Nuts

Written by REY O. ARCILLA | 20 November 2011

'Fifty million dollars a year is not even peanuts. It's "nuts"!'

FOR someone who, from day one of his assignment to the Philippines, has obviously been trying very hard to establish close and friendly relations with his hosts, US Ambassador Harry Thomas sure has a knack for blowing it.

After largely succeeding in endearing himself with the natives by often lacing his public remarks with Pilipino (to the eternal embarrassment of Foreign Secretary Albert "Amboy" del Rosario who deigns to represent a nation whose national language he doesn't know or worse, is ashamed to use), Thomas had to goof by claiming without basis that forty percent of male tourists to the Philippines come for sex. He had to apologize for the faux pas afterwards.

Now, he revealed that the US spent $507 million in military aid to the Philippines from 2001 to 2010, a period of ten years! That comes to about $50 million a year.

Wow! Big deal!!!

Did he make the revelation merely to boast or to make us feel grateful?

If you compare that figure with the amount the US has given since 2001 to Pakistan, a country they have considered a close friend and ally, just like she does us, until she discovered that Pakistan had been taking her for a ride all these years as evidenced by the Osama bin Laden "affair," $50 million is not even peanuts. It's "nuts"!

After 9/11, Pakistan received right off the bat $3 billion (that's $3,000 million) from the US. The amount was later increased, according to news reports, by some $2 billion more in the course of the war against terror launched by the US after 9/11.

The US also lifted the boycott of goods worth billions of dollars imposed on Pakistan after the latter exploded a nuclear device.

Then, about a year or so ago, the Obama administration decided to give Pakistan $1.5 billion every year for five years or a total of $7.5 billion (that's $7,500 million!)

Thomas, therefore, really had no reason to brag about the piddling sum of $507 million compared to what has been given to Pakistan, especially considering we are a more loyal, subservient if you will, ally. Maybe that's our problem... being loyal and subservient.

***

Should we be grateful for the $507 million? I suppose we should. Mababaw ang kaligayahan natin. But the defense establishment must be, especially the likes of retired military officers Carlos Garcia and Jacinto Ligot.

However, before we go overboard being grateful, let us remind ourselves and Thomas of the benefits that have accrued and are accruing to the US by allowing her presence on our shores, despite our violating the Constitution.

For one thing, our having been declared by the US as the second front in the war against terror necessitates their presence here. No American soldier can ever hope to set foot on Malaysian or Indonesian soil where the Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah is known to operate, particularly in the latter.

If his intention was to make us feel grateful, what Thomas should have done first was to try and quantify in dollars and cents the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their presence here, thanks to our misguided hospitality.

Ah, but something tells me they have already made those calculations, including the advantages of being here on a more or less permanent basis because of apprehension over an increasingly assertive China.

Incidentally, Thomas also referred to having "recently transferred a Hamilton-class US Coast Guard Cutter that has now become a proud flagship of the Philippine Navy".

I read somewhere that we paid for that cutter from the royalty we get from the Malampaya gas field. Now, which is which?

***

Given his desire to succeed in his mission, as any ambassador does for that matter, Thomas failed to consider the Filipino's sensitivity to being "reminded" by a friend of a past "favor". He should try to find out the meaning of the Pilipino word "sumbat" or its equivalent in English. It's a no-no in our culture.

Oh, I'm sure he will protest he didn't mean it in that context, as I'm sure "Amboy" del Rosario will too in defending him.

Be that as it may, what he said is still offensive and made more offensive if one were to compare the figure he cited with what Pakistan got.

***

One other thing, it grates my ears whenever someone tells me that the Americans are still our biggest investors, as though we owe them for being here.

Let's get one thing straight... For the umpteenth time, I say American businessmen (or any other) are here because they make a profit. The minute the profit stops coming, they will leave like a shot as some have in fact done, or not come at all. Ergo, they are not here for altruistic reasons. They are here for profit, no more, no less.

So, it's time we stopped deluding ourselves about American generosity and good intentions. They are mere euphemisms for their own interests. Let's grow up! Let's start thinking of "genuine mutual interests"!

***

The US has decided to stop paying her contributions to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) after the latter voted overwhelmingly to admit the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) as a member. (Canada later followed suit.)

Non-payment of dues for a certain period can result in a member's rights and privileges being suspended. The US move, therefore, may later turn out to be tantamount to withdrawal from the organization.

The US left UNESCO once before because it has ostensibly become highly politicized (read "anti-Israel). But it survived. The US decided to return to the organization several years later, obviously because she felt it was not in her interest to stay out indefinitely.

