interior Minister Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, is further mentioned as paying for a 1995 trip by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ‘to join the Bosnia jihad.' The report recalls how after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, FBI officials "narrowly missed an opportunity to capture" the suspect in Qatar. ‘Former U.S. officials have since stated their belief that a high-ranking member of the Qatari government alerted him to the impending raid, allowing him to flee the country.'"20
Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. Peter Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan.
His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.
Notes
1 “Defense Secretary Gates, who recently warned against any further protracted US ground war, said on March 23 that the end of military action in Libya is unknown and could last longer than a few weeks. ‘I think there are any number of possible outcomes here and no one is in a position to predict them,’ Gates told reporters in Egypt” (C-Span, March 24, 2011).
2 Interested readers may wish to consult my first exploration, “Googling ‘Revolution’ in North Africa.”
3 Dan Lieberman, “Muammar Al Gaddafi Meets His Own Rebels,” CounterCurrents.org, March 9, 2011.
4 Joel Bainerman, Inside the Covert Operations of the CIA & Israel's Mossad (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1994), 14.
5 Richard Keeble, “The Secret War Against Libya,” MediaLens, 2002.
6 "Petroleum and Empire in North Africa. NATO Invasion of Libya Underway," By Keith Harmon Snow, 2 March 2011.
7 Ghali Hassan, “U.S. Love Affair with Murderous Dictators and Hate for Democracy.” Axis of Logic, Mar 17, 2011.
8 Center for Defense Information, “In the Spotlight: The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG),” January 18, 2005
9 Qadhafi was concerned about Al Qaeda terrorism in Libya, and in 1996 Libya became the first government to place Osama bin Laden on Interpol’s Wanted List (Rohan Gunaratna, Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror [New York: Columbia UP, 2002], 142). Thereafter American and Libyan intelligence collaborated closely for some years against Al Qaeda. Beginning when?
10 Ian Black, “Libya rebels rejects Gaddafi's al-Qaida spin,” Guardian, March 1, 2011.
11 Gary Gambill, "The Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Jamestown Foundation," Terrorism Monitor, May 5, 2005,; citing Al-Hayat (London), 20 October 1995 [“communiqué”]; "The Shayler affair: The spooks, the Colonel and the jailed whistle-blower," The Observer (London), 9 August 1998; Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, Ben Laden: La Verite interdite (Bin Ladin: The Forbidden Truth). Cf. also Annie Machon, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 And the Shayler Affair (Book Guild Publishing, 2005) [Shayler].
12 Yoichi Shimatsu, “Attack on Libya: Why Odyssey Dawn Is Doomed,” New America Media, March 20, 2011.
13 “US reaches out to Libyan insurgents,” The Australian, March 1, 2011,
14 “How a onetime friend to Gadhafi became his rival,” Globe and Mail [Toronto], March 4, 2011.
15 Libyan Rebel Council in Benghazi Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s,” Bloomberg, March 22, 2011.
16 Robert Fisk, “America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels,” Independent, March 7, 2011.
17 “Libya rebels coordinating with West on air assault,” Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011.
18 “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels,” Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011,
19 Benjamin Gottlieb, “Egypt Arms Libyan Rebels As Gaddafi's Conquest Continues,” NeonTommy Annenberg Digital News, March 17, 2011.
20 Yoichi Shimatsu, “Mideast Revolutions and 9-11 Intrigues Created in Qatar,” New America Media, March 1, 2011. The al-Thani family’s protection of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is confirmed by former CIA officer Robert Baer (Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2003). Cf. Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil (New York: Crown, 2003); Peter Lance, Triple Cross (New York: Regan/HarperCollins, 2006), 234-37.
Peter Dale Scott is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Peter Dale Scott
Saturday, March 26, 2011
USS Barry launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the Mediterranean Sea, March 19, 2011. US government handoutWednesday, February 16, 2011
A warning for the Egyptian people
A Warning for Egyptian Revolutionaries:
Courtesy of People Power in the Philippines
by Michael Barker
This article is also reproduced in Monthly Review.
Much like Mubarak, the former democratic reformer turned long-serving US dictator for the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, demonstrates what can happen to even stalwart defenders of capitalism when they are opposed by their citizens en masse. Like Mubarak, Marcos previously provided a ray of hope for Western elites intent on quelling popular resistance within their own countries; after President Ronald Reagan launched his "worldwide campaign for democracy" before the British Parliament at Westminster in June 1982, he then decided to visit Marcos in the Philippines "where he announced in a public homage to the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, that 'the Philippines has been moulded in the image of American democracy.'" This commitment to 'democracy' in the Philippines was not new; the previous year vice president George Bush "raised a toast to Marcos during his visit to Manila, declaring 'We love your adherence to democratic principle and to the democratic process.'"1
Little wonder that when the US government institutionalized their commitment to democracy, it took the form an Orwellian organization called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- an organization that was set up by the US government to overtly carry out the 'democracy promoting' interventions that had formerly been undertaken covertly by the Central Intelligence Agency. Since then, the NED has assumed a pivotal position in defusing revolutionary movements all over the world, but their central role in the eventual ouster of Marcos is worth retelling, especially bearing in mind the similarity of his regime of oppression to Mubarak's. Thankfully the history of the US government's 'democratic' invention in the Philippines has already been analysed in William I. Robinson's ground breaking book Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 1996); consequently this article merely aims to encapsulate some of his key points.
To begin with, there should be no doubt that the ouster of President Marcos in 1986 was not due to any long-range conspiracy hatched in the White House: his removal from power was entirely due to a popular uprising. On the other hand, the US government did belatedly succeed in undermining and co-opting the revolutionary ferment that was in the air. What is clear is that throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the poor and oppressed citizens of the Philippines had been gathering political strength. This emerging power was significantly bolstered by the August 1983 assassination of the most visible leader of the elite opposition, Benigno Aquino Jr. -- a murder which had the effect of ensuring that the non-Marcos elite was finally "galvanized . . . into active opposition." This galvanization had the effect of drawing the middle classes into the already popular and vocal opposition movement; and with the potential for a broad-based increasingly radicalized opposition movement developing in the Philippines, the US government became more than a little interested in intervening in the region. Elite concern in the United States was further aggravated when in late 1984, the wife of the assassinated Benigno, Cory Aquino -- who was now a serious contender for power -- worked with other opposition leaders to draw up plans that "spelled out a nationalist-orientated program of social reform and development and also called for the removal of US military bases from the Philippines."2
The US had always been interested in the Philippines because of the Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base: military bases which were key strategic sites from which every US invasion of Asia had gone through since 1898. Concern really heightened and got greater in about 1984, because of the people's movement, including the New People's Army (NPA), a fighting force of over 20,000 fighters and led by the Communist Party of the Philippines.
