GMA may, alas, be lost in the whirl of the NY ‘economic’ extravaganza

Yesterday’s International Herald Tribune (Jan. 28 issue) carried an interesting frontpage item culled from The New York Times which recalls what happened during the earlier American "pacification" campaign in Jolo – next door to Basilan.

In an article headlined: Born Again in the Philippines: The US ‘Black Jack’ Strategy by correspondent James Brooke, datelined Zamboanga, The New York Times recounts:

"Seafaring Muslim rebels who kidnapped Christians for ransom were refusing to disarm, defiantly taking refuge behind the steep mountain walls of an extinct volcano. In response, the US Army general mounted a Philippine-American military expedition from this largely Christian city (Zamboanga). In a weeklong siege, 1,000 Muslims, largely women and children, were killed."

No, the date was not January 2002. As the narrative continued, the NYT said: "The year was 1913, the island was Jolo, and the general was John Pershing, known as ‘Black Jack,’ who later gained fame as commander of US troops in World War I."

Giving the historical background of the incident, the article pointed out: "When the United States seized Spain’s collapsing empire in 1898, it inherited in the Philippines a nearly four centuries-old conflict between Catholics and Moros, a term imported by Spaniards who colonized this Asian archipelago a few decades after driving the Muslim Moors from the Iberian Peninsula. For the Spanish, juramentado was a machete-wielding Muslim Filipino who had taken an oath to kill as many Christians as possible.

"While General Pershing presided over the largest group of killings in a pacification campaign that cost about 15,000 Muslim lives, he is remembered differently in Zamboanga . . . In this city, he is hailed for a series of public works projects: the golf course, a city park with swimming pool, several broad avenues and new wharves."

The newspaper added that "the United States played a more nuanced role than that of military ‘pacifier’ in its relations with Muslims. It cut a deal with local sultans and traditional leaders. In return for their recognition of US power, the Americans would mandate religious freedom . . . But the imposition of American law over Islamic law caused conflict. The Americans controlled weapons, encouraged girls to go to school, and moved to eradicate slavery, polygamy and kidnapping for ransom . . . Kidnapping had been the core of the economy . . ."

Are those killjoy Americans back in Mindanao to act in the same meddling spoilsport fashion as "Black Jack" Pershing? After all, isn’t it true that "kidnapping" remains the backbone of the economy down there?

At least this is a racket indulged in by both Muslims and Christians – a multi-denominational crime – in today’s unhappy Philippines.

Concluded the NY Times: "Although General Pershing was heavily criticized in some American newspapers, his victory in the Philippines was seen as helping his career." Based on his exploits here, perhaps, he was subsequently named commander of the American Expeditionary Force sent to Europe to fight the Germans and the Kaiser’s allies in World War I.

I hope the new American military expedition to Mindanao will also leave us with some public works, and a few economic advantages, not just a legacy – as in Jolo – of military action.

President Macapagal-Arroyo is right to link the fight against poverty with the fight against terrorism. I trust her "phone pal", US President George W. Bush, will get the message.

* * *

I don’t think that even the $1-million contract signed by GMA for image-building purposes with Burston-Marsteller will be able to give her much of a boost when she arrives in New York City this Wednesday. The Big Apple will be awash with celebrities, heads of state, business and economic wizards and heavy-hitters, all congregating for the same big bash: the World Economic Forum (WEF).

President GMA hasn’t even managed to get a booking at the Waldorf-Astoria, which is the scene of the action. She’ll be staying several blocks away, at the St. Regis Hotel on 5th avenue – which, if you ask me, is the much finer and more prestigious hostelry. But the site of the WEF it is not.

The Waldorf-Astoria – which was notorious as the favorite inn of the ex-Superma’am, Imeldific R. Marcos (where she reputedly used to give bell-boys and elevator operators $100 tips on each encounter) – in my opinion, has gone to seed. We were supposed to be booked there two years ago for a conference, but when we "smelled" its historical magnificence, we fled to the nearby less hoity-toity, but more comfortable Intercontinental Hotel. However, the old Waldorf and other New York hotels will be bursting with more than 2,700 government leaders and ranking executives – even 3,000 if all the expected participants arrive – from over 100 countries. They will all be in New York for the start of the annual World Economic Forum this Thursday.

Won’t our La Gloria get lost in this crush?

* * *

For the past 31 years, the WEF five-day conference drew the most influential persons, presumably, on this planet to ponderously compare notes and discuss "finance, economics, sociology, culture and technology." It was normally a sober-sided affair, since it was traditionally held in the remote Swiss ski village of Davos.

This meant that the delegates kept mostly indoors, close to the fireplace and concentrated on business – since, if they were foolish enough to venture outside into the freezing mountain air, they would have frozen their butts off.

