Whoever did it, we might just as well continue, without pause, to pursue our war against terrorists. No matter whether ideology, or gangsterism, or religious fanaticism is involved, the bomber’s intent is always to sow terror among the population. (Then there’s the "I am God" sniper in Washington, DC area, who shot dead his eighth victim yesterday – a man at a gas station – only a few days after he had seriously wounded his seventh, a 13-year old boy outside a Maryland school last Monday. This ruthless killer has already murdered seven victims, chosen at random, hitting them with a single bullet from considerable distances with a military-type or hunting rifle – a single murderous stalker holding the capital of the world’s only superpower in the grip of fear –h fear of the unknown.)
Yesterday, too, a bomb – also described as "home-made" – was discovered in a commuter mini-bus in Zamboanga City. Coming a week after a nail-bomb killed a US soldier and three of our civilians (wounding 20 others including another American Green Beret), this luckily-recovered bomb has that community in a tizzy. We might as well face the fact that "bombing" has become a way of life and death all over the world.
The death of the US special forces trooper was not unexpected. When any nation sends its military into a danger zone, including our own military, it’s understood that these personnel are (to use the American expression) "out in harm’s way."
During the Vietnam War, we had to get used to land mines, plastique explosives, and satchel bombs being exploded by the Viet Cong and agents of North Vietnam. Pretty girls in their ao dais, those graceful Vietnamese dresses with the slits up to the hip, would wheel up innocent-looking bicycles and lean them against walls in places where US "grunts" and ARVN military personnel might congregate, or in parking lots near BOQs (Bachelor Officers’ Quarters). The ladies would leave, then shortly afterwards the bikes would detonate. The handlebars and other hollow places in the bicycles had been packed with enough plastique, it turned out, to blow holes in six-inch walls, and devastate the surroundings as well.
Then there was the "jumping baby" mine. A primary explosion would send the explosive to hip level, then would come the big detonation, scattering shrapnel in all directions. (We saw a Marine cut in two trying to defuse such a mine. Mind you, we always kept at a respectful distance.)
During the February 1968 "Tet" offensive, two motorbike-riding youths hurled a satchel bomb over the wall at the Saigon residence of our Philippine Ambassador, at that time the late Ambassador Luis Moreno Salcedo. The bomb blew up the two cars there, and also the room above the garage belonging to Louie’s son, now a prominent businessman and economic analyst doing business in Vietnam and Indonesia – Ruy Moreno. Fortunately, Ruy wasn’t there.
I occasionally used that same room during flying visits, but that time I was billeted in the old Continental Hotel on Duong Tu-do or Freedom Street (formerly the famed Rue Catinat). That famous central street is now called in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) Duong Le Duan – which means, I think, "simultaneous rising". The fortunes of war and independence and who are the losers and victors, can be read in most cities through the changes in street names. In Metro Manila, and other urban places here, our streets are named after politicians. The politicians always win. It’s the people who lose.
They interrogated poor Manda mercilessly about the "complaints" of the PIATCO – you know, the already well-known Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. – that Manda was not "supporting" the preparations of Terminal 3 for that unfinished terminal building’s "soft opening" scheduled by President Macapagal-Arroyo for December 15. In short, the implication was that NAIA Manager Manda had been hampering the PIATCO’s efforts to get the terminal ready in time. (As usual, it was PIATCO’s spokesman, Moises Tolentino, who attended this confidential, in-house session, for his company.)
On the contrary, Manda declared, it was PIATCO which had not lived up to its commitments to construct certain required infrastructure, such as the access roads between Terminals 2 and 3. PIATCO, he pointed out, had not even started on several undertakings it had promised to complete, yet was blaming the government instead for its lapses.
I am mystified, indeed, by President GMA even scheduling a "soft opening" or inauguration for that Terminal 3 which is so mired in controversy that it is very iffy if it can start operating even months from now. No international airline has "signed up" to use it!
Moreover, it is calculated that by the time this terminal is "operational", the government would have spent, instead of PIATCO, at least P10 billion for its own infrastructure development so it can get Terminal 3 going. Why? Isn’t Terminal 3 supposed to be a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) project?