If it wasn't obvious before, it now became evident to US planners that a "diverse and well organized" movement was gaining momentum in the Philippines, "ranging from the NPA insurgency, to the mass, left-of-center civic movement BAYAN (New Patriotic Federation, which went by its acronym in Tagalog), which brought together millions of Philippine citizens, to numerous parties and groups of the center, center-right and right." Noting that "[p]erhaps the weakest among the opposition were the center and conservative sectors which, as in Nicaragua and other authoritarian Third World regimes, had vacillated during many years between support for, and opposition to, the dictatorship," they quickly funnelled 'democracy' aid to these needy sectors of civil society.3
Between 1984 and 1990, Philippine organizations received at least $9 million from the NED and other US sources. These included: the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), which mobilized the business community against Marcos; the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), a minority, conservative union federation affiliated with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which competed with more radical and left-leaning labor organizations; Philippine "youth clubs" established under the guidance of US organizers to mobilize Philippine youth; the KABATID Philippine women's organization (KABATID is the Tagalog acronym for Women's Movement for the Nurturing of Democracy), also established under the guidance of US organizers; and the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL).4
Here one should note that Robinson's figure of $9 million is based on publicly available NED annual reports, and as he observes, "the actual amount is probably much higher, since millions more were sent to the Philippines circuitously via such organizations as the AAFLI [Asian-American Free Labor Institute] and via the CIA and other 'national security' related spending, which is classified."5 To be sure the TUCP, which was the local affiliate of the AFL-CIO's Asian-American Free Labor Institute, was a creation of the Marcos Dictatorship pure and simple, and its goal was to keep the labor sector under control. Indeed, after Aquino's assassination, the US Government channelled millions of dollars to the TUCP through AAFLI as a way to help the TUCP -- and the Marcos Dictatorship -- survive. On the other hand, the most significant pro-worker, anti-management part of the labor movement in the Philippines was the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU-May First Movement) -- which was a nationalist, militant labor center of unions built in the various regional political economies across the nation that united on a national level on May 1, 1980, in Manila. KMU specifically challenged the TUCP, and they were central to the nationalist challenge to the dictatorship.
Living in fear of the evolution of a "left-center popular alliance," the US State Department dispatched their finest experts in conflict resolution to meet with Cory Aquino and the leader of the right-wing opposition, Salvador "Doy" Laurel, to "convince them to run under a united ticket that would stress anti-communism and refrain from opposing US bases in the Philippines (Laurel subsequently became Aquino's running-mate as candidate for vice-president)." Having laid the groundwork for a change of leadership, events then heated up when Marcos decided to ignore the results of the snap election held on February 7, 1986, in which the people of the Philippines elected the Aquino/Laurel ticket to power. Contrary to US interests, Marcos' adverse Dictatorial reaction further inflamed popular resistance, providing further fuel for the popular insurrection.6
The US wanted to do whatever it could to contain the growing insurrection, and an important part of the US's ultimately successful intervention in the Philippines was to get the military onside and ready for the 'democratic' transition; and a key player in this regard was General Fidel Ramos, a long-time loyalist to Marcos who was acting as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). It was in this way, with a 'little' prodding by the United States, that in mid-1985 General Ramos came to see the futility of supporting Marcos's crumbling regime and joined with Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile in helping organize a reformer's revolt which split the military shortly after the contested election.7 Thus when the people subsequently rose up in defiance of Marcos to protect the military reformers and their forces in Manila, Marcos' only choice at that time -- if he had wanted to crush the military revolt -- was to order the Army to slaughter the masses, and the US didn't want that!
With few other options left on the table, the US turned all its resources to bring pressure to bear on Marcos, and they did this by dispatching "at-large ambassador Philip Habib to Manila to urge Aquino to keep her followers off the streets and to convince Marcos to step down."8 However, when Habib failed to make the US's case firmly enough, Paul Laxalt, a right-wing US Senator from Nevada, called Marcos (on February 24) and told him to "cut and cut clean"; and within twenty-four hours Marcos was gone and Aquino had been sworn into office.9 Taken together, these actions served to undermine the growing political power of the people's power movement, as they circumscribed the need for the massive (potentially revolutionary) social protests that were in the pipeline -- which were to include economic boycotts and a general strike.
Significantly, "[s]uch actions would have greatly enhanced the labor movement, with its militant base and left-wing tendencies, in both removing Marcos and in shaping the post-Marcos government and policies." Yet one should note that there was never any question of Aquino -- soon to be Time magazine women of the year -- supporting labor, and particularly KMU, over the military. All the same, the big question for the US was: could she re-establish social stability and be won away from wanting to close the US military bases? Consequently after Aquino assumed power, there were several military coup efforts against her by the Marcos-inspired military,10 in which her side eventually prevailed: Ramos and Enrile played key roles here, with Ramos becoming more important of the two over time. Both Enrile and Ramos were longtime allies of the US -- Ramos is a graduate of West Point -- and they were able to convince her to keep the US bases. At the same time, the US government provided tons of money, and a direct address by Aquino to the US Congress, to keep her on their side, which wasn't hard: Aquino herself had gone to college in the US and was very pro-American. She also agreed to pay debt incurred by the Dictatorship, seeing them as legitimate.
