RELIGION

Living Letters team to visit the Philippines

25.11.1

Children outside Jaro Evangelical Baptist Church in Iloilo City after Sunday morning service.

An international team of church representatives will pay a solidarity visit to churches, ecumenical organizations and civil society movements in the Philippines from 1 to 5 December. It will be the last in a series of "Living Letters" visits to various countries organized ahead of the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation in May 2011, in order to accompany people and churches who long for peace, security and reconciliation in the midst of conflicts and violence.

The members of the team come from Africa, Asia, Europe and North America and will be travelling on behalf of the World Council of Churches (WCC).The group will be listening to the victims of human right violations in the country and to others who lost family members in extrajudicial killings. The Living Letters team will receive first-hand information regarding the state of human rights in the Philippines, and learn what the international ecumenical community can do to support the active defence of human rights and civil liberties.

Over the past decades, the WCC has been closely following the state of human rights in the Philippines. At various occasions, the WCC expressed its concerns to national and international bodies and authorities about the worsening of the human rights situation in the country.

Several WCC statements and letters have unequivocally condemned the extra-judicial killings, illegal arrests, involuntary disappearances and abductions. The WCC is deeply concerned about the country's increasing militarization.

This visit is an expression of the ecumenical movement’s solidarity and commitment to accompany the churches and Filipinos who are engaged in the ministries of prophetic witness and struggle for the marginalized and the poor.

The delegation will be composed of the following members:

International delegates:

• Ms Vijula Arulanantham, Christian Conference of Asia, Sri Lanka
• Rev. Tara Curlewis, general secretary, National Council of Churches in Australia
• Ms Mardi Tindal, moderator, United Church of Canada
• Mr Tony Waworuntu, former member of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) , Indonesia

WCC staff:

• Ms Semegnish Asfaw, WCC research associate for the Decade to Overcome Violence
• Ms Anastasia Dragan, WCC youth programme intern, Republic of Moldova
• Ms Aneth Phenias Lwakatare, WCC communication programme intern, Tanzania

Local delegates:

• Fr Rex Reyes, general secretary, National Council of Churches in the Philippines
• Ms Carmencita Karagdag-Peralta, WCC Central Committee member

FOR A WORLD OF PEACE: 
A WORLD FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS 
An Ecumenical Call from Hwacheon 
  
International Consultation on “World without Nuclear Weapons”
October 21-25, 2010 
Hwacheon, Korea
  
A group of persons active in the ecumenical movement from, Canada, Fiji, Korea, Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines and the USA, committed to building a world of peace, a world free of nuclear weapons, came together from 4 to 6 December 2009, in Hwacheon, Republic of Korea, seeking ways to strengthen the ecumenical movement for urgent action on nuclear disarmament (possibly in cooperation with interfaith movements). 
  
The Conference was organized jointly by the Asia Pacific Graduate School, Seoul and the Korean YMCA with the support of the National Council of Churches in Korea, Presbyterian Church in Korea, the Christian Conference of Asia and the World Council of Churches. The Conference was hosted by the Hwacheon County located near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in the Korean peninsula. The County had opened the Bell Park for World Peace on 26 May 2009 where in his keynote address Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union gave a call for a nuclear-weapon free world. 
  
The Conference was held with the objectives of working towards a nuclear weapon free Korean peninsula, analyzing the state of nuclear affairs in North-East Asia and understanding the implications of these for a world without nuclear weapons. It also aimed at strengthening the ecumenical movement to face the new challenges posed by nuclear developments and to work towards a world of peace, a world free of nuclear weapons. 
  
As a follow-up of the Conference in 2009, an international ecumenical group met in Hwacheon from 22nd to 25th October, 2010 to consider new developments in the area of nuclear disarmament and to renew the Ecumenical Call from Hwacheon. The analysis has been updated and the Call reaffirmed. 
  
A New Hope for Nuclear Disarmament? 
  
The Conference noted there could be a new hope for and possibly a new movement towards nuclear disarmament today. This emerged prominently on the agenda of international affairs, with President Barack Obama’s Prague call for a nuclear weapon free world followed by the resolution of the UN Security Council’s Special Session and statements by a number of prominent persons. 
  
The current discourse on a nuclear weapon-free world is characterized by a confusion of thought on what is really meant by nuclear disarmament. Several questions are being raised. Are the nuclear weapon states (NWS) ready to reduce and eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in their strategy? Or are they showing interest in nuclear disarmament motivated by vested short-term interests? Most NWS are unable to envision a situation with no nuclear weapons and seem to be seeking only reduction in the number of weapons. 
  
People who want a world without nuclear weapons should not fall into the trap of the rhetoric of the establishment on this but re-claim and re-appropriate the goal of a world without nuclear weapons with its full meaning and total demands. 
  
Obstacles to Nuclear Disarmament 
  
There is disquieting complacency on the part of most people on the nuclear catastrophe that is waiting to happen if action is not taken urgently. There are a number of reasons. One is the deteriorating moral environment in which people are conditioned to accept the use of military force. There is a climate of fear most of which is generated deliberately, in which the ultimate weapon is presented as the guarantee of security. The miniaturization of nuclear weapons, the use of depleted uranium in conventional weapons and the technological advances in conventional weapons have blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear and created the impression that nuclear weapon is just another weapon. 
  
There are a number of major institutional and political obstacles on the road to nuclear disarmament. Without effective international disarmament machinery, the international community will not muster the confidence needed to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. Few developments would be as devastating to disarmament hopes as would a pervasive and deep-rooted suspicion that the non-proliferation regime is neither reliable nor effective. 
  
Disarmament also requires that the secrecy and obfuscation in nuclear affairs be replaced by a culture of transparency and accountability. Openness, amongst nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states is essential ingredient for verification. And verification, both with regard to disarmament and to the non-diversion of nuclear materials and technologies from peaceful to military uses, must be consistent and strict. 
  
