Networking with the Global Call against poverty

It may be worthwhile to look into the possibility of networking with The Global Call to Action against Poverty to promote the Philippine Initiative for debt equity conversion. The group is a worldwide alliance of celebrities and world figures who have banded together "to making world leaders live up to their promises, and to making a breakthrough on poverty in 2005."

It is an alliance built around the common cause of ending poverty by tapping: existing coalitions, community groups, trade unions, individuals, religious and faith groups in a new campaign for debt relief. In the group are South African icon, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, actress Claudia Schiffer, Bono and Mary Robinson, George Clooney, Bard Pitt and Nobel laureates John Polanyi and James Orbinski. Not to mention Irish rocker Bob Geldof who is a veteran campaigner. He organized a series of concerts last July to put pressure on the G8 leaders just before the summit in London. If British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made helping Africa one of the central pillars of Britain’s G8 presidency it is thanks to these determined lobbyists.

"It is our chance to ask politicians and leaders what they are going to do to overcome poverty, and to demand that they take action now. This is an opportunity for all of us, together, to demand that world leaders act against poverty."

In the coming months, they have organized groups and individuals to act as one whether the activity is local, national and international activities. The debt problem affects all countries, the borrowers as well as the lenders, GCAP added.

Although the Philippine initiative as propounded by Speaker JDV and adopted as the Lakas-CMD platform differs from the GCAP’s objectives, a common cause can be forged. The speaker’s proposal for debt-equity conversion would be more palatable to creditors than the GCAP’s debt forgiveness. Moreover, debt forgiveness in itself is a dead end and can only generate limited benefits to debtor countries. They will still need capital and expertise from their creditors to undertake massive development projects.

Happily, such development that would answer poverty is addressed by debt equity conversion. Lenders and borrowers become partners. It is still too early to tell just how far the proposal will go except to say that it has caught fire and has become a topic of discussion in financial circles. If it does take off, this is something we can be truly proud of. As a writer to this column said, "it is a humble master stroke for the Philippines that is consistent with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals." Too bad the impeachment issue is taking time and effort away from this more worthwhile cause.

* * *

It is easy enough to be misled by the bad news engulfing the country as seen through its politics but happily Filipinos are not buying. Most are too busy earning a living, making both ends meet, raising families to bother. Those who have benefited from turmoil in the past are naturally frustrated that this time they are not getting anywhere with the public. They are not able to whip the same enthusiasm from the citizenry, particularly the middle classes, as they did in EDSA 1 and 2 and that riles them.

For the first time it makes more sense to be a fence sitter not because one does not care about the country but because most Filipinos now realize that there may be better uses of their time and effort. Having been disappointed with previous ‘revolutions’ they are looking to other ways to help the country. Indeed just doing one’s work is more helpful to the country.

As some are beginning to realize, impeachment is a different kettle of fish not exactly a legal proceeding but neither a whimsical political trial. It partakes of both. The proceeding has its rules, most of which are borrowed from the justice system that is why it is easy to be confused about its two elements. But because it is political (Father Bernas says 95 percent of it and only 5 percent law) the end game is a no-confidence vote. If there are more pro-GMA votes than there are anti GMA why should the opposition begrudge the score?

As for those claiming that it is for her own good to be ‘impeached’ because truth is her best defense, they should have more regard for ‘truth’. Do they really think that she can get fairness and justice from the Senate which is the stronghold not only of the Opposition but also of former allies who now want her out. They have betrayed her in the guise of principles. Drilon and Co would love to pounce upon her not because of the strength of the evidence to be presented but because they have all been part of the move to oust her. So where is the impartiality and idealism being claimed by those who want the issue brought to the Senate? Shorn of niceties, the issue of impeachment is a power play between the House (where most of President GMA’s allies are) and the Senate (where most of her enemies are.)

* * *

During Imelda’s trial in New York, the strategy of her lawyers was to portray her as no more than a wife, a rich man’s wife who loves to shop. Indeed most of the trial was showed her extraordinary buying habits – jewelry from Harry Winston, clothes from Valentino, Dior in Paris, shoes (thousands and thousands) from Ferragamo, antique silver from London, master paintings from art dealers. As the jury which acquitted her asked: is it a crime to shop? More so, if the shopping was done on Fifth Avenue, USA?

The prosecutors tried to demonstrate that it may be ok to shop but this case was about the fruits of corruption. The lynchpin of the defense was if at all, it was the late dictator who was corrupt. She merely benefited from her husband’s ill-gotten wealth and he was dead. There was something missing to pin her down – a witness who might be able to say that Imelda Marcos was not just a wife living off her husband’s earnings. She was an equal player as a partner of the conjugal dictatorship not just in spending it but also accumulating it.

Marcos had strongly objected to Imelda’s shopping spree for the buildings in New York. The fight became so bitter they had to have their lawyers with them, one for Marcos, another for Imelda in the business discussions about the buildings. The New York court needed the testimony of a direct witness to the business feud between Marcos and Imelda at the time. This witness would be able to say that the late dictator and his wife later became rivals in amassing wealth in the heyday of their power. That man was Rep. Ronaldo Zamora. But he refused to testify in the trial and tell the truth. The court waited in vain. He never came. This is the same guy who now acts as the guru of the young anti-GMA congressmen /women, so impassioned with truth.

Had he testified in the trial in New York, the prosecutors said, we may very well have had a conviction of Imelda. The prosecution would have been able to prove her direct culpability.

* * *

My e-mail is [email protected]