In the aftermath of the US's 'democratic' intervention in the Philippines there has been a vigorous debate about the significance of the US's role in the process. Yet as Robinson points out, "whether or not US intervention was itself the determining factor in the overthrow of Marcos obscured a much more significant issue: US intervention was decisive in shaping the contours of the anti-Marcos movement and in establishing the terms and conditions under which Philippine social and political struggles would unfold in the post-Marcos period."11 Moreover it is critical to observe that the post-Marcos era has not been a happy period for the majority of the Philippines' citizens, In fact, Walden Bello and John Gershman described this new post-Marcos environment as "politically sanitized" to such an extent that "anti-elite candidates with radical political programs have been driven from the electoral arena by the threat of force -- so that even intense electoral competition would not be too destabilizing."12 Likewise in a stark reminder of what might happen in Egypt, Philippines labor specialist Kim Scipes writes:
The Egyptian people have struck a great blow for freedom from tyranny, and have complicated US and Israeli foreign policy in the region immensely, and such external forces will want to re-establish control at very first opportunity. However, not only foreigners but remnants of the Egyptian elite want to re-establish the control they've long had, and will do anything they can to do so. The Egyptian people need to learn from the Philippine experience, and do all they can to keep that from happening.
1 William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p.117, p.122.
2 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.123, p.126.
3 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.125. "In November 1984, a secret NSC Study Directive made the call for a concerted US intervention in the Philippines to facilitate a transition. 'The United States has extremely important interests in the Philippines. . . Political and economic developments in the Philippines threaten these interests,' stated the directive. 'The US does not want to remove Marcos from power to destabilize the GOP [Government of the Philippines]. Rather, we are urging revitalization of democratic institutions, dismantling "crony" monopoly capitalism and allowing the economy to respond to free market forces, and restoring professional, apolitical leadership to the Philippine military to deal with the growing communist insurgency.' 'These efforts,' it went on, 'are meant to stabilize (the country] while strengthening institutions which will eventually provide for a peaceful transition.'" Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.124-5.
4 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.125-6. The reactionary Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) received almost US$7 million from the National Endowment for Democracy between 1984 and 1991 (p.135). One of the reasons for such emphasis on Philippine labor was the challenge from the militant KMU and the importance of labor in national political struggles" (p.136). For an excellent historical study of the KMU, see Kim Scipes, KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines, 1980-1994(New Day Publishers, 1996). Scipes is also the author of AFL-CIO's Secret War Against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? (Lexington Books, 2010), which provides an excellent historical overview of the interaction between the US government and the National Endowment for Democracy and organized labor. Needless to say, this labor movement imperialism is not being done through labor movement procedures, but behind the backs of members.
5 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.403.
6 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.127.
7 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.128.
8 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.127.
9 With the ouster of Marcos, Ramos was now rewarded for his assistance by the newly elected Aquino administration who appointed him Chief of Staff of the AFP, and later Secretary of Defense. In 1992 when Cory Aquino left office, Ramos was elected president of the Philippines, a position he held until 1998. After his presidency, Ramos became a committed 'champion for democracy' by taking up a position as the Asia advisory board Member for the Carlyle Group, that is, until the board was disbanded in 2004. He is presently a trustee of the 'democracy promoting' International Crisis Group, and is a patron of the related Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. www.webofdemocracy.org/foundations-anthropology-an.html
10 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.141.
11 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.129.
12 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.141.
13 Kim Scipes, Email to Author, February 12, 2011. For a must-read analysis of the post-Marcos developments in the Philippines, see Kim Scipes, "Review of the Month: Global Economic Crisis, Neoliberal Solutions, and the Philippines," Monthly Review, 51 (7), December 1999, pp. 1-14.
Courtesy of People Power in the Philippines
by Michael Barker
This article is also reproduced in Monthly Review.
Much like Mubarak, the former democratic reformer turned long-serving US dictator for the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, demonstrates what can happen to even stalwart defenders of capitalism when they are opposed by their citizens en masse. Like Mubarak, Marcos previously provided a ray of hope for Western elites intent on quelling popular resistance within their own countries; after President Ronald Reagan launched his "worldwide campaign for democracy" before the British Parliament at Westminster in June 1982, he then decided to visit Marcos in the Philippines "where he announced in a public homage to the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, that 'the Philippines has been moulded in the image of American democracy.'" This commitment to 'democracy' in the Philippines was not new; the previous year vice president George Bush "raised a toast to Marcos during his visit to Manila, declaring 'We love your adherence to democratic principle and to the democratic process.'"1
Little wonder that when the US government institutionalized their commitment to democracy, it took the form an Orwellian organization called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- an organization that was set up by the US government to overtly carry out the 'democracy promoting' interventions that had formerly been undertaken covertly by the Central Intelligence Agency. Since then, the NED has assumed a pivotal position in defusing revolutionary movements all over the world, but their central role in the eventual ouster of Marcos is worth retelling, especially bearing in mind the similarity of his regime of oppression to Mubarak's. Thankfully the history of the US government's 'democratic' invention in the Philippines has already been analysed in William I. Robinson's ground breaking book Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 1996); consequently this article merely aims to encapsulate some of his key points.
To begin with, there should be no doubt that the ouster of President Marcos in 1986 was not due to any long-range conspiracy hatched in the White House: his removal from power was entirely due to a popular uprising. On the other hand, the US government did belatedly succeed in undermining and co-opting the revolutionary ferment that was in the air. What is clear is that throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the poor and oppressed citizens of the Philippines had been gathering political strength. This emerging power was significantly bolstered by the August 1983 assassination of the most visible leader of the elite opposition, Benigno Aquino Jr. -- a murder which had the effect of ensuring that the non-Marcos elite was finally "galvanized . . . into active opposition." This galvanization had the effect of drawing the middle classes into the already popular and vocal opposition movement; and with the potential for a broad-based increasingly radicalized opposition movement developing in the Philippines, the US government became more than a little interested in intervening in the region. Elite concern in the United States was further aggravated when in late 1984, the wife of the assassinated Benigno, Cory Aquino -- who was now a serious contender for power -- worked with other opposition leaders to draw up plans that "spelled out a nationalist-orientated program of social reform and development and also called for the removal of US military bases from the Philippines."2
The US had always been interested in the Philippines because of the Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base: military bases which were key strategic sites from which every US invasion of Asia had gone through since 1898. Concern really heightened and got greater in about 1984, because of the people's movement, including the New People's Army (NPA), a fighting force of over 20,000 fighters and led by the Communist Party of the Philippines.
