|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Asia
: The
Philippines
US military plans for a long-term presence in the Philippines
By John Roberts
16 April 2002
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
When US troops started to arrive in the Philippines in February
to extend the Bush administrations war against terror
into South East Asia the publicly announced terms of the training
exercise forbade active US involvement in combat missions.
The 660 US personnel were to train local troops and leave after
six months.
It soon became apparent, however, that the US was playing an
operational role in the hunt for an estimated 85 Abu Sayyaf rebels
holding three hostagesa US missionary couple Martin and
Gracia Burnham and the Filipino nurse Deborah Yapon the
southern island of Basilan. About 160 Special Forces troops are
deployed directly on the island itself. Another 500 US support
soldiers are based in the city of Zamboanga providing sophisticated
surveillance information to the 4,000 Filipino troops hunting
Abu Sayyaf guerrillas.
The countrys constitution bans the presence of foreign
troops on Philippine soil. Moreover, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
expected a political backlash over the return of troops of the
former colonial power just a decade after shutting the last US
basesthe Subic Bay naval base and Clark Airfield. A constitutional
challenge has already been mounted in the Supreme Court and a
number of anti-US protests have taken place.
While there has been no admission that they have patrolled
with their Philippine counterparts, US troops have been involved
in medical evacuations and the detailed planning of
operations. The official agreement provides for the conduct of
field exercises to improve the operational capacity
of the Philippine armyopening up the possibility of US troops
openly joining Philippine soldiers on patrol.
Several articles in the American press have been developing
the argument for direct US military involvement in the hunt for
the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas. The Washington Post on March
27 reported that Special Forces soldiers squirm under the
rules that limit their patrols and require that they fire only
in self-defence. The newspaper drew a comparison with Afghanistan
where initially US soldiers were tightly constrained in what they
could do.
The article then pointedly added: As in Afghanistan,
the US troops will be operating with allies they are not certain
they can trust. It cited the comments of a Roman Catholic
priest, Cirilo Nacorda, who has caused a scandal in the Philippines
over his allegations that local military commanders and officials
have accepted bribes in return for permitting the Abu Sayyaf to
escape. The military does not want the Abu Sayyaf to end.
The longer it goes on, the more their budgets go up, the more
guns and ammunition they can sell the guerillas, the more ransoms
they get a cut of, Nacorda said.
The obvious conclusion is that the US troops have to become
directly involved in the fighting. And if that takes place the
US troops could rapidly become involved in a broader conflict
with the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which
has an estimated 1,000 fighters on Basilan. While the MILF is
nominally in peace talks with Arroyo, the negotiations have been
protracted and difficult.
The Washington Post noted that it would be hard
to distinguish between Abu Sayyaf and the MILF and the latter
has threatened to attack US troops that enter their areas. US
Special Forces outpost commander Major John Deedrick is quoted
as saying The primary threat were concerned about
is Abu Sayyaf. But were concerned about anyone who shows
a hostile intent towards the US.
The situation is reminiscent not only of Afghanistan but Vietnam
where initially only Green Beret advisers were sent in the early
1960s to improve the operational capacity of the South
Vietnamese troops. The failure of the local troops provided the
excuse to send in US troops, at first to defend US facilities
and not for combat operations. While the US high command may not
have a war on the scale of Vietnam in mind, there are growing
indications that the Special Forces troops on Basilan are simply
the thin end of the wedge for more ambitious plans.
The current operation, code named Balikatan (shoulder to shoulder),
was due to conclude on July 15. However according to Philippine
and US officials the training had not fully begun by the end of
March. The New York Times on March 31 quoted a US official
as saying: Were looking at prolonged training. It
takes more to build up capabilities than saying Here are
some night vision goggles. The official said that
no decision had been taken but other press reports indicated that
officials on Basilan were preparing for a six-month extension.
On April 7 Philippines Brigadier-General Emmanuel Teodosio
announced that the military will recommend that the government
approve the deployment of an additional 300 US troopsengineers
to carry out non-combat construction work. Teodosio said the plans
called for the rebuilding of roads, two seaports, an airstrip
and drinking water facilities. These are massive engineering
works so the Americans stay should be extended, he
said.
An element of the construction work is a bid to win local support
for an extended US stay. The New York Times noted: Part
of the mandate of the American forces is to win hearts and minds.
American soldiers accompanied by local interpreters are visiting
villages with lengthy questionnaires about their needs.
One of the reasons for the emergence of separatist movements in
the southern Philippines is the extreme poverty facing the majority
Muslim population.
The engineers may be involved in aid projects aimed
at neutralising local suspicion and hostility to the US presence.
The primary purpose of their deployment, however, is militaryto
improve transport for more effective operations as well as to
provide more permanent facilities for US forces. US Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld noted on April 9 that he was waiting for final
approval to send additional troops, engineers and civil affairs
specialists to the Philippines.
If the deployment takes place, there will be approximately
11 US soldiers and 45 Filipino troops for every Abu Sayyaf member
suspected of being active on Basilan. If one were to take the
original statements of the Philippines and US governments at face
value then one would have to conclude that the operation is among
the worst planned in military history. The only logical conclusion
is that the US military presence is for other purposes.
A New York Times article on April 7 touched on Washingtons
broader aims. It began by giving vent to the frustrations of the
Pentagon over the failure of Filipino troops to secure the release
of the Burnhams. The article then went on to note that the fate
of the US hostages was not a major concern. [T]he Americans
are not complaining too much... the United States needs the Philippines
for the long haul. If the southern Philippines, where Muslim separatists
have long operated, can be stabilised, the islands there could
make a perfect listening post, and good jumping off point, for
guarding the whole range of American interests in the Pacific.
Just two months after the first US troops entered Basilan,
the flimsy façade is quickly being stripped away. The US
operation is primarily not about training Filipino troops, freeing
the Burnhams or even destroying the Muslim separatist guerrillas.
Three decades after the US defeat in Vietnam and a decade after
its withdrawal from Subic Bay and Clark Airfield, the Bush administration
and the Pentagon are pushing for the Philippines to again become
a major US base of operations in South East Asia.
See Also:
US "training exercise"
in the Philippines sets stage for broader military operations
[15 March 2002]
The US extends "war on
terrorism" into the Philippines
[21 January 2002]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |