Not enough

The Energy Regulation Commission’s permission granted to the government-owned National Power Corp. (NAPOCOR) to raise its power rates, provisionally, by an average of P0.98 per kilowatt-hour is far from enough to enable NAPOCOR and the government to stem the multibillion losses incurred monthly by "subsidizing" power rates so extravagantly.

The new power rates are supposed to be effective next September 26, ERC Chairman (and former Congressman) Rudy Albano has announced.

Of course, there will be "protests" against even this inadequate increase. We’ve all gotten spoiled by these non-stop, politically inspired, giveaway and "populist" subsidies. We’re not used to paying. No wonder, even the idea of properly paying taxes is "repugnant" to almost everybody.

Why, the very thought of "taxing" churches, churchmen, and religious movements was immediately shot down by President GMA. Horrors, what sacrilege! (In exchange, since they’re non-taxable for doing God’s work and helping the poor, our church leaders ought to resolve to stop meddling in politics – but lift their own hearts and those of the faithful to God and the hope of heaven. Remember, Jesus drove the money-changers out of the Temple with a piece of rope, because He declared the Temple belonged to God. Render unto God, therefore, the things that are God’s, and leave it to Ceasar, Juan and Kulasa to take care of the marketplace of politics.)

The NAPOCOR, in its desperation, begged for a P1.87 KWH increase, but I suppose politicians will always be politicians. Our government still won’t bite the bullet our political leaders keep on talking about in response to the "fiscal deficit". They’d rather stick "band-aid" on wounds which require major surgery.

When will the free ride end? We’re running out of gasoline. Almost everybody accepts the axiom that "there’s no gain without pain". The trouble is, we keep on postponing the pain. Tomorrow? Perhaps never? Perhaps not until even Argentina cries for us.

* * *

The horrible carnage wrought by Chechen and reputedly Arab terrorists in that school in Southern Russia (Beslan in northern Ossetia) in which 322 children and parents were slaughtered after a three-day hostage drama – a hundred more are still "missing" – should remind us that terrorists can strike anywhere, and in a most cold-blooded manner.

We must remain alert in our own land to any danger from fanatics, particularly the same type as the Muslim Chechens and their Islamic mujahadeen allies who vented their "rage" on helpless school-children and their families on School Opening Day in Russia.

If you’ve noticed, the fortunes of United States President George "Dubya" Bush have taken an upswing in America after weeks of faltering, and running virtually neck-and-neck with his Democratic Party challenger, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. This is perhaps because many Americans are beginning to be convinced that they need a leader who’s tougher and possibly as tenacious and fanatical as the terrorists. The terrorists always invoke the name of God or Allah. Bush begins every Cabinet meeting with a prayer. In God we trust – must be his creed, but, as they sang in World War II, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

Sure, everybody’s by now seen Michael Moore’s savage film "documentary" indictment of Bush and his war-mongering, which sold hundreds of millions of tickets at the Box Office in America (and was seen by many here in the Philippines, thanks to pirated DVDs), but when the chips are down, images of what happened in Russia in the past few days, and during 9/11 in the year 2001 in New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon – the anniversary of those suicide-hijacker attacks which killed 3,000 innocents is next Saturday – continue to haunt mankind. How do you fight terrorists? With sweet words or with fire and sword?

This is not to justify Dubya’s plunging into Iraq, then failing to find those touted WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction). But in a way, it explains it. Over the past 15 years, even while in the Middle East myself, I’ve read 13 of the more than two dozen books written with insight and scholarship by Professor Bernard Lewis, the noted Arabist and Professor of Near Eastern Studies emeritus at the University of Princeton, starting with The Arabs in History, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, The Political Language of Islam, and more recently, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford University Press, 2002) and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, (The Modern Library, New York, 2003). Lewis is no arm-chair specialist. He knows the turf and is regarded widely as dispassionate in his discourse.

Last month, his latest work came off the press, From Babel to Dragomas subtitled, Interpreting the Middle East. (Oxford, 2004).

Every book writer and analyst seems to be trying to interpret it nowadays (just as in every bookstore there are shelves on shelves of volumes on "leadership secrets of..." and "how to get rich" or "how to lose weight without giving up caviar," "or something like that, including the sonofabitch diet). However, it’s Lewis who has been the most consistent, long before the Israeli, Gulf and Iraq wars.

In his newest volume, Lewis describes America as "targeted by a history of hatred." (pages 374-377).

His theme was that for many centuries Islam, Muslims believe, was "the greatest civilization on earth – the richest, the most powerful, the most creative in every significant field of human endeavor". Then all this changed. Muslim lands were invaded and dominated by Christian powers.

Lewis said: "The resulting frustration and anger at what seemed to them a reversal of both natural and divine law had been growing for centuries, and have reached a climax in our own time. These feelings find expression in many places where Muslims and non-Muslims meet and clash – in Bosnia and Kosovo, Chechnya, Israel and Palestine, Sudan, Kashmir, and the Philippines, among others.

The prime target of the resulting anger is, inevitably, the United States, now the unchallenged, if not unquestioned leader of what we like to call the free world and what others variously define as the West, Christendom and the world of the unbelievers."

Osama bin Laden, Lewis asserts, believes that it was they (the Muslim warriors) who brought about the "defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union" owing to "the holy war... they fought in Afghanistan".

In short, they had dealt with one of the infidel superpowers... the more ruthless, the more dangerous of the two. Ergo, dealing with the soft and pampered United States would, so it seemed, be a much easier task."

Lewis tries to explain the "basic contempt" with which the Islamic militants regard Americans.