If it wasn't obvious before, it now became evident to US planners that a "diverse and well organized" movement was gaining momentum in the Philippines, "ranging from the NPA insurgency, to the mass, left-of-center civic movement BAYAN (New Patriotic Federation, which went by its acronym in Tagalog), which brought together millions of Philippine citizens, to numerous parties and groups of the center, center-right and right." Noting that "[p]erhaps the weakest among the opposition were the center and conservative sectors which, as in Nicaragua and other authoritarian Third World regimes, had vacillated during many years between support for, and opposition to, the dictatorship," they quickly funnelled 'democracy' aid to these needy sectors of civil society.3
Between 1984 and 1990, Philippine organizations received at least $9 million from the NED and other US sources. These included: the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), which mobilized the business community against Marcos; the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), a minority, conservative union federation affiliated with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which competed with more radical and left-leaning labor organizations; Philippine "youth clubs" established under the guidance of US organizers to mobilize Philippine youth; the KABATID Philippine women's organization (KABATID is the Tagalog acronym for Women's Movement for the Nurturing of Democracy), also established under the guidance of US organizers; and the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL).4
Here one should note that Robinson's figure of $9 million is based on publicly available NED annual reports, and as he observes, "the actual amount is probably much higher, since millions more were sent to the Philippines circuitously via such organizations as the AAFLI [Asian-American Free Labor Institute] and via the CIA and other 'national security' related spending, which is classified."5 To be sure the TUCP, which was the local affiliate of the AFL-CIO's Asian-American Free Labor Institute, was a creation of the Marcos Dictatorship pure and simple, and its goal was to keep the labor sector under control. Indeed, after Aquino's assassination, the US Government channelled millions of dollars to the TUCP through AAFLI as a way to help the TUCP -- and the Marcos Dictatorship -- survive. On the other hand, the most significant pro-worker, anti-management part of the labor movement in the Philippines was the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU-May First Movement) -- which was a nationalist, militant labor center of unions built in the various regional political economies across the nation that united on a national level on May 1, 1980, in Manila. KMU specifically challenged the TUCP, and they were central to the nationalist challenge to the dictatorship.
Living in fear of the evolution of a "left-center popular alliance," the US State Department dispatched their finest experts in conflict resolution to meet with Cory Aquino and the leader of the right-wing opposition, Salvador "Doy" Laurel, to "convince them to run under a united ticket that would stress anti-communism and refrain from opposing US bases in the Philippines (Laurel subsequently became Aquino's running-mate as candidate for vice-president)." Having laid the groundwork for a change of leadership, events then heated up when Marcos decided to ignore the results of the snap election held on February 7, 1986, in which the people of the Philippines elected the Aquino/Laurel ticket to power. Contrary to US interests, Marcos' adverse Dictatorial reaction further inflamed popular resistance, providing further fuel for the popular insurrection.6
The US wanted to do whatever it could to contain the growing insurrection, and an important part of the US's ultimately successful intervention in the Philippines was to get the military onside and ready for the 'democratic' transition; and a key player in this regard was General Fidel Ramos, a long-time loyalist to Marcos who was acting as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). It was in this way, with a 'little' prodding by the United States, that in mid-1985 General Ramos came to see the futility of supporting Marcos's crumbling regime and joined with Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile in helping organize a reformer's revolt which split the military shortly after the contested election.7 Thus when the people subsequently rose up in defiance of Marcos to protect the military reformers and their forces in Manila, Marcos' only choice at that time -- if he had wanted to crush the military revolt -- was to order the Army to slaughter the masses, and the US didn't want that!
With few other options left on the table, the US turned all its resources to bring pressure to bear on Marcos, and they did this by dispatching "at-large ambassador Philip Habib to Manila to urge Aquino to keep her followers off the streets and to convince Marcos to step down."8 However, when Habib failed to make the US's case firmly enough, Paul Laxalt, a right-wing US Senator from Nevada, called Marcos (on February 24) and told him to "cut and cut clean"; and within twenty-four hours Marcos was gone and Aquino had been sworn into office.9 Taken together, these actions served to undermine the growing political power of the people's power movement, as they circumscribed the need for the massive (potentially revolutionary) social protests that were in the pipeline -- which were to include economic boycotts and a general strike.
Significantly, "[s]uch actions would have greatly enhanced the labor movement, with its militant base and left-wing tendencies, in both removing Marcos and in shaping the post-Marcos government and policies." Yet one should note that there was never any question of Aquino -- soon to be Time magazine women of the year -- supporting labor, and particularly KMU, over the military. All the same, the big question for the US was: could she re-establish social stability and be won away from wanting to close the US military bases? Consequently after Aquino assumed power, there were several military coup efforts against her by the Marcos-inspired military,10 in which her side eventually prevailed: Ramos and Enrile played key roles here, with Ramos becoming more important of the two over time. Both Enrile and Ramos were longtime allies of the US -- Ramos is a graduate of West Point -- and they were able to convince her to keep the US bases. At the same time, the US government provided tons of money, and a direct address by Aquino to the US Congress, to keep her on their side, which wasn't hard: Aquino herself had gone to college in the US and was very pro-American. She also agreed to pay debt incurred by the Dictatorship, seeing them as legitimate.
In the aftermath of the US's 'democratic' intervention in the Philippines there has been a vigorous debate about the significance of the US's role in the process. Yet as Robinson points out, "whether or not US intervention was itself the determining factor in the overthrow of Marcos obscured a much more significant issue: US intervention was decisive in shaping the contours of the anti-Marcos movement and in establishing the terms and conditions under which Philippine social and political struggles would unfold in the post-Marcos period."11 Moreover it is critical to observe that the post-Marcos era has not been a happy period for the majority of the Philippines' citizens, In fact, Walden Bello and John Gershman described this new post-Marcos environment as "politically sanitized" to such an extent that "anti-elite candidates with radical political programs have been driven from the electoral arena by the threat of force -- so that even intense electoral competition would not be too destabilizing."12 Likewise in a stark reminder of what might happen in Egypt, Philippines labor specialist Kim Scipes writes:
[R]eplacing Marcos with Aquino left a brutal state apparatus intact, which Aquino used to kill peasants, workers and the urban poor. In fact, KMU leaders told me that the human rights abuses under democrat Aquino were worse than under dictator Marcos: she couldn't control her generals. However, whether she couldn't control them or if she didn't want to control them -- Alfred W. McCoy in Policing America's Empire(University of Wisconsin Press, 2009) claims the latter -- the fact is that unless the brutal state apparatus is dismantled, and especially the Police and the torture agencies, the repression could be re-instituted.13
The Egyptian people have struck a great blow for freedom from tyranny, and have complicated US and Israeli foreign policy in the region immensely, and such external forces will want to re-establish control at very first opportunity. However, not only foreigners but remnants of the Egyptian elite want to re-establish the control they've long had, and will do anything they can to do so. The Egyptian people need to learn from the Philippine experience, and do all they can to keep that from happening.
