Any discussion of Charter change in the Philippines would be incomplete without the background of US-China rivalry in the region.
For example, there is reason to believe that the real intent of the frenetic campaign to stop Charter change is to stop President GMA beyond 2010. She has said she will step down in 2010. But a shift to a parliamentary system can make her eligible to run as a member of Parliament and voted in as prime minister. Congressmen who favor the shift says all other presidential aspirants will have an equal chance in a parliamentary setup although the political challenge will be more demanding for those without political experience. There are others, however who would prefer if she were just unceremoniously kicked out before her term ends. Hence the call for people power and the Makati Business Club’s pathetic noise barrage of a few hundred people.
* * *
Exhibit no. 1 for this conclusion is the long dragging investigation of the NBN-ZTE deal. This is not to say that there was no attempt to bribe Filipino officials to make a deal. Maybe there was. The deal was called off altogether as soon as the Senate hearings began but the baying wolves could not be stilled.
There are others who think because of this we may have lost access to the massive Chinese stimulus fund for the region. It may be useful to know that ZTE (Zhongxing Telecom Co.) won the contract to supply telecommunications equipment to Iraq after a bitter conflict with US companies.
I believe that had there been less pressure from the US, a solution might have been found that would have allowed a fairer costing of the project to overcome the criticisms of overprice.
All this comes to mind with reports that the $600 billion stimulus from China will be used to help its developing neighbors.
The massive spending spree will “throw money at roads, rails and other projects to soften the blow of a worldwide downturn.” And it has the money unlike the West ie America and Europe that don’t. We could have played our cards better had we been more judicious about the ZTE-NBN project.
But with the continuing investigations, hearings, bad mouthing in Congress, China is said to have gotten cold feet about the Philippines.
Earlier ZTE Corp. resented continuing vilification in Philippine media. “We reserve the right to seek redress of grievances before all appropriate juridical bodies for the witting or unwitting dragging of the good name of ZTE Corp. into sordid but unsubstantiated tales of corruption and briberies,” it said in a statement.
“Any independent and unbiased panel would see the ZTE proposal for what it is: A multi-million- dollar project showcasing ZTE’s state-of-the art technologies backed by hundreds of international patents; a project that would have been made very affordable to the Philippines through a government-to- government loan facility with a low interest rate of three percent and a drawn-out repayment period of 20 years, marked by a grace period of five years.”
ZTE claimed it serves more than 500 telecommunication operators in over 120 countries. “We have completed and are in the process of completing billions of dollars worth of telecommunication projects worldwide.”
It regretted that “the national broadband network project of the Philippine government, which would have linked all government agencies for the better provision of public service to all Filipinos, had to be sacrificed before the altar of political intrigue.”
Perhaps, the reason can be found elsewhere. China overtook the US as the biggest trading partner of the Philippines exceeding US $300 million with Philippines enjoying the favorable trade balance of around US $150 million in 2007.
The US viewed this with alarm. Since then almost every project undertaken by Chinese companies has been suspect — including an agricultural project, tele-education, railways a power plant and an elevated highway in Manila.
The animosity and political wrangling in the Senate has worked against the Philippines and is viewed as an unreliable investment partner.
Along with Indonesia, it is said that the Philippines may be unable to take advantage of China’s largesse.
* * *
On the other hand it is obvious the US wants to be assured of its primary position in the Philippines where it keeps military forces. Prof. Octavio Dinampo, chair of Sulu’s Bantay Ceasefire and one of the convenors of the Mindanao Peoples’ Caucus interpreted a recent statement by US Ambassador Kenney as an admission “that US troops are here to stay for good in their various bases within the AFP camps.”
Herbert Docena of the Philippine-based Focus Global South said Obama’s election “testifies to the rejection by the American people of Bush’s militarist war on terror.” The group has campaigned against the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). It has taken steps to appeal to incoming President Barack Obama and asked that the US government withdraw its troops in the Philippines.”
* * *
I was struck by two stories in one issue that about the double standard of Philippine-American relations. On one hand there was a picture of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice seeking out President GMA and talking about its close ties with the Philippines. On another page was President GMA telling veterans that she would continue working for the long-delayed benefits promised to them after World War II. It has dragged on for years with nothing but promises.
America may be our friend but it is time that we act out our sovereignty and take care of ourselves with a more equal hand to all countries, whether it is the US or China so long as it promotes our economic and political interests. President GMA should be supported instead of being vilified when she walks the narrow path, in a balancing act between the rivalry of the two hegemons in the region.
* * *
The Dureza and Mandanas boo-boos have not helped the cause of Charter change. I hope these were sincere errors. Both are duty bound to explain to the public what they did or said that ended up tarring the cause of Charter change. It exacerbated the misunderstanding that Charter change and extension of terms are one and the same thing. In this connection I’d quote from Fareed Zakaria who wrote, “We are competing against other countries to come up with government policies that most effectively foster growth, innovation, and productivity. It’s a time to figure out what works, not what ideological mantras to keep repeating.” If this is true of the US, even more so is it of the Philippines. That is what Charter change is for.