The basic reason for this contempt is what they perceive as the rampant immorality and degeneracy of the American way – contemptible but also dangerous, because of its corrupting influence on Muslim societies.

* * *

"What did the Ayatollah Khomeini mean when he repeatedly called America the ‘Great Satan’? The answer is clear," Lewis argues: "Satan is no an invader, an imperialist, an exploiter. He is a tempter, a seducer, who, in the words of the Qur’an, Whispers in the hearts of men.

"Another aspect of this contempt," Lewis underscores, "is expressed again and again in the comments of Bin Laden and others like him. The refrain is always the same. Because of their depraved and self-indulgent way of life, Americans have become soft and cannot take casualties. And then they repeat the same litany – Vietnam, the Marines in Beirut, Somalia. Hit them and they will run. More recent attacks confirmed this judgement in their eyes – the attack on the World Trade Center in New York in February 1993, with six killed and more than a thousand injured; the attack on the American liaison mission in Riyadh in November 1995, with seven Americans killed; the attack on the military living quarters in Khobar in Saudi Arabia in June 1996, with 19 American soldiers killed and many more wounded; the embassies in East Africa in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, with 17 sailors killed – all these brought only angry but empty words and, at most, a few misdirected missiles.

"The conclusion Bin Laden drew was that the United States had become feeble and frightened and incapable of responding. The crimes of Sept. 11 were the result of this perception and were intended to be the opening salvo of a large campaign of force Americans and their allies out of Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world, to overthrow the corrupt tyrants America, and to prepare the ground for the final world struggle."

Professor Lewis concludes: "The immediate and effective response against their bases in Afghanistan must have come as a serious shock to the terrorist organizations and compelled some revision of their earlier assessment of American weakness and demoralization."

This is why Bush hit out at Saddam Insane and Iraq – America, he and his Vulcans felt, had to keep on hitting, demonstrating to would-be terrorists and attackers that the US fully intends to punch, not counter-punch, at any suspected enemies. It is the very "rogue" nature of Dubya’s cowboy behavior that, many Americans are beginning to insist, keeps their bloodthirsty enemies off-balance. Will America be attacked again by Bin Laden, or his surrogates, and Islamic suicide-bombers or hijackers? Probably. It is the very paranoia which so annoys America’s "friends" and foes alike that keeps Fortress America – while still vulnerable – less easy to attack than before. One can only total casualties and fatalities, not tote up a scoreboard on attacks deterred, delayed, or derailed.

Bush has given the unreasoning hatred of America’s enemies an equally unreasoning response – and is unrepentant, although he sometimes resembles Alfred E. Neuman of "Mad comics", about doing so. So, with less than two months left before the November 2 elections, he seems to be gaining the upperhand – and will probably, not surely (a caveat) be re-elected.

In this light, GMA and our government, for all the protestations about US-RP relations remaining cordial and good, and the "alliance" still in place, must be prepared to cope with a hostile Washington, DC and a disappointed and possibly resentful George W. Bush. Sure, our President and her government had their reasons for saving Angelo de la Cruz, and abandoning the "coalition" on the battlefield – but with phone-pal Bush desperately fighting for re-election, every "desertion" hurts – painfully. It put him off his stride, and now that he seems to have recovered it, somewhat, he’ll not easily forget the slight. Would you?

We’ve been boasting about independence and self-reliance – and these are not just good, but great virtues. Perhaps it’s time, then, to demonstrate that this is not all talk.

* * *

Today, the 12-member Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines will meet to deliberate on the eleven candidates for the presidency of the State University, Dr. Francisco Nemenzo Jr., who will turn 70 years of age next February, is expected to vacate the position on that date.

A UP president is elected by the university Board of Regents, among whose 12 members are Brother Rolando Dizon, head of the Commission on Higher Education, UP President Dodong Nemenzo himself, Senator Juan Flavier and Rep. Cynthia Villar, who chair the Senate and House Committees on Education, respectively; Gen. Jaime de los Santos (ret.), representing the UP Alumni Association; Faculty Regent Dr. Gerry Cao; Student Regent Marco de los Reyes, and five GMA appointees, among them is retired Supreme Court Justice Abraham Sarmiento.

The candidates in the "long list" of eleven are: Dr. Consolacion Alaras, former chair of the Department of English and Comparative Literature, College of Arts and Letters, UP Diliman; Dr. Soledad Cagampang-De Castro, former faculty, UP College of Law; Dr. Ernesto de Castro, acting chancellor, UE Caloocan Campus; Dr. Georgina Encanto, former dean, College of Mass Communication, UP Diliman; Ambassador Edgardo Espiritu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, and former member, UP Board of Regents; Dr. Ester Garcia, former chair, Commission on Higher Education and former Professor of Chemistry, UP Diliman; Dr. Federico Macaranas, executive director, Asian Institute of Management-World Bank Development Resource Center; Prof. Solita Monsod, professor of Economics, UP Diliman and former Philippine Socio-Economic Planning Minister (later Secretary); Dr. Emerlinda Roman, chancellor, UP Diliman; Regent Abraham Sarmiento, former Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines, currently member of the UP Board of Regents; and Dr. Eduardo Sison, chairman of the MADECOR Group, a consulting firm based in the Philippines and former faculty, UPLB Institute of Food, Science and Technology,

According to our source in the Board, some of the above candidates will be eliminated as today’s meeting. Who will remain in the "short list"? One of those counting on being in it, banking on his closeness to GMA’s father, the late Cong Dadong, is 82 years old! (Why then is Nemenzo being "retired" when he is only going to become 70?)

Just asking.