1 William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p.117, p.122.
2 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.123, p.126.
3 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.125. "In November 1984, a secret NSC Study Directive made the call for a concerted US intervention in the Philippines to facilitate a transition. 'The United States has extremely important interests in the Philippines. . . Political and economic developments in the Philippines threaten these interests,' stated the directive. 'The US does not want to remove Marcos from power to destabilize the GOP [Government of the Philippines]. Rather, we are urging revitalization of democratic institutions, dismantling "crony" monopoly capitalism and allowing the economy to respond to free market forces, and restoring professional, apolitical leadership to the Philippine military to deal with the growing communist insurgency.' 'These efforts,' it went on, 'are meant to stabilize (the country] while strengthening institutions which will eventually provide for a peaceful transition.'" Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.124-5.
4 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, pp.125-6. The reactionary Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) received almost US$7 million from the National Endowment for Democracy between 1984 and 1991 (p.135). One of the reasons for such emphasis on Philippine labor was the challenge from the militant KMU and the importance of labor in national political struggles" (p.136). For an excellent historical study of the KMU, see Kim Scipes, KMU: Building Genuine Trade Unionism in the Philippines, 1980-1994(New Day Publishers, 1996). Scipes is also the author of AFL-CIO's Secret War Against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? (Lexington Books, 2010), which provides an excellent historical overview of the interaction between the US government and the National Endowment for Democracy and organized labor. Needless to say, this labor movement imperialism is not being done through labor movement procedures, but behind the backs of members.
5 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.403.
6 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.127.
7 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.128.
8 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.127.
9 With the ouster of Marcos, Ramos was now rewarded for his assistance by the newly elected Aquino administration who appointed him Chief of Staff of the AFP, and later Secretary of Defense. In 1992 when Cory Aquino left office, Ramos was elected president of the Philippines, a position he held until 1998. After his presidency, Ramos became a committed 'champion for democracy' by taking up a position as the Asia advisory board Member for the Carlyle Group, that is, until the board was disbanded in 2004. He is presently a trustee of the 'democracy promoting' International Crisis Group, and is a patron of the related Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. www.webofdemocracy.org/foundations-anthropology-an.html
10 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.141.
11 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.129.
12 Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.141.
13 Kim Scipes, Email to Author, February 12, 2011. For a must-read analysis of the post-Marcos developments in the Philippines, see Kim Scipes, "Review of the Month: Global Economic Crisis, Neoliberal Solutions, and the Philippines," Monthly Review, 51 (7), December 1999, pp. 1-14.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Ang galing talaga mag-magic ng gobyerno. Nabawasan daw ng 5.3 milyon ang mahihirap sa Pilipinas
IBON Media Release / 10 February 2011
IBON Foundation, Inc., IBON Center 114 Timog Avenue , Quezon City Philippines
Phone: (632) 927-6986/927-7060 to 62|Fax: 929-2496| E-mail: media@ibon.org | http://www.ibon.org
NEW POVERTY METHODOLOGY REDUCES NUMBER OF POOR BY 5.3 MILLION
Poverty line now pegged at just PhP46 a day
Research group IBON questions the new methodology of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), saying that it significantly reduces the number of poor Filipinos by some 5.3 million.
The approved revisions reflected in the NSCB’s methodology for estimating poverty places the number of poor Filipinos to just 23.1 million in 2009. If the original methodology was consistently used, the number of poor should have been 28.5 million in 2009, which means that the new methodology effectively reduces the number of poor by 5.3 million without really improving the poverty situation. It would also show that the number of poor Filipinos increased by 850,000 from 2006 to 2009.
The NSCB has done this by pegging the official poverty threshold, or the amount supposedly necessary for a toler ab le standard of living, at just PhP46 per person per day instead of PhP52 per person per day if the old methodology was used.
This implies that a Filipino on average needs just PhP46 a day to meet all of his or her food and non-food needs. Basic needs include food, education, clothing and footwear, medical care, transportation and communication, fuel, light and water, housing, housing maintenance, furnishings, household operations, personal care and effects, and rental.
It must be stressed that the old methodology estimate of 28.5 million poor Filipinos in 2009 is still a likely low estimate because it assumes that a Filipino needs just P52 per day to stay out of poverty.
According to IBON, improvements to scientific methodologies are welcome but the new methodology seems unresponsive and detached to everyday realities. The group adds that it is better to err on the side of conservatism rather than paint an overly optimistic picture especially in the case of the Philippines which has seen rapid growth amid rising joblessness and low incomes. (end)
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution est ab lished in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
IBON Media Release / 9 February 2011
IBON Foundation, Inc., IBON Center 114 Timog Avenue , Quezon City Philippines
Phone: (632) 927-6986/927-7060 to 62|Fax: 929-2496| E-mail: media@ibon.org | http://www.ibon.org
Use of ‘least cost’ food bundle questioned
NEW POVERTY METHODOLOGY DETACHED FROM REAL SITUATION
Research group IBON criticizes government’s new poverty methodology as unreflective of the real situation of poor Filipinos, saying that the adjustments made on the already-flawed methodology has further distorted the picture of poverty in the country.
The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) yesterday released official poverty figures based on adjustments on the poverty estimation methodology, which the agency approved early this month. The new method supposedly estimates a food bundle, which is important because some three-fifths of the income of the poorest half of the population is spent on just food.