The Myth of Deterrence 
  
Deterrence is a threat to peace. The myth that it provides security has to be exposed. Deterrence feeds on fear and suspicion and has the effect of eroding trust and confidence. Security is invoked only as a camouflage to mobilize and maintain popular support for nuclear weapons. As the WCC’s Vancouver Assembly (1983) stated, “The concept of deterrence, the credibility of which depends on the possible use of nuclear weapons, is to be rejected as morally unacceptable and incapable of safeguarding peace and security.” 
  
The issues of nuclear sharing and extended deterrence deserve serious consideration. Both ostensibly claim to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons but actually promote proliferation by other names. NATO can station US nuclear weapons in any of its member countries. Some of these countries get nuclear weapons released for delivery by their air forces in time of war. They thus become states with nuclear deterrent. This kind of nuclear sharing is a clear violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which explicitly prohibits the transfer and receiving of nuclear weapons. 
  
There are two very different kinds of extended nuclear deterrence policies, which are in effect a US commitment to use nuclear weapons: first, if necessary to defend an ally if it is attacked by an enemy who uses conventional forces, biological or chemical weapons or nuclear weapons; second, a more tailored US commitment to use nuclear weapons in retaliation only against a nuclear attack on an ally. Extended deterrence actually gives allies of USA nuclear deterrent capability and is one form of proliferation. After the end of the Cold War it has become integrated to the imperial security architecture. 
  
The NPT Review Conference 
  
The major international event on nuclear disarmament which took place after the Hwacheon Consultation 2009 was the NPT Review Conference in May 2010. The adoption of a final document by the Conference pulled back the Treaty from the verge of collapse where it had reached in 2005. But on the three important issues related to nuclear disarmament, - a timeframe for disarmament by NWS as legally bound by Article VI of the Treaty, steps towards a Nuclear Weapons Convention and security assurances to NNWS – the Review Conference failed. It was evident at the Conference unless the NWS reduce and eliminate the role of nuclear deterrent in their strategy, no real progress will be made with regard to disarmament. 
  
The claim by the United States that its new nuclear posture is substantially different from the previous one is not valid. The Nuclear Posture Review of the USA 2010 established a goal of disarmament but also a commitment to retain the US triad of nuclear weapons delivery systems, life extensions for more than one thousands nuclear weapons and the modernization of the US nuclear weapons production complex. The Posture continues to be dominated by the strategy of nuclear competition of the USA with Russia and China. The new Posture which makes just about every non-nuclear weapon state immune from US nuclear attack, carves out an exception for Iran and North Korea. The role of nuclear weapons as an important instrument of the Empire has not changed. 
  
The issues related to the new nuclear weapon states are important in any discussion of nuclear disarmament. The new nuclear weapon states - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – are all outside the NPT. They are all in Asia which is heavily armed and with large presence of foreign military forces. It is in Asia that major wars are fought today and alarming tensions are rising. Nuclear disarmament thus has emerged as the key issue of peace in Asia. 
  
Northeast Asia 
  
The Korean Peninsula continues to be a nuclear flashpoint. While the focus is on North Korea’s recently started nuclear programme, the long history of nuclearisation of the region with the dominant role of the USA is often conveniently forgotten. . The efforts of North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons have to be seen against the background of the continuous threat the US posed to that state from early 50s and the US refusal to respond adequately to North Korea’s energy crisis and its aspiration for integration into the global market. Diplomatic initiatives to deal with the situation are welcome. 
  
The region includes three old nuclear weapon states (US, Russia and China), the new nuclear weapon state of North Korea and a group of non-nuclear weapon states with great potential to go nuclear. In the complex and uncertain context of Northeast Asia, two sets of major nuclear issues may arise that will contribute to the shaping of the security architecture in Northeast Asia. One is the evolution of nuclear relations among the three major nuclear weapon states. The other is the possibility of further proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region. 
  
The Pacific 
  
The Pacific, one of the most beautiful parts of the world has been disfigured and mutilated by imperial nations testing their weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons states like the USA, Great Britain and France have conducted atmospheric and underground tests in the region. Among these the French have the dubious distinction of the largest number of tests for the longest period. This is not to underestimate the damage done by the others. In spite of world-wide protests especially in the seventies and eighties, the French continued the nuclear victimization of the Pacific into the nineties. 
  
South Asia 
  
The nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 have created one of the most dangerous nuclear zones in the world. At a distance of seconds by missiles, the two countries which have a history of several wars in six decades, is now engaged in a nuclear and missile race. Both have nuclear doctrines, parts of which are aggressive. Both remain outside the NPT. But both have become de-facto nuclear weapon states with the more than tacit approval of the United States. China has been a nuclear power for long. While tensions between India and Pakistan show no sign of abating, there are new tensions between India and China. The triangular relations and tensions among the three neighboring nuclear states make the situation particularly grave and disturbing. 
  
West Asia 
  
Discussions on and international reactions to the nuclear issue in West Asia/the Middle East are largely, if not solely, focused on Iran. This is in spite of the fact that Israel has been a nuclear weapon state for long, though this has been publicly acknowledged only recently by the United States. While those who advocate nuclear disarmament will have to oppose any new state acquiring nuclear weapons, the fact remains that unless the international community faces the issue of Israel’s nuclear arms, nuclear proliferation in the region cannot be prevented. The impression has fast gained ground that America’s “friends” can have nuclear weapons but its “enemies” cannot. This is what is done in the name of non-proliferation. If the United States upholds that Israel’s national security is linked to possession of nuclear weapons, it is only natural that other countries like Iran also will think along those lines. The NPT Review Conference has called for the convening of a conference in 2012 “on the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone”. It is doubtful whether the US will take any steps in the matter. 
  