Is PIATCO now mounting a demolition campaign against the NAIA chief? Manda has only been doing his job. He had been trying to protect the interests of the government and monitoring the compliance of everyone with the Concession Agreement governing the PIATCO deal. I recall that it was Manda who issued a cease-and-desist order (CDO) when PIATCO attempted to build a cargo terminal without Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) approval. Wasn’t that on the property of the former Nayong Pilipino?
It appears that a strategy of PIATCO’s very influential spin-doctors is to attack a person if the arguments put forward by that person cannot be refuted. This is what happened to Secretary Gloria Tan Climaco, the Presidential Adviser on Strategic Projects, who was tasked by President GMA to investigate the PIATCO contract and the slowdown in construction of Terminal 3 as well as the onerous conditions in the revised contract.
When, after months of serious inquiry, Climaco rendered an adverse report, she was stormed at with shot and shell, her integrity questioned, "bad stories" circulated against her, and she was bad-mouthed all over the place. What had been her crime? To honestly and bravely declare, even if she suspected that powerful people "up there" were backing PIATCO, that the contract should be considered null and void, was vastly disadvantageous to the government, should be junked, and a new contract drawn up.
The way I see it, the government would end up paying for the construction of Terminal 3, assume all the debts and obligations – but the profits and fees would go to the PIATCO owners, led by the Chengs, father and son. As for the German "partners", Fraport AG, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars (euros) building most of the terminal, they would be left out in the lurch. Sanamagan.
Is it true that the PIATCO geniuses are now looking for another German airport company, or some other foreign partner, to help them complete and operate Terminal 3? Wouldn’t this look weird? How can the Philippine government permit another German firm, perhaps a competitor of Fraport in Germany, to come in and operate a terminal which was constructed 96 percent by funds which came from Fraport?
In Germany, President GMA ought to know, our reputation is already zilch. No decent or legitimate investor will invest here. The word has already gone out to other European Union members that European investors can lose their shirts by being double-crossed, by people with powerful connections. Only "pirates", out to make a fast buck, will come in. Is this the way GMA wants to attract European investors to help fund her other government projects and initiatives?
What I find strange but very interesting is the perception (correct me if I’m wrong) that GMA has sidelined Gloria Tan Climaco and is mystifyingly supportive of PIATO. Sus, Madam President. It’s not those queries about sex life or beauty tips that you should beware of: It’s the questions now being asked by the public – but not directly addressed to you.
The Makati Business Club, of course, is fascinatingly silent about both the PIATCO and the PEA issues. Perhaps too many of their friends or even "members" are involved?
Don’t relax, NEDA Secretary of Socio-Economic Planning Dante B. Canlas, because I’ve come to the end of this column. I’ll have a few questions to ask of you in my next one. Abangan.
The airlines have not signed any leases yet, obviously not unless the dust of the controversy settles, and not unless the safety and security issues shall all have been adequately addressed. Let’s even assume that by some miracle Terminal 3 passes all the pre-opening tests by December. Even then the airlines have requested a period of six months or half a year in which to construct their offices and instal their operational equipment and procedures to avoid problems in the transfer. The AOC, in short, has proposed a "staggered" transfer.
And what about the US Federal Aviation Authority? Its inspectors came last month (September) to look around. Their report will be rendered shortly. What if the FAA downgrades our international airport from Category I to Category II? Mind you, it has not gone unnoticed that neither PIATCO nor the government constructed a tunnel underneath the runway to safely link NAIA Terminal 2 to the new NAIA Terminal 3. (Wasn’t that supposed to be done by PIATCO under the original terms of the contract?)
If we have to ferry passengers across the runway from NAIA Terminals 1 and 2 to the new Terminal 3, wouldn’t that pose a hazard not only to the passengers "crossing" the runway, but to aircraft landing and taking off? Sanamagan. I’m not an airport expert, but the prospect of hopping across a busy runway terrifies me. It certainly would terrify the pilots of incoming and outgoing aircraft, too. Perhaps I oversimplify, but that’s one of the things that bother me, being a frequent flyer.