However, the estimates are based on a “least cost” food bundle, which the research group says may not be avail ab le to most Filipinos. This bundle apparently also relies on “revealed preference” which seems to mean that it reflects actual spending, but may be a pattern of spending not so much by choice but rather forced on Filipinos who adjust their spending according to their poverty.
Moreover, the revised methodology now pegs the official poverty threshold, or the amount supposedly necessary for a toler ab le standard of living, at just PhP46 per person per day in 2009. This is lower than what would have been a national poverty line of PhP52 according to the old methodology, and effectively reduces the number of poor by 5.32 million without really improving the poverty situation. If the original methodology was consistently used this would show that the number of poor Filipinos increased from 2006 by 850,000 to 28.5 million in 2009. It must be stressed that this is still a likely low estimate and assumes that a Filipino needs just P52 per day to stay out of poverty.
The research group says it is also disappointing that the government will only generate parallel estimates according to the old and new methodologies for just three years. This will make poverty estimates over time even more incompar ab le aside from, perhaps intentionally, giving the impression that poverty has been markedly decreasing. IBON also asks how the new methodology will affect the formulation of future poverty alleviation programs, especially amid rising prices and joblessness.
The government should cut poverty by increasing the incomes of Filipinos instead of reducing the poverty threshold. This is a similar situation to the change in the definition of unemployment in April 2005 under the previous Arroyo administration which statistically reduces the number of unemployed by some 1.5 million and the unemployment rate by around 3.6 percentage points without actually reducing the number of jobless Filipinos. (end)
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution est ab lished in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
IBON Foundation, Inc., IBON Center 114 Timog Avenue , Quezon City Philippines
Phone: (632) 927-6986/927-7060 to 62|Fax: 929-2496| E-mail: media@ibon.org | http://www.ibon.org
NEW POVERTY METHODOLOGY REDUCES NUMBER OF POOR BY 5.3 MILLION
Poverty line now pegged at just PhP46 a day
Research group IBON questions the new methodology of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), saying that it significantly reduces the number of poor Filipinos by some 5.3 million.
The approved revisions reflected in the NSCB’s methodology for estimating poverty places the number of poor Filipinos to just 23.1 million in 2009. If the original methodology was consistently used, the number of poor should have been 28.5 million in 2009, which means that the new methodology effectively reduces the number of poor by 5.3 million without really improving the poverty situation. It would also show that the number of poor Filipinos increased by 850,000 from 2006 to 2009.
The NSCB has done this by pegging the official poverty threshold, or the amount supposedly necessary for a toler ab le standard of living, at just PhP46 per person per day instead of PhP52 per person per day if the old methodology was used.
This implies that a Filipino on average needs just PhP46 a day to meet all of his or her food and non-food needs. Basic needs include food, education, clothing and footwear, medical care, transportation and communication, fuel, light and water, housing, housing maintenance, furnishings, household operations, personal care and effects, and rental.
It must be stressed that the old methodology estimate of 28.5 million poor Filipinos in 2009 is still a likely low estimate because it assumes that a Filipino needs just P52 per day to stay out of poverty.
According to IBON, improvements to scientific methodologies are welcome but the new methodology seems unresponsive and detached to everyday realities. The group adds that it is better to err on the side of conservatism rather than paint an overly optimistic picture especially in the case of the Philippines which has seen rapid growth amid rising joblessness and low incomes. (end)
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution est ab lished in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
IBON Media Release / 9 February 2011
IBON Foundation, Inc., IBON Center 114 Timog Avenue , Quezon City Philippines
Phone: (632) 927-6986/927-7060 to 62|Fax: 929-2496| E-mail: media@ibon.org | http://www.ibon.org
Use of ‘least cost’ food bundle questioned
NEW POVERTY METHODOLOGY DETACHED FROM REAL SITUATION
Research group IBON criticizes government’s new poverty methodology as unreflective of the real situation of poor Filipinos, saying that the adjustments made on the already-flawed methodology has further distorted the picture of poverty in the country.
The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) yesterday released official poverty figures based on adjustments on the poverty estimation methodology, which the agency approved early this month. The new method supposedly estimates a food bundle, which is important because some three-fifths of the income of the poorest half of the population is spent on just food.
However, the estimates are based on a “least cost” food bundle, which the research group says may not be avail ab le to most Filipinos. This bundle apparently also relies on “revealed preference” which seems to mean that it reflects actual spending, but may be a pattern of spending not so much by choice but rather forced on Filipinos who adjust their spending according to their poverty.
Moreover, the revised methodology now pegs the official poverty threshold, or the amount supposedly necessary for a toler ab le standard of living, at just PhP46 per person per day in 2009. This is lower than what would have been a national poverty line of PhP52 according to the old methodology, and effectively reduces the number of poor by 5.32 million without really improving the poverty situation. If the original methodology was consistently used this would show that the number of poor Filipinos increased from 2006 by 850,000 to 28.5 million in 2009. It must be stressed that this is still a likely low estimate and assumes that a Filipino needs just P52 per day to stay out of poverty.
The research group says it is also disappointing that the government will only generate parallel estimates according to the old and new methodologies for just three years. This will make poverty estimates over time even more incompar ab le aside from, perhaps intentionally, giving the impression that poverty has been markedly decreasing. IBON also asks how the new methodology will affect the formulation of future poverty alleviation programs, especially amid rising prices and joblessness.
The government should cut poverty by increasing the incomes of Filipinos instead of reducing the poverty threshold. This is a similar situation to the change in the definition of unemployment in April 2005 under the previous Arroyo administration which statistically reduces the number of unemployed by some 1.5 million and the unemployment rate by around 3.6 percentage points without actually reducing the number of jobless Filipinos. (end)
IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution est ab lished in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Parangal sa isang inhinyero ng bayan
TRIBUTE TO COMRADE BEATO LACABA
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison
Founding Chairman, Communist Party of the Philippines
Chief Political Consultant, National Democratic Front of the Philippines
I wish to convey most heartfelt condolences to the family and close comrades of Ka Beato Lacaba. I share your deep sense of loss as I am aware of his long dedicated service to the Filipino people, especially among his colleagues and friends in the field of science and technology. I owe to Ka Beato a special debt of gratitude in his capacity as sales manager of Aklat ng Bayan for playing a key role in publishing and distributing my books.