The Techno-nuclear Complex 
  
The global nuclear regime is closely integrated into the technological and scientific regime in terms of research and development (R&D) for the weapons industry and in terms of advanced technology in the military strategy and tactics including cyber warfare. This technocracy is the inner engine of industrial, communications and governmental systems which are integrated with the global military regime. The nuclear regime is an integral part of this technocratic regime. 
  
The highly technocratic setup that is characteristic of the management of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons has been linked with the elements of secrecy, non-transparency, and concentrated highly undemocratic decision-making power. Nuclear technology therefore strengthens and reinforces the worst tendencies in our societies which are geared toward more elite, hierarchical rule and militate against meaningful, participatory democracy. 
  
Patriarchy and Nuclearism 
  
The links between patriarchy and nuclearism – the latter as the epitome of military might – need to be emphasized. It is important to highlight that nuclearism is the most extreme and obscene form of a culture of militarism and such a culture has been undergirded by an ideology of power and hyper-masculinity. The worst manifestations of patriarchal and sexist behavior are reinforced through the ideology of militarism and nuclearism. 
  
The Great Human Cost 
  
People of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even after sixty five years, are suffering from the after-effects of the first ever use of nuclear bombs. This continuing tragedy should have been an eye opener for the world as the people there cried “Never Again”. But their agony, tears and cries have been ignored by nations which went on making and acquiring more and more destructive nuclear weapons. 
  
Perhaps less known is the high human cost paid by people living in areas where nuclear tests were conducted. People were uprooted and relocated from their lands of birth and also were not given the full information of the nature of nuclear activity and its effects and were told blatant lies that their contribution would contribute positively towards humanity. The immediate effects of acute exposure in radiation led to excessive burns and increase of carcinogenic diseases. Widespread pollution and devastation on land and marine sources had forced people to move afar and reduced any chances of returning to their homelands. The governments have refused to take responsibility for their part in contributing towards health problems, displacement, pollution and “invisible contamination” passed on to future generations. 
  
The Ecological Impact 
  
This raises the larger issues of the ecological impact of nuclear weapons. Their use generates environmental side effects that are now judged to be far more devastating than even the disastrous consequences of the initial blast. A recent study of the impact of a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan predicts some 20 million people dead by the bombings, followed by ten years of shortened growing season because of soot blown into the upper atmosphere. The latter would throw the populations of the region into deeper poverty and hunger. Because the climatic changes would affect every region, these would put at risk the lives of the 800 million most food-insecure people in the world. 
  
The economics of nuclear arms 
  
The economics of nuclear armaments is an untold story of financial profligacy. The enormous allocation of resources to the world’s deadliest weapon system is unconscionable at any time and a heavy burden on coming generations. In a world of endemic hunger, disease and poverty, in a world of over-consumption, pollution and climate change, the cost of nuclear weaponry has devastating consequences in terms of true security which, basically, is social, economic and political in nature. 
  
Some Serious Ethical Issues 
  
There are some crucial differences between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons which raise ethical issues. The first crucial ethical difference derives from the scale of nuclear devastation, a scale out of proportion to any reasonable war aims. The second crucial difference derives from the indiscriminate character of such weapons. The devastation of the biosphere from a nuclear war coupled with long-term effects of radiation adds a further indiscriminate element raising ethical issues again. Humanity’s responsibility under God for His Creation is one of the issues at stake.” 
  
Faith Stance and Theological Response 
  
1) “The nuclear issue is in its impact and thrust to humanity a question of Christian discipline and faithfulness to the Gospel,” the WCC Assembly in 1983 declared. The ecumenical process, Justice Peace and the Integrity of Creation, took up the nuclear issue as a matter of faith. 
  
2) The ideology of security through nuclear armament is heretical. In light of the biblical faith that true/authentic security comes from Yahweh God, to depend on nuclear weapons for the security of nations and peoples is an expression of unfaith that does not trust God's protection and care, and is the sin of idolatry that relies on what is not God as if it is God. "If God does not protect the house, the guardians guard in vain." 
  
3) Wars are against God; and there is no such a thing as just war; and all wars are evil. Nuclear weapon is idolatrous when it is elevated to an almighty position to decide upon the total destruction of all living beings. When such weapons of mass destruction are used or threatened to be used to destroy the life of all living beings that God has created and blessed for its fullness, it is blatant defiance of God. 
  
4) The stories of the victims of all forms of violence and war should be told in the light of the painful memory of the passion of Jesus Christ. Every single atomic missile is an attempt to crucify him again amidst all God’s people. Victims of nuclear weapons and nuclear powers are crying out to God to liberate them from suffering. 
  
5) Building Ecumenical Interfaith Networks : Conscious linking up and building networks of exchanges and program cooperation with people of other faiths are demanded today. Convergence of religious faiths, philosophical convictions and cultural wisdoms give the power to resist nuclear weapons, to formulate a vision of peace and to gain wisdom to make peace, just as the power of God’s Spirit frees us as individuals and churches to refuse to cooperate in any way with the waging of war. Instead, in the spirit of Jesus we wish to confront all injustice with readiness to accept conflicts and suffering, to cooperate with people of diverse gifts for peace making, in reconciliation processes and in shaping a political stance which seeks to outlaw war. 
  
6) On Pentecost God’s Spirit enabled us to understand each other in all our inter-confessional, intercultural and interreligious differences. Since then we have become a global community of storytelling, interpreting our different faith traditions and affirming solidarity for a life in justice and peace for the whole cosmos. In fact the household of God has many mansions. 
  
7) We see the vision of peace in the Messianic feast in the story of New City of Peace, which is the garden of life for the conviviality of all living beings in which all nations participate. 
  
