Wolfowitz is coming here for bigger fish, not the puny Abus

There’s been a "breakthrough" in the embarrassing Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) boondoggle. If this is true, it does not come a moment too soon. For the German government and the mainly government-owned Fraport AG, which poured the equivalent of US$250 million (and more) frustratingly into the stalled construction of passenger Terminal 3 at the international airport, has been grumbling that their cash had been flushed down the toilet through chicanery and overpricing.

The issue threatens to erupt not just into an international scandal but seems on the verge of becoming a hot political issue in the coming September elections in Germany. That’s why there’s consternation in Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Stuttgart and Berlin.

What’s more, the management of Fraport AG (Frankfurt International Airport, Inc.) will have to face its angry shareholders and stockholders at a showdown meeting in the city of Dusseldorf this June 23. If they don’t have an explanation as to how those big bucks were squandered in the Philippine airport project, and how this "loss" can be recovered, there will be – my German contacts assure me – hell to pay. What’s worse is our name will be mud on the international investment circuit.

Even the President herself was horrified, Alikabok tells this writer, when she returned from Tokyo a few days ago. As her plane coasted down to a landing on the Ninoy Aquino International Airport tarmac, she looked out her plane window and spotted the huge, unfinished terminal stranded in full view of all arriving and departing aircraft like the immense "white elephant" it is (or a beached whale, if you want to mix your metaphors). There was simply nothing going on! Not a single construction worker in sight, or piece of construction equipment in operation.

"My gosh," GMA reportedly exclaimed: "Why is nobody working on that terminal building? It’s an eyesore, just standing there!"

An aide observed in response: "Perhaps the workers are only out on lunch-break?"

Mrs. President: that "lunch-break" has been going on for several months already. Ever since the dismayed Fraport AG and the distressed Germans turned off the financial spigot, the PIATCO "Terminal 3" enterprise has ground to a complete stop.

In short, unless something’s done about the Mexican . . . I mean, German "stand-off", that giant skeleton of an abandoned project will stand there as a reminder to everybody, local and foreign, of our folly – and, may I add, cupidity.

* * *

There’s a glimmer of hope, however.

I’m told that the President, acting on the initial report and adverse findings of the Cabinet member she had tasked to investigate the PIATCO deal, Presidential Adviser on Strategic Projects Gloria Tan Climaco, instructed her legal "counsel" Pancho "Nonong" Villaraza (a.k.a. the grise eminence of the ultra-powerful law firm of Villaraza, (now Justice) Carpio, Cruz) to find a remedy for the situation.

It’s not true, then, what Jeffrey Cheng and his father, Mr. Cheng Yong (who’s chairman of the PIATCO enterprise) have been telling the distressed Germans – namely that Malacañang is "behind them all the way." For what I hear is that the Palace has given the Germans the green light to tie up with a new Philippine partner, or partners, who could "buy out" the Chengs (or whatever) and get the project financially back on track.

Let’s see then, if that happens. In the meantime, what’s happened to Secretary Gloria Tan Climaco? My sources say she’s still in California and doesn’t know what to do about the "warrant of arrest" issued against her by the Commission on Appointments. I don’t know whether the issuance of that "warrant" will be effective in compelling her to suddenly come home to "testify" in the final confirmation hearings on Transportation and Communications Secretary Pantaleon "Bebot" Alvarez. On the contrary – but again I’m guessing – the warrant may actually scare her off.

This is like one of those tele-dramas. Unfortunately, the "fall-out" from those moves and counter-moves can only hurt the Filipino people in real life. If we don’t find a way out of the PIATCO mess, and hammer out an equitable modus vivendi with the furious Germans who’re crying "foul", we’ll be tarred as a dangerous country in which to invest.

Make no mistake about it: the eyes of the world community are on this sordid deal, and every interested observer "outside" is awaiting its denouement. This is an explosive issue, I kid thee not, which could make or break us.

The Germans, of course, while they’re quite clearly the "victims", are not blameless. If the Fraport geniuses were so smart and honest, how did they get themselves suckered into this mess? That having been said: it’s imperative we get out and untangle it.

* * *

The hostage tragedy, which ended with a deranged knife-wielding wacko stabbing a helpless four-year-old boy to death last Friday, is shocking, as everybody’s already said. What’s not surprising is the ineptitude with which the police, who were there in force, handled the dicey situation. This demonstrates once again how badly our cops are trained, or not kept in training and discipline. That’s why they milled about, agape, not knowing, apparently, what they did was unforgivable.

I’m sorry to have to say that decades ago, when we were young police reporters, the kind of cops we saw in action were far different. They knew what to do. They were motivated. The Detective Bureau, for instanced, was compose of the brightest and the best – not just any influential bravo whose connections got him the privilege of getting off the beat, shucking off the uniform – then slinking around preening himself as a plainclothesman. It’s time for "retraining". It’s time, really experienced instructors gave policemen guidelines on how to act and react in every conceivable crime situation.