We are all consoled and gratified that he lived a life full of meaning and accomplishment in the people's struggle for national liberation and democracy. He had been an activist of the national democratic movement since his student days. After he graduated with the degree of mechanical engineer, he was employed by an engineering firm in Marikina where he helped arouse, organize and mobilize the workers and his fellow engineers.
From 1977 onwards, he was a member of a national democrat cell within the Liga ng Agham Para sa Bayan (LAB), an underground national democratic organization of scientists and technologists. He was active in organizing and mobilizing progressive scientists, engineers and workers doing scientific or technical work.
He enthusiastically applied his technical knowledge and skills in doing research and development of prototypes of machines and equipment needed by the national democratic movement. He exemplified the style of having a calm but active state of
mind. He performed his tasks quietly but diligently, conscientiously and productively.
He is fondly remembered by his colleagues in LAB as one who often turned a criticism-and-self-criticism session into an event full of laughter. He had a unique ability of lightening the atmosphere and bringing home important points. To insiders he was a self-effacing and humorous guy one could easily work with, although to outsiders he looked like he was a stern man with great authority.
He was highly appreciated for being able to earn a living for his family and yet being able to perform his revolutionary tasks. He ventured into business enterprises that could also
provide for the specific needs of his unit in LAB.
He was arrested in March 1990 along with other LAB members and was detained for several months at the Philippine Army's maximum security unit in Fort Bonifacio. He continued to be resolute and courageous. Upon his release, he immediately resumed participating in protest rallies and fora.
He was a charter member of the First Quarter Storm Movement and was one of its most active members. He was always present in any FQSM activity as well as multisectoral activities.
We are ever grateful to Ka Beato for having been an exemplary militant and for his contributions to the people's democratic struggle. His name and deeds are etched in the memory of the people. ###
By Prof. Jose Maria Sison
Founding Chairman, Communist Party of the Philippines
Chief Political Consultant, National Democratic Front of the Philippines
I wish to convey most heartfelt condolences to the family and close comrades of Ka Beato Lacaba. I share your deep sense of loss as I am aware of his long dedicated service to the Filipino people, especially among his colleagues and friends in the field of science and technology. I owe to Ka Beato a special debt of gratitude in his capacity as sales manager of Aklat ng Bayan for playing a key role in publishing and distributing my books.
We are all consoled and gratified that he lived a life full of meaning and accomplishment in the people's struggle for national liberation and democracy. He had been an activist of the national democratic movement since his student days. After he graduated with the degree of mechanical engineer, he was employed by an engineering firm in Marikina where he helped arouse, organize and mobilize the workers and his fellow engineers.
From 1977 onwards, he was a member of a national democrat cell within the Liga ng Agham Para sa Bayan (LAB), an underground national democratic organization of scientists and technologists. He was active in organizing and mobilizing progressive scientists, engineers and workers doing scientific or technical work.
He enthusiastically applied his technical knowledge and skills in doing research and development of prototypes of machines and equipment needed by the national democratic movement. He exemplified the style of having a calm but active state of
mind. He performed his tasks quietly but diligently, conscientiously and productively.
He is fondly remembered by his colleagues in LAB as one who often turned a criticism-and-self-criticism session into an event full of laughter. He had a unique ability of lightening the atmosphere and bringing home important points. To insiders he was a self-effacing and humorous guy one could easily work with, although to outsiders he looked like he was a stern man with great authority.
He was highly appreciated for being able to earn a living for his family and yet being able to perform his revolutionary tasks. He ventured into business enterprises that could also
provide for the specific needs of his unit in LAB.
He was arrested in March 1990 along with other LAB members and was detained for several months at the Philippine Army's maximum security unit in Fort Bonifacio. He continued to be resolute and courageous. Upon his release, he immediately resumed participating in protest rallies and fora.
He was a charter member of the First Quarter Storm Movement and was one of its most active members. He was always present in any FQSM activity as well as multisectoral activities.
We are ever grateful to Ka Beato for having been an exemplary militant and for his contributions to the people's democratic struggle. His name and deeds are etched in the memory of the people. ###
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Corruption was Gloria's biggest mistake: survey
Corruption was Gloria's biggest mistake: survey
By David Dizon, abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 08/04/2010
Source: ABS-CBNnews
MANILA, Philippines - One out of every 4 Filipinos believes that corruption during former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's rule was her biggest shortcoming after 9 years in power, a new Pulse Asia survey revealed Wednesday.
The survey, conducted last July 1 to 11 or after Mrs. Arroyo stepped down from office, showed that 26% of Filipinos believe corruption was Arroyo's biggest mistake.
Corruption as Arroyo's biggest failing was top of mind for all respondents from all geographic areas and socio-economic classes except for Class E respondents, who said it was inflation.
Corruption was decried by at least 32% of Metro Manila respondents and 30% of Visayan respondents. It was also cited by 35% of Class ABC respondents, 27% of Class D and 21% of Class E.
Pulse Asia said the survey question "What was the greatest shortcoming or mistake that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has done during her 9 years in office?" was open ended, and responses were collated by interviewers. A total of 1,200 respondents participated in the nationwide survey.
Fourteen percent of Filipinos said corruption in general was Arroyo's biggest mistake, another 9% said it was the botched national broadband deal with China's ZTE Corp. while 3% cited the P728-million fertilizer fund scandal. The last two scandals are just some of the corruption scandals linked to the Arroyos.
Meanwhile, 17% of Filipinos said Arroyo's failure to control inflation was her second biggest mistake as president. At least 25% of Class E respondents identified this as Arroyo's greatest failing, compared to 21% for corruption.
Thirteen percent of Filipinos criticized Arroyo her for excessive travel and/or excessive spending of government funds--her third biggest mistake--while another 11% cited the "Hello, Garci" wiretapping scandal as Arroyo's biggest mistake.
The "Hello, Garci" scandal linked Arroyo to an alleged conspiracy to rig the 2004 presidential election and sparked the biggest political crisis in her administration.
