A social contract

Most advocates on constitutional reform agree that postponement would be its death knell. That is why they are working hard. If all goes well, we will have elections, no doubt about it but elections under the new reformed Constitution which will be different. It will be less about money or popularity. It will take a bit longer to perfect elections for parliamentary government. Cultivating robust political parties will take more time but a start will be made to put us on the right track. It is strange how right-thinking persons would rather conduct elections as if they had never learned the lessons of the elections that gave us Erap as president.

* * *

The only way to overcome postponement is to amend the Constitution by constituent assembly. I agree with those who say that we cannot leave it to Congress because they would be acting for their own interests or as Senator Franklin Drilon says it will be ‘under suspicion.’ May I ask who is not acting in their self-interest? I am not sure that the story of how Senator Drilon flipped flopped is not itself a story of self-interest. But let me say again constitutional reformists are not leaving it to Congress. On the contrary in the coming days and weeks, the Consultative Forum for Constituional Change will present a written agreement on the proposed reforms as a social contract between elected officials and their constituents. The changing of the 1987 Constitution circa 2003 will be a joint enterprise by the citizenry and their elected officials that is – the 135 members of Congress, senators who are aware of their constitutional duties and some 1.2 million local authorities ie governors, mayor, municipal mayors whose leaders have already signed their commitment for constitutional assembly and their constituents. Those who are concerned that Congress might act on its own interests should get into the act. Who knows? That might be our first step in uniting the country. Quarantined Speaker Jose de Venecia told me over the phone that some 300 labor unions have also signified their support for constitutional reform by constituent assembly.

* * *

The three areas that will be the subject of a social contract are: the shift to parliamentary government; a definite timetable for federalism and economic reforms that will put us in a competitive position with our Asian neighbors. One of the staunchest supporters for constitutional reform, Senator Aquilino Pimentel told this column that his speech before the Butuan Integrated Bar at Agusan del Norte on constitutional reform was enthusiastically applauded. Asked about other senators, he said he is confident that they will come around so that both Houses can begin discussing on the amendments to be presented to the people in a referendum. If Speaker de Venecia had not been quarantined, the agenda for the bicameral committee would have been mapped out. "It is time to put the country in order", said Pimentel, whose advocacy for federalism as the route to peace in Mindanao is widely acknowledged.

* * *

An article that foreshadowed war in Iraq. In my last column I began reprinting an article written for the Atlanta-Journal Constitution by its deputy editor, Jay Bookman. It is too long for a column so I am printing excerpts. The article was based on a US National Security report in 2000. If this information is open to Americans it should be to Filipinos . Information is important in order to make judgements.

* * *

Bookman argues that the war was intended to propel the US "as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman." The plan for global domination was in the making for more than ten years. His allegations are based on a National Security Report in 2000. "That report reads like a blueprint for the current Bush defense policy." Bookman says. He cites the report’s recommendations to repudiate the anti-ballistic missile treaty; a commitment to a global missile defense system and a project that would equip the US to enforce Pax Americana. All have been largely realized. Defense spending has increased from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8. Next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP. "It advocates transforming U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That’s exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others. " Bookman asserts.

* * *

More alarming in the report is the recommendation that the US develop small nuclear warheads to target the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." Saddam Hussein is said to be hiding in such a bunker. This year the GOP-led US House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon. It is called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, but which the Senate has so far refused. Bookman says he is not surprised the recommendations have been implemented. The persons behind the report now occupy positions in the US government that enable them to do just that. Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary, John Bolton is undersecretary of state, Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon’s Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department. There are others. About 27 persons made the report in 2000 but they were then private persons and could be more frank and less diplomatic. President Bush’s "axis of evil" is nothing new. Indeed this could have been the origin of the preemptive strike. The report identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets. The report criticized the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

* * *

To preserve Pax Americana, US forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties". As policeman of the world, it cannot defer to the United Nations. "Such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.", Bookman writes. To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the US, the report advocates a much larger military presence worldwide, in addition to the roughly 130 nations where US troops are already deployed. If the Bookman article is true, it also explains why the Americans acted the way they did in pushing for Balikatan exercises. More specifically, the report argues that the US needs permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. "That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install US troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia." Bookman wrote.

* * *

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted as far back as 1992 by the Defense Department according to Bookman. It is on the same theme: a vision of the US as a "colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power." The document was withdrawn by the first President Bush when it was leaked and widely criticized. At the time the defense secretary was Richard Cheney and the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who was defense undersecretary for policy. "The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense. One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world’s policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry." Bookman writes. Donald Kagan who was part of the group said"You saw the movie High Noon? We’re Gary Cooper." While this column would agree that the rest of the world might accept the US in the Cooper role, it would change how Americans operate in the international arena. There is no quarrel about the world’s need for leadership and how the US may be in the best position to provide that leadership as the world’s sole superpower. The problem is how it enunciates and conducts that policy. Again we turn to Bookman who says " Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention. For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us."

* * *

Kagan willingly accepts that the US may have to establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq. It may be a costly global commitment but Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits. It will be a lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Bookman says. Rumsfeld, puts it rather gently. "If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful." Kagan is more blunt."People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react. Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up.The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor."

* * *

What of 9/11? The events of Sept. 11 gave the advocates of empire an opportunity to press their case with a new president. "In debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the US will play in the years and decades to come. Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us? Bookman asks. He challenges Americans that "if we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still."

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]