The Ecumenical Response 
  
From its inaugural assembly in 1948 till the most recent one in 2006, the WCC has called for the abolition of nuclear weapons as weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction endangering humanity and the whole creation. It has maintained a consistent stand with regard to the elimination of nuclear weapons within the framework of a broader commitment to living “without resort to arms” and to seeking peace with justice and with respect for the integrity of creation. The issues have been addressed by the governing bodies of the WCC and a large number of member churches from a moral, faith-based and international perspective. At times their recommendations have been prophetic for actions by governments and concerned people. 
  
In 1954, the churches identified in viable political terms the main elements of what more than fourteen years later became the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. In 1961, from New Delhi the WCC Assembly called for two concrete steps that still define disarmament progress - no-first-use of nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapon-free zones to enhance the security of citizens in countries without the bomb. In 1983, the Vancouver Assembly called upon churches, especially those in a Europe divided between East and West, to redouble their efforts to convince their governments to negotiate for security instead of seeking it through weapons of mass destruction. The Porto Allegro Assembly in its statement “On the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons” affirmed that all people of faith are needed in our day to expose the fallacies of nuclear doctrine.” 
  
The WCC Assembly in 1983 in Vancouver in its statement on Peace and Justice, endorsing the conviction of the Panel on the Public Hearing on Nuclear Disarmament (1981) declared: “The nuclear issue is in its impact and thrust to humanity question of Christian discipline and faithfulness to the Gospel.” The ecumenical process Justice Peace and the Integrity of Creation took up the nuclear issue as a matter of faith. These theological affirmations have to be reinforced by formulating clear positions on developments in the buildup of nuclear weapons and armaments including nuclear sharing and extended deterrence, new weapon systems, missile defense and war fighting postures of new nuclear doctrines including preemption. 
  
The concept of shared human security is a reference point for ecumenical policies and programmes that address the critical transnational issues already defining the 21st century. These include climate change, the twin crises of chronic impoverishment and endemic over-consumption and the nuclear threat. Our well-being and our security are shared because of the evermore transnational nature of our existence, our shared responsibility for each other’s well-being, and the much wider participation necessary to build genuine security today. 
  
The Hwacheon Call 
  
The Hwacheon Call is addressed to the ecumenical community, its worldwide and regional organizations, member churches and all those willing to cooperate in the active pursuit of a world of peace – a world free of nuclear weapons. 
  
i. The time has come for the churches to seek greater and stronger unity to address together the issues of nuclear weapons. This demands robust development of clear policy goals, close attention to the wisdom and values reflected in sixty years of ecumenical engagement for a world without nuclear weapons, plus disciplined pursuit by member churches, specialized ministries, church-related NGOs and Christians, active in wider peace movements of the actions and recommendations that the ecumenical community has made over the years. 
  
ii. The WCC has an impressive history of dealing with the issue of nuclear disarmament. Today because of the urgency of the situation it should give the highest priority to nuclear disarmament and carry out its God-given and historic responsibility in clearly envisioning a nuclear-weapon-free world and actively working for it. This should form an important agenda of the WCC International Ecumenical Peace Convocation in Kingston in 2011 and the WCC Assembly in 2013 in South Korea. 
  
iii. While the theological positions of the WCC on nuclear issues have been clear, it is necessary to reformulate those positions taking into account new developments and new nuclear doctrines including preemption. The implications of nuclear sharing and extended deterrence have to be taken into account. Such reformulation is necessary to form the basis for a new commitment by churches and Christians towards nuclear disarmament especially in view of the increasing propensity to the use of force to settle disputes between nations. 
  
iv. The dangers posed by the nuclearization of Northeast Asia with the background of division and continuing tension in the Korean peninsula should alert the ecumenical community for focused attention on the situation and for sustained support to the Korean churches and people in their continuing struggle for peace and reunification. 
  
v. It is important to mobilize and consolidate latent majorities in all the churches opposed to nuclear weapons as part of the strategy. There should be coordination between international action and national level actions by the churches so that governments and inter-governmental bodies hear the same message from the member churches and their ecumenical organizations. 
  
vi. The United Nations and international organizations should be called upon to ensure steps by Nuclear Weapon States for disarmament, take steps for a Nuclear Weapons Convention and security assurances to Non-Nuclear Weapon States. 
  
vii. In view of the increasing nuclear proliferation and nuclear tensions in the Asian region, the WCC and CCA should give high priority to the issue. In Asia the nuclear threat has never been as high as it is today stretching from West Asia through South Asia to North-East Asia. Nuclear disarmament should be treated by the WCC, CCA and member churches as a major faith concern and a test of discipleship. The 2013 WCC Assembly should be an occasion for such affirmation. 
  
viii. Inter-faith cooperation should be actively sought in dealing with the threat to humanity and the Creation from nuclear weapons and working for a word without nuclear weapons. 
  
Signed by participants in 2009 and 2010 International Consultation on “the World without Nuclear Weapons” in Hwacheon, Korea.

Catholic schools group ask PNoy: Dismantle private armies

Stressing the need to stop the culture of impunity as shown by relentless political killings, with the Ampatuan massacre as one extreme case, Catholic schools have asked President Benigno Aquino III Wednesday to dismantle private armies.

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) said this will help prevent a repeat of the gruesome killing of 58 people, 32 of them journalists, in Maguindanao last year.

“We reiterate our earlier demand for our government to apply the full force of the law against those responsible for the brutality," said the CEAP headed by Msgr. Gerardo Santos.

“All responsible government agencies must exhaust all legal means to meet the corresponding punishment for the perpetrators of the heinous crime and to dismantle private armies and put an end to the anarchy of clans in the region," it added.

Excerpts of the statement were posted Wednesday night on the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines news site.

CEAP, which has 1,290 member schools, colleges and universities, also called for a speedy trial of the Ampatuan massacre.

