Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro and Ambassador Kristie Kenney can be forgiven for statements they make on behalf of their respective governments. They have to be on the safe side. Teodoro’s statement that the USS Ronald Reagan’s presence in our territory is moot is all he can say. So it is with US Ambassador Kristine Kenney who said senators are completely welcome to question the deployment of the USS Ronald Reagan. . . no violation was committed . . . that’s a great dialogue. So far, so good.
Enter Herbert Docena from a Bangkok-based think tank “Focus on the Global South” says the USS Ronald Reagan streaming into the Sulu Seas is a power projection of the US. It shows it is the world’s lone superpower and it can send an aircraft carrier to the Philippines, and therefore to the region, in hours in case any other country in the region thinks it can challenge that hegemony.
When I first wrote about its visit the carrier was said to be coming from Hawaii where it was based but other reports followed correcting this saying it was already in Hongkong. Wherever it was, the point being made was that the US sent the aircraft carrier to show its global power-projection strategy under the pretext of wanting to help victims of typhoon Frank. That is serious criticism.
It is not always that senators get it right but Senator Rodolfo Biazon was spot on when he took up the issue and deserves to be commended for lending the weight of his position as senator to start the dialogue on a higher plane. Filipinos have to know and be perceived to be more aware. If we don’t, we will be regarded as mere American patsies in a region trying hard to be a ‘a power on its own.’
* * *
Secretary Teodoro does not need to make acrimonious statements. But I am repelled when he says that “We don’t need to tell the US government what to do or what not to do. They’re in here precisely to coordinate with the Philippine Air Force and the Armed Forces of the Philippines. They’re very sensitive to our local laws and once their mission is done they go.” That is a bit too much. Neither should Filipinos fall for the trap that the issue is only about ‘the violation of our Constitution”. It is that but more than that.
For a wider understanding of why we should think twice in allowing aircraft carriers in our midst we have to refer to Americans themselves who are unhappy about their own government’s policies. One of these policies is to ensure American military dominance in the world in its pursuit of oil.
* * *
We can look into American Michael T. Klare’s book Blood and Oil. A well-researched work, he digs into “declassified documents and highlights forgotten passages in prominent presidential doctrines to show how concerns about oil have been at the core of American foreign policy for more than 60 years — rendering our contemporary energy and military policies virtually indistinguishable.”
He cannot be faulted for lack of patriotism. On the contrary, he summons his compatriots to be part of a “radical re-thinking of US energy policy, warning that unless we change direction, we stand to be drawn into one oil war after another as the global hunt for diminishing world petroleum supplies accelerates. Unfortunately change on this scale costs money, lots of it. The price tag on developing new fuels and propulsion systems and constructing high speed rail system will run to hundreds of billions of dollars,” Klare writes.
He proposes a tax, a National Energy Security Enhancement Tax on every gallon of oil consumed for ground transportation in the US. “The world’s rapidly growing economy is dependent on oil, the supply is running out and the US and other great powers are engaged in an escalating game of brinkmanship to secure its use. The US — with less than 5% of the world’s total population — consumes about 25% of the world’s total supply of oil, he argues. With no meaningful conservation being attempted. Klare dismisses the diversification strategy. His solution to the foreign-oil dilemma is to reduce consumption by sharply increasing fuel taxes.
* * *
The headline on the soaring inflation brought about by the high cost of oil and a picture of Filipino crowds trying to get into the railroad stations brings out an important point. What used to be merely stories in newspapers about the hardships of commuters to and from work is now a reality in the Filipino’s daily lives. It is urgent that something be done about it.
That brings us to the other burning issue – the North Rail system being attacked because nothing has been done about it. Critics and the opposition are very angry about alleged overpricing. Unhappily another investigation will not address the need. It provides political capital for politicians but it will not provide the immediate need for fast mass transport for suffering Filipino commuters.
An expert who knows about railway systems around the world told me it would be a mistake if diesel were chosen for powering the system. Ultimately it will be just as expensive as oil. He thinks electric powered trains (we had with the tranvia system in early days) would be preferable because we could use power other than from fossil fuels.
The first task is to get the project out of the politicians’ hands. A group can be created — technicians, engineers, funders — just a bare lineup of people who can determine what needs to be done to get it moving again. We need to review where we are now, we need costs, we need alternative engineering plans if necessary and a new strategy to fit it to a more acceptable budget.
Our mistake is to make allegations of overpricing of the North Rail Project the central issue. It is not. It means coming to grips with the problem of how to get it done. I have talked to Chinese friends who say that the Chinese government remains open to continuing projects they began and they are willing to renegotiate costs based on an evaluation of the work done and what still needs to be done. We have to detach the project from politics and find out how we can use the vast resources of government, independently of officials but with rail system experts on board.