Dan Steinbock writing in the Manila Times:
DESPITE legal and political ploys against his campaign and assassination threats against his life, ex-senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., the son of the controversial president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. (1965 to 1986), has consolidated his lead in the presidential polls (currently 57 percent of preferences).
After the 2016 meltdown of the Liberal Party (LP), its aging stalwarts have promoted Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo (23 percent), the incumbent vice president. But the effort to sell the polarizing Robredo as a “unity candidate” has failed. And other candidates attract only marginal support.
As the share of the undecided has shrunk, Marcos is the effective winner, assuming no last-minute political drama. Similarly, his political partner, Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio, the daughter of the incumbent president, dominates the vice presidential campaign (58 percent).
The Marcos-Duterte campaign benefits from a vital regional “lock.” As the former governor of Ilocos Norte province, Marcos has a strong foothold in the north. Duterte dominates the south. And both are highly popular in Metro Manila.
Through her campaign, Leni Robredo has hoped to re-rebalance Manila toward Washington. In this quest, she has been supported by ex-Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio, the vocal proponent of the “West Philippine Sea,” and ex-Foreign secretary Albert del Rosario, a millionaire businessman-politician. They are the key players in the liberal anti-China coalition.
These efforts have been fostered by del Rosario’s “think-tank” ADRi, whose parent Stratbase is linked with the US-based Bower Group Asia and the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is funded by US defense contractors. ADRi has tried to “make China the issue of 2022.”
When del Rosario served as Foreign secretary, the Philippines filed the arbitration case against China. It was followed by the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which reopened the country to US military, ships and planes.
Today, the US-Philippines Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is back in effect, thanks to Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr., Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Romualdez, Carpio, del Rosario and certain oligarch support. Last fall, Locsin welcomed the new trilateral security pact between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia (Aukus), which violates the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. The Philippines also agreed to hold over 300 military activities with the US in 2022.
Setting aside patriotism vows, del Rosario’s business associates in mining and oil extraction could gain hugely from concession rights in the South China Sea.
Effectively, Robredo’s campaign is something of a proxy effort. It is supported by the media that portray themselves as “independent,” yet are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is financed largely by the US Congress.
According to the NED database, several Philippine media have received funds in the past three to five years, around $330,000 to $430,000 each, including Rappler, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), and to a lesser degree, MindaNews. Since local per capita incomes are less than 5 percent of those in the US, the funds employ hundreds.
However, these funds make up only $1.3 million of NED’s total Philippine awards ($6.8 million). Some $4.5 million of the NED total goes to non-media organizations, including the “Young Leaders for Good Governance Fellowship” (YLGGY), which has netted $300,000. In the Philippines, it is depicted as a program of the Jesse Robredo Foundation, which honors Robredo’s late husband and is controlled by her family members. In the US, the YLGGY is promoted as a project of the International Republican Institute (IRI), one of the NED’s four subsidiaries. It is thus not entirely clear whose national interest the YLGGY represents.
Indeed, despite stated transparency, these organizations and their money flows are clouded by murkiness
US government funds are only a part of the proxy monies. Along with billionaire investor George Soros’ Open Society initiatives, other private “philanthropies” play a role as well. Rappler has been financed by the secretive billionaire, Pierre Omidyar, a supporter of “pro-democracy” regime change in several countries. In addition to media exposure by the NED-funded media, the Robredo campaign has been fueled by CNN Philippines, Philippine Star, Philippine Daily Inquirer and other media, owned by local oligarchs or family dynasties.
Reportedly, the Robredo campaign has also cultivated ties with far-left insurgents, which it has vehemently denied, waging decades-long war against the Philippine government.
In contrast, Marcos and Duterte hope to consolidate the President’s Build, Build, Build infrastructure initiatives, while promoting investment on human capital and health care. They prioritize the industrial, agricultural and tourism sector to create more jobs. They support women’s rights, legalizing divorce and abortion in severe cases.
In foreign policy, Marcos and Duterte would retain military ties with the United States. However, they also plan to continue to recalibrate the economic relationship with China, which has become the Philippines’ largest trading partner, the second-largest foreign investor and the second-largest source of foreign tourists.
Eager to avoid military entanglements, Marcos favors a non-confrontational stance with China. Overall, he wants to treat other countries as “friends and hopefully allies.”
Marcos and Duterte support regional integration with their Southeast Asian peers. They stress Philippine interests in the South China Sea but also the Asean talks with China hoping the bilateral regional Code of Conduct (COC) would be completed soon.
The two shun the kind of rearmament drives and nuclearization that would undermine efforts at accelerated economic development in the region.
At this point, only foul play could change the expected outcome. There are concerns about the integrity of the Commissions on Elections (Comelec) and its election technology, which suffered a huge data breach in January that could affect the election.
Through Mark Malloch Brown, odd links prevail between billionaire investor George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF), Soros Fund Management and Comelec’s election software (Smartmatic). In 1986, Malloch Brown led Corazon Aquino’s campaign against Ferdinand Marcos and his ties have remained close with the Aquinos ever since. He is president of both the US-based OSF and chairman of Smartmatic.
The big question is whether the Philippine future will be driven by military pacts, which benefit just tiny economic elites, or peaceful development, which fosters the living standards of most Filipinos.
Rising prosperity is only viable through peace and stability.
Subservience to America has been the norm for all Philippine Presidents up to 2010. It was Rodrigo Duterte who went against the status quo. It put the US and notice and our negotiating leverage improved as a result.
It also improved our image with our ASEAN neighbors as we became actively involved in the affairs of the regional partnership unlike before when we were viewed as the American proxy. ASEAN largely ignored the plea of then Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Del Rosario for ASEAN to take up the issue of the Scarborough Shoal standoff in 2012.
Steinbock makes a very good case for why Filipinos should not vote for Leni Robredo and her liberal-leftist cohorts. They have done nothing but foment divisiveness and unrest from 1967 up to the present. It is for this reason that the Marcos restoration has become reality.
We should also take our cue from the experience of Ukraine. The US has been intervening in Ukraine since 2004. It has effectively utilized Ukraine as the proxy in its bid for regime-change in Russia. lt is not likely that the US will be lucky enough that another “EDSA Revolution” will happen again as a result of Marcos winning the election. The narrative of EDSA was also used by the US in ousting the pro-Russian President of Ukraine before.
Definitely the opposition will not take a Marcos victory sitting down and we all have to be wary of what they have planned for the next six years. Their activities are contingent on a continuous flow of funds. The question is, will monies continue to flow after their defeat?
What the Philippines needs is a more responsible and patriotic opposition. One which is not against working with the administration for the benefit of all Filipinos. An opposition which is an effective fiscalizer and not bent on destabilization and ouster of a duly-elected government. It remains to be seen what political realignments will take place.
The first step is to accept the people’s judgment. It is not likely that Marcos will be like the Aquino-Cojuangco’s who prioritized political and personal vendetta over national interest.
But given the psychological state of the opposition’s leaders, it is not likely they will see the light and heed the people’s judgment. This is what we should all be wary about because one cannot stop one’s self from being a quisling. They have never been patriots and cannot ever be given their nature.
Their media allies continue to distort what the truth is. Only theirs is the truth. Anything else is subject to fact-checking. What does it say when the liberal-leftists start behaving like dictators? It is interesting to see what they have planned for after the election.
Kommentare