The famous adventure writer Robert Ruark, in his book which was published many years ago, Use Enough Gun (or that’s how I remember it was called), recounted how a wise, veteran "hunter" prepared himself to face any danger he might encounter in the African veldt and jungle.

For instance, one of the hunter’s anticipated problems was: What do you do when trapped by a charging bull elephant? He rehearsed in his mind what to do: the most logical solution he found – which, however, required timing and courage – was to run towards the attacking elephant, jump towards its head, grasp each tusk with one hand, and swing up. This would prevent the elephant from goring him with either of the tusks, or slapping him down with its trunk, and confuse the beast long enough to enable the intrepid hunter to jump away to safety.

When the hunter found himself in this precise predicament, Ruark related, the fellow didn’t even have to think. He performed the maneuver instinctively, and it saved his life! (If you’re planning to go on safari, on the other hand, don’t tempt or provoke the elephants. This gimmick might not work for you).

In the same manner our policemen and SWAT team members should be schooled so repeatedly in what to do that they will manage to perform in similar almost-instinctive fashion when confronted with a hostage crisis. (They could have plugged that crazy at any time, I’m informed. Even from the photographs published, a cross-eyed Keystone cop could have nailed the guy dead-center. But they hesitated – and a child is dead. Were they afraid of being brought to court? Or did none of them have any target practice at all, lately? Monday morning quarterbacking, alas, is what we columnists do – so I can’t tell for sure why they bungled).

The media, for its part, didn’t play too glorious a role in this either – the way I see it. We’re like our counterparts in the United States and the paparrazi who figured in the Princess Diana tragedy: We rush off, with popping flashbulbs and TV camera lights to cover everything "on the spot", and the devil take the hindmost. It seems there were so many media persons at the scene in the Philtranco bus terminal in Pasay that they inevitably got in the way of the action.

And, if you think of it, when a cop is "on camera", he could get too self-conscious to do anything drastic, except "act" for the cameras. How to balance off the need for media coverage with safety and security on the scene, whether in case of crime or war, remains a dilemma. There must be some self-discipline here. The hunger for a scoop or a good "shot" must be tempered with sensibility and common-sense.

* * *

In case President GMA is wondering about the background of US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who’s arriving this afternoon to meet with her, I can only recall that this fellow is one of the heavy-hitters of the Republican administration, not just of President George W. Bush, but of previous Republican governments.

Wolfowitz, indeed, was one of the guys who helped "plot" the downfall of the late dictator, Apo Ferdinand R. Marcos in 1986. This was a difficult undertaking, it must be pointed out, since the incumbent US President, Ronald Reagan, and his First Lady, Nancy, were very buddy-buddy with Ferdie and Imelda. In the end, on the other hand, Reagan was convinced to tell his pal, President Marcos, to cut and "cut clean". That’s why the Americans finally . . . well, rescued (abducted?) the Marcoses from Malacañang and whisked them off to Hawaii, not Paoay.

Among those who mapped out the downfall of Macoy with Wolfowitz, if I remember right, were now US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, John Maisto, Mike Armacost, etc. Anyway, that’s where Wolfowitz is coming from. He also served in an even more senior position in the administration of Dubya’s father, former President George Bush, Sr. It was during the Democratic Party years, under Bill Clinton, that Wolfowitz went on sabbatical – but no he’s back in Republican harness as one of the "hit men" of Bush Junior.

If it’s true that Mr. Wolfowitz plans to ask President Macapagal-Arroyo for permission to "station" (not just "visit"?) an aircraft carrier with its accompanying battle group or task force off Basilan and Zamboanga, you can be sure that those "forces" aren’t going there just to float around looking for an opportunity to zap the Abu Sayyaf, or rescue the Burnhams. There’s more at stake.

The way I see it, putting an aircraft carrier with its 85 aircraft (more planes than several Southeast Asian countries’ air forces put together) and missiles, plus support frigates, destroyers, and other naval craft (also armed with missiles, etc.), has less to do with the Abus, or any Moro insurgent group, than with guarding the "choke points" between the Sulu Sea, the South China Sea, the Straits of Malacca, and the channels leading up to the Indian Ocean – just in case a war erupts between India and Pakistan.

Our southern seas are, probably, on the strategic blueprint, a vital segment of what military planners call the US "Forward Edge Battle Area" (FEBA). That’s what I think. But, I confess, I’m neither MacArthur, Eisenhower, Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf nor CINCPAC Admiral Fargo. Anyway, a carrier is too big a bat, as I’ve said before, with which to swat those pesky fleas, the Abus.

I hope our President gets an honest read-out on what Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and his bossman in Washington really want – and need. They’re not just here to help us, I’m sure. Indeed, their help is welcome – but it’s us who must set the conditions, and spell out the quid for the quo. Even on the battlefield, being alert is what spells the difference between the quick and the dead.