It said this will bring justice to the victims of the crime, considered as the worst single case of political killings in the country’s history.

The organization lamented that after a year, the case is “not progressing substantially" and noted signs “justice is not forthcoming" at the rate it is going.

“We therefore call for a speedy and fair trial — delay of justice is a denial of justice; for vigilance so that people, organizations and institutions can monitor the progress of the case; and for transparency of the case so that the public may know," the CEAP said.

“We demand that justice be served without fear of favor at the earliest possible time," it added.

Aquino is currently assessing the confidential report of the Zeñarosa Commission about private armies in the country, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said on Wednesday. 

After studying the report, Aquino will decide whether to disclose the report to the public. (See: Aquino assessing confidential report on private armies)

Earlier on Tuesday, Aquino had announced that he is not in favor of abolishing the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) despite calls for its abolition on the grounds that some government militia are being utilized by some politicians as their private armies. (See: Aquino thumbs down abolition of militia forces)—JV, GMANews.TV 2010-11-24

ECONOMIC, POLITICS & SOCIAL

COMELEC LOSES IN SOURCE CODE CASE WITH SUPREME COURT
High Court ruling hailed as a victory for public information access, transparent election

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has been directed by the Supreme Court (SC) to release the source code used for the May 10 automated elections to the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) and all other interested parties for independent review.

The SC ruling vindicates CenPEG’s position for the early release of the election source code which it had asked the Comelec since May 2009, or one year before the automated elections. The review of the source code by independent parties and interested groups, CenPEG said then, would reveal whether Comelec and its outsource partner, Smartmatic-TIM, were compliant with the election law in accordance with ensuring the integrity, accuracy, and security of the automated polls.

Lito Averia, CenPEG IT consultant, today said “We hope that the Comelec does not withhold the source code anymore, as he cited the possibility that the election manager may file a motion for reconsideration with the high court and cause further delay in releasing this vital public election information. “The release and independent review of the source code will help explain many technical glitches and errors in the system which, to this day, remain unanswered,” he added.

The source code is the human-readable representation of the instructions that control the operations of all that the computer do -- from counting, canvassing and storage of all data server machines used for elections. It is the master blueprint that reveals and determines how the machine will behave and if it follows Philippine election laws.

In an unanimous en banc decision issued last Sept. 21, the high court granted CenPEG’s petition for mandamus and directed the national poll body “to make the source codes for the AES technologies it selected for implementation pursuant to RA 9369 immediately available to CenPEG and all other interested parties or groups for independent review.”

The SC upheld CenPEG’s citation of Section 12 of RA 9369, which provides that “once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and open … for review.”

As soon as the contract was signed in May 2009 between Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM for the outsourcing of the election technology for the May 10, 2010 polls, the source code was already deemed available, CenPEG said. CenPEG’s letter of request to the Comelec to make available the source code for independent review was approved by Comelec en banc on June 24 the same year.

However, in subsequent exchange of communications with CenPEG, Comelec refused to release the source code claiming, among other reasons, that the source code has yet to be customized and then reviewed by “an established international certification entity” (US-based SysTest Labs).

CenPEG was compelled to file a petition for mandamus with the SC for the release of the election software on Oct. 5, 2009.

In February 2010 or barely two months prior to the election, the Comelec publicly-announced that the source code was available for review. CenPEG, along with other groups and political parties, refused to participate since the “review” was a mere “walk-through” held under stringent conditions and “controlled environment.” A competent source code review usually takes at least four months.

The SC disagreed with Comelec’s reason that the source code was not yet available when CenPEG sought for its disclosure or that the review should be done “under a controlled environment.”

In its resolution, the SC directed the Comelec to release to CenPEG and all interested parties the source code of the PCOS (precinct count optical scan), the Board of Canvassers Consolidation Canvassing System, (BOC, CCS) programs for the municipal, provincial, national and congressional canvass, the Comelec server and the source code of the in-house Comelec programs called the Data Capturing System (DCS) utilities.

The citizens’ election watchdog AES Watch, other groups, and IT academics have hailed the SC decision as a people’s victory for access to public information and transparent election.

On June 3, a month after the 2010 elections, CenPEG again wrote the Comelec for access to 21 specific vital public documents including the complete Contracts with annexes between Comelec and Smartmatic and all parties contracted for the operations of the automated elections. But on July 26, the Comelec en banc again denied the release of the documents (underscoring supplied) stating no reason except for proper execution by the Project Management director, Atty. Jose Tolentino, Jr. who was earlier cited for the controversial Secrecy Folder bidding. (A listing of the 21 documents can be located in www.eu-cenpeg.com)

CenPEG is a policy research institution based in the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. Founded in 2004, it is engaged in policy research-analysis, education- training, public and advocacy on governance, election and political parties, foreign and security policy, and Moro studies.

US Role in Philippine Counterinsurgency Operations

By BENJIE OLIVEROS

In a speech during a Peace and Security forum held at the Mandarin Hotel last April 22, 2010, then presidential candidate Benigno Aquino III outlined his National Security Policy, which he said focuses on four key elements:

Governance – “The government must be present and accountable to its citizens especially those living in the poorest and most remote areas.”

(An effective political strategy focuses on strengthening the government’s capability and capacity to respond—and be seen to be responding—to the needs of its people.)

Delivery of basic services – “To alleviate the plight of innocent civilians caught in the conflict, we must renew government programs that build access roads, school buildings for basic and adult education, provide potable water and sanitation facilities, basic health care, electricity, assist in shelter reconstruction, and provide temporary livelihood interventions.”

Economic Reconstruction and Sustainable Development – the national government, in partnership with international donor organizations, must assist the new ARMM regional government in building a capable bureaucracy with streamlined and transparent procedures to increase the region’s absorptive capacity for development projects that will come its way.