Eight percent of Filipinos, meanwhile, cited Arroyo's failure to provide jobs for the poor, which was one of her promises in a previous State of the Nation Address.
Other shortcomings of Arroyo that were cited by respondents were: failure to resolve the Maguindanao massacre (3%), failure to reduce poverty (2%), failure to provide scholarships (1%), did not sign the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (1%), involvement in jueteng (1%), increase in foreign debt (1%), lack of credibility of Cabinet members (1%), and increase in value-added tax (1%).
Some respondents also criticized Arroyo for not punishing or for tolerating anomalies of her husband, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo; for grabbing the presidency from Joseph Estrada; for not implementing land distribution, and, for letting Mike Arroyo run the government.
Infrastructure deemed Arroyo's legacy
In the same survey, 43% of Filipinos said the upgrading of public infrastructure such as airports and seaports was Arroyo's greatest achievement after 9 years in office.
Majority of Class ABC (53%) and Metro Manila (54%) respondents cited infrastructure improvements as the former President’s biggest achievement, while big pluralities in the other geographic areas (40% to 45%) and socioeconomic groupings (40% to 44%) also did the same.
Less than one in 10 Filipinos cited other achievements of the former president such as improving access to education (6%), providing assistance to victims of natural calamities (4%), providing assistance to the poor (4%), providing health insurance (3%), providing jobs (2%), ensuring peace and order (2%), improving the welfare of soldiers and law enforcers (1%), and increasing the pay of workers (1%).
However, about a quarter of Filipinos (26%) did not cite any meaningful achievement of former President Arroyo.
Leaves office with little trust
The survey also showed Arroyo left the presidency last June with record low trust and performance ratings.
The Pulse Asia survey showed 62% of Filipinos dissatisfied with Arroyo's performance in her last 3 months in office, compared to 16% who approve and 22% who were undecided.
Disapproval was highest among Metro Manila (67%) and Class E (64%) respondents.
On the other hand, Arroyo scored the highest approval rating from the Visayas (27%) and those from Class ABC (21%).
The survey showed that a majority of Filipinos (67%) distrust Arroyo, compared to 13% who trust her and 20% who are undecided.
Pulse Asia said there are essentially no changes in the overall trust ratings of former President Arroyo from April to July.
By David Dizon, abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 08/04/2010
Source: ABS-CBNnews
The survey, conducted last July 1 to 11 or after Mrs. Arroyo stepped down from office, showed that 26% of Filipinos believe corruption was Arroyo's biggest mistake.
Corruption as Arroyo's biggest failing was top of mind for all respondents from all geographic areas and socio-economic classes except for Class E respondents, who said it was inflation.
Corruption was decried by at least 32% of Metro Manila respondents and 30% of Visayan respondents. It was also cited by 35% of Class ABC respondents, 27% of Class D and 21% of Class E.
Pulse Asia said the survey question "What was the greatest shortcoming or mistake that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has done during her 9 years in office?" was open ended, and responses were collated by interviewers. A total of 1,200 respondents participated in the nationwide survey.
Fourteen percent of Filipinos said corruption in general was Arroyo's biggest mistake, another 9% said it was the botched national broadband deal with China's ZTE Corp. while 3% cited the P728-million fertilizer fund scandal. The last two scandals are just some of the corruption scandals linked to the Arroyos.
Meanwhile, 17% of Filipinos said Arroyo's failure to control inflation was her second biggest mistake as president. At least 25% of Class E respondents identified this as Arroyo's greatest failing, compared to 21% for corruption.
Thirteen percent of Filipinos criticized Arroyo her for excessive travel and/or excessive spending of government funds--her third biggest mistake--while another 11% cited the "Hello, Garci" wiretapping scandal as Arroyo's biggest mistake.
The "Hello, Garci" scandal linked Arroyo to an alleged conspiracy to rig the 2004 presidential election and sparked the biggest political crisis in her administration.
Eight percent of Filipinos, meanwhile, cited Arroyo's failure to provide jobs for the poor, which was one of her promises in a previous State of the Nation Address.
Other shortcomings of Arroyo that were cited by respondents were: failure to resolve the Maguindanao massacre (3%), failure to reduce poverty (2%), failure to provide scholarships (1%), did not sign the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (1%), involvement in jueteng (1%), increase in foreign debt (1%), lack of credibility of Cabinet members (1%), and increase in value-added tax (1%).
Some respondents also criticized Arroyo for not punishing or for tolerating anomalies of her husband, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo; for grabbing the presidency from Joseph Estrada; for not implementing land distribution, and, for letting Mike Arroyo run the government.
Infrastructure deemed Arroyo's legacy
In the same survey, 43% of Filipinos said the upgrading of public infrastructure such as airports and seaports was Arroyo's greatest achievement after 9 years in office.
Majority of Class ABC (53%) and Metro Manila (54%) respondents cited infrastructure improvements as the former President’s biggest achievement, while big pluralities in the other geographic areas (40% to 45%) and socioeconomic groupings (40% to 44%) also did the same.
Less than one in 10 Filipinos cited other achievements of the former president such as improving access to education (6%), providing assistance to victims of natural calamities (4%), providing assistance to the poor (4%), providing health insurance (3%), providing jobs (2%), ensuring peace and order (2%), improving the welfare of soldiers and law enforcers (1%), and increasing the pay of workers (1%).
However, about a quarter of Filipinos (26%) did not cite any meaningful achievement of former President Arroyo.
Leaves office with little trust
The survey also showed Arroyo left the presidency last June with record low trust and performance ratings.
The Pulse Asia survey showed 62% of Filipinos dissatisfied with Arroyo's performance in her last 3 months in office, compared to 16% who approve and 22% who were undecided.
Disapproval was highest among Metro Manila (67%) and Class E (64%) respondents.
On the other hand, Arroyo scored the highest approval rating from the Visayas (27%) and those from Class ABC (21%).
The survey showed that a majority of Filipinos (67%) distrust Arroyo, compared to 13% who trust her and 20% who are undecided.
Pulse Asia said there are essentially no changes in the overall trust ratings of former President Arroyo from April to July.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)