The PNA says its next target is the World Health Organization. There it may well get the majority vote as well. Will the US withhold its contribution there too? Very likely. What about the other specialized agencies and other bodies of the UN? One may expect the PNA to go on a roll. The US will not be able to stop it. What will she do then? Stop contributing to all of them? For obvious reasons, that will not be in the US interest.

In this regard, it will be recalled that the PNA has submitted a formal application for membership in the UN itself. The application is still under consideration by the Security Council (SC) as of this writing. It is unlikely PNA membership will be approved by the SC because of the American veto. When that happens, there is no telling what the Palestinians will do. A second intifada (uprising) looms large, an eventuality that is certain to once again menacingly threaten international peace and security.

Failure by the SC to recommend admission of the PNA may result in the Palestinians and the vast majority of UN members resorting to GA Resolution 377, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, also known as the "Acheson Plan", named after former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Its main operative paragraph states:

"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Question is what if the PNA and the majority of the UN members invoke GA Res. 377 and go for a resolution recommending that the PNA be made a UN member "to maintain or restore international peace and security"? What will the US do if such a resolution is adopted? Withhold its contributions to the world body that may eventually be tantamount to withdrawal from the organization? Will it be in her interest to do so? Obviously not.

I remember the time when the then US Deputy Ambassador to the UN, reacting to complaints from the members of foreign missions to the UN about some nasty things that the New Yorkers and the host government do, said the UN and its members can leave the US anytime. He said the Americans will only be too happy to wave them goodbye as they "sail into the sunset".

But when the flamboyant Imelda Marcos invited the General Assembly to hold its annual plenary session in Manila, guess who objected? The New York City government and the New Yorkers themselves! The reason? They stand to lose millions of dollars in revenue from the hotel, restaurant, transportation, tourism, entertainment, etc., industries. See?!

***

Over the years, I have advocated "de-internationalizing" the MILF problem. A good opportunity to do that came after the rebels went berserk and engaged in a senseless war against the government after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the creation of a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity engineered by the US, with the treasonous connivance of the Arroyo regime,.

Unfortunately, we did not seize that opportunity. "Amboy" del Rosario's favorite future ex-undersecretary Rafael Seguis had at the time been named by Arroyo as peace panel head. When asked why Malaysia was retained as facilitator of the resumed peace talks, Seguis' reply was: "Gusto ng MILF." Duh?! Doesn't that say volumes about the government's naivete in dealing with the issue?

(Incidentally, according to a US Embassy dispatch leaked by Wikileaks, a member of the MILF panel, Michael Mastura, referred to Seguis as "deaf", adding "we don't even know if he is listening," since he appeared to be texting on his phone during negotiations.)

Now, I am glad that Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has urged Noynoy to hold the talks here, not in Kuala Lumpur. His view has been echoed by ranking members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

If Noynoy agrees, the next thing I would like to see happen is for us to make life miserable for the Malaysian facilitator here that, hopefully, he might eventually recommend that his government withdraw from the talks and as head of the International Monitoring Team which, hopefully, might also lead to its disbandment. We do not need, nay, we should not have any third party involved in sorting out a purely domestic problem. And I mean any third party, including in particular the US!

***

Reminders (for Noynoy's action):

1) Filing of charges against officials of the National Food Administration (NFA) during Arroyo's illegitimate regime. Noynoy himself said on several occasions that there is documentary evidence to prove the venalities in the past in that agency; 2) facilitating the investigation of rampant corruption in the military and police establishments; 3) expeditious action by the AFP on the case of Jonas Burgos; and 4) investigation of reported anomalies in the GSIS during the watch of Winston Garcia.

***

Today is the 194th day of the fifth year of Jonas Burgos' disappearance.

***

From an internet friend:

Stuttering Cat - as explained by a Grade 4 student:

A teacher is explaining biology to her 4th grade students. "Human beings are the only animals that stutter," she says.

A little girl raises her hand. "I had a kitty-cat who stuttered."

The teacher, knowing how precious some of these stories could become, asked the girl to describe the incident.

"Well," she began, "I was in the back yard with my kitty and the Rottweiler that lives next door got a running start and before we knew it, he jumped over the fence into our yard!"

"That must've been scary," said the teacher.

"It sure was," said the little girl.

"My kitty raised her back, went 'Shhh... Shhh... Shhh...', but before she could say 'SHIT', the Rottweiler ate her!"

The teacher had to leave the room.

***

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it