(The economic and development function in COIN includes immediate humanitarian relief and the provision of essential services such as safe water, sanitation, basic heath care, livelihood assistance, and primary education, as well as longer- term programs for development of infrastructure to support agricultural, industrial, educational, medical and commercial activities. It also includes efforts to build the absorptive capacity of local economies and generate government and societal revenues from economic activity (much of which may previously have been illicit or informal). Assistance in effective resource and infrastructure management, including construction of key infrastructure, may be critically important to COIN efforts.)

Security Sector Reform – “Reforming the Security Sector must begin with restoring the pride and honor of our uniformed services. We need strong, capable and disciplined security forces serving under *firm democratic civilian control *to achieve and sustain peace and security in our land.”

(Physical security efforts must not focus too greatly on strengthening the military and police forces of the affected nation. Such capacity building should only be part of a broader process of Security Sector Reform (SSR) in which the whole system is developed, including the civil institutions that oversee the security forces and intelligence services, the legal framework and the justice institutions (prosecution services, judiciary and prisons) that implement it. It is particularly important that a sense of civil ownership and accountability should extend to the local level and that all elements of the security apparatus should be trusted by the population.)

Those in italics were lifted from the US Counterinsurgency Guide released last January 2009.

Is it surprising that current Philippine president Benigno Aquino III adopted the 2009 US Counterinsurgency Guide in framing his government’s National Security Policy? Not really for a fair-haired boy of the Americans. It could be recalled that during the heat of the presidential campaign, exactly two weeks before the May 10 elections, Time magazine featured Aquino in an article with the title, The Next Aquino: Can Noynoy Save The Philippines? He is only the second presidential candidate who was featured by a major US publication such as Time even before he was elected. The first one was Ferdinand E. Marcos.

And a mere 11 days after the May 10 elections, newly-assigned US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas already visited Aquino at his Times street residence.

While essentially no different from previous counterinsurgency programs, Oplan Bantay Laya is deemed as the most brutal because it also directs its attacks on political activists. With its target research component, intelligence operations are directed at what it calls “sectoral front organizations”. The key people in these “sectoral front organizations” are placed in a “sectoral Order of Battle (OB).” These intelligence operations are carried out by units and personnel of the Military Intelligence Group-Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (MIG-ISAFP) lodged at the battalion level. These units are given “Intelligence Task Allocations,” with quarterly targets for “neutralization.” Thus, a surge of killings of political activists took place from 2002 onwards.

This resulted in the extrajudicial killing of 1,190 political activists from January 2001 to March 2010. There had been 205 victims of enforced disappearances, 1,028 victims of torture, and hundreds of thousands were forcibly displaced in rural areas as a result of military operations.

These killings and forcible disappearances are carried out by death squads composed by special operations units of the army, police, or paramilitary forces based on lists provided by military intelligence units.

The counterinsurgency programs of the AFP are based on the unconventional warfare and counterinsurgency strategies developed by the U.S. Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) particularly that on “low intensity conflict.” These can be found in U.S. Army manuals of the 1960s and 1980s such as the manual of the U.S. Army Operations against Guerrilla Forces (FM 31-20) and the 1960 Special Forces manual, Counterinsurgency Operations.

Two underlying principles are integral to U.S. counterinsurgency operations. First, the guerrilla/terrorist assumes an illegal status and therefore his life is forfeit if apprehended. Second, the guerrilla uses terror to subjugate the local population and can therefore be effectively neutralized with the use of counter-terror by the counter-insurgent.

“Terror Operations,” by the counterinsurgent includes assassinations, disappearances, and mass executions. These terror operations were implemented by the U.S. and its puppet armies in many countries in subsequent decades, and remained as a hallmark of the counterinsurgency state in the 1980s.

Justification for terror operations can be read in U.S. training manuals. The 1965 U.S. Army Psychological Operations manual (FM33-5) stated that unconventional warfare against the enemy should have a multiplier effect by creating an atmosphere of fear. Fear was being created to force the local population to transfer loyalties from the insurgent to the counterinsurgent; to create a disincentive to discourage the local population from providing resources to the insurgents; and to make the supporters and the insurgent themselves lose confidence on the strength of their own army. These terror operations were carried out overtly or covertly.

The May 1961 U.S. manual on “Operations Against Irregular Forces” defined “overt irregular activities” to include terrorism by assassination, bombing, armed robbery, torture, mutilation, and kidnapping; provocation of incidents, reprisals, and holding of hostages; and denial activities, such as arson, flooding, demolition, use of chemical or biological agents, or other acts designed to prevent use of an installation, area, product, or facility. “Covert irregular activities,” on the other hand, included espionage, sabotage, dissemination of propaganda and rumors, delaying or misdirecting orders, issuing false or misleading orders or reports, assassination, extortion, blackmail, theft, counterfeiting, and identifying individuals for terroristic attack.

To prevent the terror tactics from backfiring on the counterinsurgent, U.S. and French experts in counterinsurgency instructed that these must be carried out by “professionals.” According to the manuals, these “professionals,” referring to paramilitary units, mercenaries, or special units assigned as death squads, must not be identified with the counterinsurgents trying to win the hearts and minds of the population.

The extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the Philippines are no different from Operation Phoenix, which was implemented during the late 60s in Vietnam.

During Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, the CIA funded, designed, and advised Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRU). Each province in Vietnam had a PRU and each PRU had a U.S. adviser from Special Forces units.

U.S. intelligence units provided names of suspected Vietcongs for neutralization to PRUs. Each PRU was given a quota, which according to reports reached a high of 1,800 persons per month.

Two U.S. Navy SEALS, Lt. John Wilbur and Barton Osborn, who served as advisers to PRUs, testified that PRUs were ordered to kill suspected members of the Vietcong infrastructure in villages. Sometimes, Wilbur said, it was much easier to shoot somebody rather than wait for intelligence operations to bear fruit especially since they were working on a monthly quota.

Mark Zepezauer in his book, The CIA’s Greatest Hits: Called Operation Phoenix, described Operation Phoenix as, “…an assassination program plain and simple. The idea was to cripple the Nationalist Liberation Front (NLF) by killing influential people like mayors, teachers, doctors, tax collectors-anyone who aided the functioning of the NLF’s parallel government in the South.”

These tactics and methods were also implemented in Latin America and were described in seven training manuals prepared by the U.S. military and used between 1987 and 1991 for intelligence training courses in Latin America and at the US Army School of the Americas (SOA), where the US trained Latin American soldiers, contain description of tactics such as executing guerrillas, blackmail, false imprisonment, physical abuse, using truth serum to obtain information, and paying bounties for enemy dead. Counterintelligence agents were advised that one of their functions is “recommending targets for neutralization.”

And the targets for “neutralization” or other punitive actions were very broad. These included “local or national political party teams, or parties that have goals, beliefs or ideologies contrary or in opposition to the National Government”, or “teams of hostile organizations whose objective is to create dissension or cause restlessness among the civilian population in the area of operations. The manuals described universities as “breeding grounds for terrorists,” and identified priests and nuns as terrorists. It advised intelligence units to infiltrate youth groups, student groups, labor unions, political parties, and community organizations.

This is where the concepts of “target research”, “sectoral front organizations”, and “intelligence task allocations” contained in Oplan Bantay Laya were derived.

Under the US “global war and terror”, which it describes as a “war with no borders”, the US Armed Forces is equating counter-terror with counterinsurgency operations. Thus, the use of same approaches and methods.

In Iraq, US efforts of strengthening the Iraqi government and instituting “democratic processes” were complemented by counter-terror operations. The US created, funded and directed the Wolf Brigade, which was responsible for the killing and abduction of civilians deemed as hostile to the government.

The Associated Press tallied a total of 539 persons killed by the Wolf Brigade from April to October 7, 2005 alone.

On September 8, 2005 the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a human rights report stating that, “Corpses appear regularly in and around Baghdad and other areas. Most bear signs of torture and appear to be victims of extrajudicial executions…. Serious allegations of extrajudicial executions underline a deterioration in the situation of law and order…. Accounts consistently point to the systematic use of torture during interrogations at police stations and within other premises belonging to the Ministry of the Interior.”

These methods could also be seen in the terror listings, and drone missile attacks and renditions being done by the US Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Singing a Different Tune?

President Benigno Aquino III and AFP Chief of Staff Ricardo David announced that they are in the process of formulating a new counterinsurgency program, which would be implemented on January 2011. They said respect for human rights would characterize the new counterinsurgency program.

Again this is a copy of the two approaches to counterinsurgency described by the US counterinsurgency guide, namely the enemy-centric approach, which focuses on defeating the insurgent militarily; and the population-centric approach, which “shifts the focus of COIN from defeating the insurgent organization to maintaining or recovering the support of the population.”

The guide admits that counterinsurgency campaigns always include the two elements, with the balance between the two changing over time.

The US thinks that President Aquino is in the best position to win over the support of the population because of the image of “reform” he carries due to the history of his parents being in the opposition, against a dictator at that. This is why the US supported the presidential campaign of Aquino.

The Philippines is very important to the US. The US is one of the three top investors in the country and the top three sources of imports and destination of exports. The Philippines is also strategically located making it an ideal place to project US military hegemony in the region. Thus, any threat to its interests in the country would merit its strong intervention, especially now that it is in a deep crisis.

Would the counterinsurgency program of the Aquino government be any different from Oplan Bantay Laya? The extrajudicial killings have not stopped and the Aquino government had no qualms about extending Oplan Bantay Laya for six months. More important is the fact that the crisis in the country is still deepening and by all indications, it appears that the Aquino government would just be implementing the same globalization policies that were pushed by the previous Arroyo administration, which passed on the burden of the crisis to the Filipino people. With no substantial reforms forthcoming, eventually the magic of the reformist image would wane, the people’s unrest would intensify, and with it, the military solution or the enemy-centric approach would take on a more dominant role.

However, US influence, nay control, over Philippine counterinsurgency strategy dates back way before Aquino. It could be remembered that the last two government agencies turned over by the US colonial government to the first Philippine puppet government were the Education and Defense departments.

Thus, even before the term “surrogate army” was coined by the 2006 US Quadrennial Defense Review, the AFP has long been a junior partner of the the US Armed Forces. In fact, among the major influences in the development of US counterinsurgency strategy are the Philippine-American War of 1901 and the Huk pacification campaign during the 1950s.

This partnership is being underpinned by the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951. Before the MDT was the US-RP Military Bases Agreement and the US-RP Military Assistance Pact of March 1947. Under the Military Assistance Pact, the US supplied arms, ammunition, equipment, and supplies to the AFP, and provided for the establishment of the Joint US Military Advisory Group (Jusmag), which was mandated to reorganize the AFP and train its officers and personnel. Part of the aid package was the grant of scholarships to AFP officers for training to US military schools. Through the Jusmag, the US Armed Forces is able to, on a continuing basis, provide strategic and tactical direction to, and exercise intelligence coordination with the AFP. The provision of arms, ammunition, equipment, and supplies to the AFP is also being coursed through the Jusmag.

Agreements and Structures of Continuing Control

After the Philippine Senate rejected the renewal of the US-RP Military Bases Agreement in 1992, the US has been seeking ways to justify the posting of its troops in the country. Also by the late 90s, the Project for a New American Century, an American think tank comprised of neoconservatives, was pushing for “promoting American global leadership” (read: assert American politco-military hegemony). On February 1998, the Visiting Forces Agreement was signed. It took effect after was the Philippine Senate ratified it in May 1999.

In the year 2000, A US-RP Joint Defense Assessment was conducted to assess the capabilities of the AFP and its counterinsurgency campaign, and on this basis, determine the technical assistance, field expertise, and funding that the US could provide. The study was completed in 2003 and resulted in the formulation of the Philippine Defense Reform Program, which is being supervised by the US. It was supposedly a five-year program but has been running for eight years now. This further tightened the grip of the US Armed Forces on the AFP.

In 2002, the Defense Policy Board was created thereby allowing the US to control the policies and decisions of the Philippine Department of National Defense. Another mechanism called the Security Engagement Board was created in March 24, 2006 purportedly to serve as the mechanism for consultation and planning of measures and arrangements focused on addressing non-traditional security concerns such as international terrorism, transnational crime, maritime safety and security, natural and man-made disasters, and the threat of a pandemic outbreak that arise from non-state actors and transcend national borders.

Also the year 2002 marked the start of a series of Balikatan Joint US-RP military exercises. This paved the way for the “semi-permanent basing” of US troops in the country. The joint exercises and other trainings conducted by the U.S. are also aimed at improving the capacity of the U.S. and Philippine armed forces to conduct joint operations under the former’s command and direction; improve the capability of the AFP in waging wars against the perceived enemies of the U.S. and its local puppets; and contribute to the combat experience of U.S. troops. From then on, US troops were sighted joining AFP troops in combat operations against the bandit group Abu Sayyaf and the secessionist Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

U.S. military assistance to the Philippines increased dramatically. IBON Foundation computed that U.S. military assistance increased 1,111 percent from 2001 to 2002.

In May 2003, President Arroyo signed a U.S.-RP Non-Surrender Agreement thereby granting U.S. forces in the country immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Philippines has refused, up to the present, to sign the Rome Statute which created the ICC, in deference to the desires of the U.S.

After tighter strategic and tactical control over the AFP was accomplished, the US-AFP partnership came out with the counterinsurgency program Oplan Bantay Laya, which was implemented beginning 2002.

Oplan Bantay Laya, A Trademark of US Counterinsurgency Operations

Oplan Bantay Laya, which was launched in 2002, is the latest in a series of counterinsurgency programs of the AFP. As in other counterinsurgency programs of the AFP it had the trademark of US counterinsurgency, counter-terror operations.

The first “comprehensive and coordinated” counterinsurgency program implemented by the AFP, during the Marcos dictatorship, was Oplan Katatagan (Operation Stability) in 1982.

This was followed by Oplan Lambat Bitag I , II, III, IV of the Aquino and Ramos administrations. The Estrada Regime launched Oplan Makabayan in 1998 and Oplan Balangai in 2000.

Essentially, Oplan Bantay Laya is the same as previous counterinsurgency programs. It divided military operations into four stages, clear-hold-consolidate-develop. Military operations are conducted to “clear” the area of insurgents, paramilitary groups and an intelligence network are formed to “hold” the area; the AFP then “consolidates” the area by improving its relations with the civilian population through civic action operations such as medical and dental missions; and at the last stage the AFP “develops” the area by introducing livelihood and development projects. This is an adaptation of the four stages of US counterinsurgency operations.

In terms of military tactics, Oplan Bantay Laya employs the same combination of intensive military operations, intelligence, and civic action or triad operations.

AFP documents reveal that Oplan Bantay Laya has three strategies namely, Strategic Holistic Approach, Win-Hold-Win, and Sustained Operations.

The Strategic Holistic Approach is the AFP’s solution to what it perceived as the lack of coordination between and among government agencies, the AFP and Philippine National Police (PNP), and civil society institutions such as NGOs. On paper, the objective of this strategy is to comprehensively approach the insurgency problem. The president heads the machinery for the Strategic Holistic Approach while the AFP and PNP are in-charge of military operations and Area Coordinating Centers. These centers coordinate AFP and PNP units, local government agencies, and other sectors such as NGOs in an area for the purpose of conducting counterinsurgency operations.

As part of the Strategic Holistic Approach, the counterinsurgency program is directed by the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal Security, currently the most powerful cabinet cluster on the national level. At the local level, local officials are virtually stripped of decision-making authority and are even threatened by AFP commanders if they question the latter’s actions. Under Oplan Bantay Laya, civilian authority is practically subjugated by the chain of command of the AFP. Even NGOs and other civil society groups are forced to surrender their independence and to cooperate with the AFP or risk being branded as “terrorist or front organizations” and be dealt with accordingly

The US calls this the “whole-of-government” approach to counterinsurgency engagement. “Diplomacy, development and defense are interdependent at every level of a COIN effort, and civil-military integration is required at the strategic, theater/operational and local/tactical levels. Most successful COIN campaigns have achieved this unity of effort through unified authority.” (US Government Counterinsurgency Guide, January 2009)

Consistent with the strategies of Win-Hold-Win and Sustained Operations, the AFP identified thirteen priority areas in seven regions namely, Ilocos-Cordillera, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog, Bicol, Bohol in Central Visayas, Caraga, Compostela Valley in Southern Mindanao. These areas were subjected to heavy troop deployments and sustained military operations. Only when the AFP has achieved its military objective of wiping out the insurgency and has formed a civilian self-defense force in an area does it transfer majority of its troops to another area which it then subjects to intense and sustained military operations.

An example is Mindoro. The island was subjected to intense and sustained military operations that resulted in numerous cases of political killings and other human rights violations. When the AFP thought that the island was saturated enough and that all political and people’s organizations had been destroyed, they transferred the troops and the operations to Batangas. In Central Luzon, Tarlac and Pampanga were subjected to heavy troop deployments and military operations before the AFP units were transferred to Bulacan and Nueva Ecija.

(Published by Bulatlat.com on September 26, 2010)