The Forum, we’re told, was moved to New York City for the first time in its existence to "save" New York from the doldrums and the disastrous economic aftermath of the September 11 destruction and loss of 3,000 lives in the World Trade Center.

Already, The New York Times has set the tone (Jan. 27 edition) of what’s going to happen when you transfer such a conference from snow-bound Davos to the bright lights of NYC. The frontpage piece of reporter Alex Kuczynski was headlined: "Who Said Economics is Dismal? It’s Party Time."

Sez the subhead: "After this, hardly anyone will want to go back to Switzerland."

The writer advises that you shouldn’t feel bad "if you have not been invited: it is extremely exclusive, and some participants have paid more than $25,000 for the privilege of attending – and that does not include lodging."

The delegates will "discuss heady topics including ‘The Designing Mind’ and ‘Dance and Diversity’, dine at the glitziest restaurants, go sightseeing and shop. American officials including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will mingle with Bill Gates of Microsoft. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be able to share canapés."

Points out the NYT: . . . "Rem Koolhass, Peter Gabriel, Jenny Holzer and Bono are alighting in New York this week, but not for a movie premiere or the opening of a multimillion- dollar clothing boutique. No, they will arrive in their black T-shirts and wraparound sunglasses for what has long been known as the world’s largest cocktail party for the elite, an extravaganza open only to millionaires, heads of state, corporate leaders, cultural and academic figures and a few dozen others who influence the world economy."

It will be a security nightmare, of course. New York’s Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Daniel Doctoroff swears the NYPD, the police department, is prepared "to prevent any kind of mayhem that has broken out in Seattle, Genoa and other cities where similar economic gatherings have taken place in recent years." Wanna bet?

Anyway, reports another NYT writer, Dan Barry: "There will be frozen zones, bodyguard T-formations, and many, many people in helmets and uniforms."

I hope there won’t be any Abu Sayyaf lurking behind the garbage bins, or old Osama’s al-Qaeda party-poopers. I guess we can’t blame our La Gloria from wanting to hobnob with such celebrities and glitterati, but she ought to hurry home. Doesn’t she remember there’s a war on?

* * *

What transpired yesterday between President GMA and Britain’s real "Iron Lady", former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, can only be a matter of conjecture – until the Palace press release comes out. I’m not sure, of course, whether one of the topics discussed was how Maggie Thatcher handled her husband, Denis, when she was P.M. Or how Denis comported himself in Mike Arroyo’s place.

Lady Thatcher will be recorded in history as one of Britain’s toughest, most resolute, and courageous leaders – reluctantly admired even by those who bitterly opposed her. She was Prime Minister almost a dozen years.

In 1987, when Britain’s voters gave her her third successive general election victory, a feat unprecedented in the 20th century for any premier, it seemed she would – like Queen Victoria – reign forever. But three years later, owing to her own hubris, among other factors, she fell from grace and from office.

Yet, England wept when Mrs. Thatcher finally left No. 10 Downing Street on November 28, 1990. She rightly stated in her valedictory: "We are leaving Downing Street for the last time after eleven and a half wonderful years. We are very happy that we leave the United Kingdom in a very much better state than when we came."

If GMA can say the same thing at the end of her "rule", (whether it be year 2004 or 2009, who can tell?) that would be great. But TIME Magazine was right in putting a big question mark after her caption of "Iron Lady?"

Columnist Amando Doronila was correct when he pointed yesterday to what remains GMA’s disconcerting flaw – and a challenge she must still overcome: "The problem with Gloria is she’s not tough enough."

I hope, at least by osmosis, she’s imbibed some of that quality from her brief meeting with Maggie Thatcher. The way Thatcher, despite the heckling of her critics and the grumbling even within her own Tory Party, mobilized the United Kingdom into fighting the Falkland War, one of her greatest triumphs, is a timely parable for GMA, who’s taking some flak for organizing her own Philippine-American "exercises" against the pesky Abu Sayyaf.

It can be said that all wars are silly and wasteful, but men and women always do silly and wasteful things, which is why the history books are so thick.

Each war, too, is the product of miscalculation. The British didn’t really expect the Argentines to stand up and fight. To them, Argentina’s military ruler, Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, a son of Italian immigrants, was just another South American "tinpot dictator." They forgot that the last tinpot dictator they had encountered had been a fellow named Adolf from Braunau, and he had given them a tough time and blitzed London.

They also overlooked the fact that Argentinian resentment over the Falklands (which they called the Malviñas islands and whose return to Argentinian sovereignty they demanded) had been smoldering since 1833 when officers and men from the British warship HMS Clio had occupied the isles. Galtieri needed a "war" to distract his 28 million countrymen from the 150 percent rate of inflation plaguing Buenos Aires and the nation, where the value of the peso to the US dollar was a dizzying P20,000 to one, and the foreign debt was escalating by the week from $32 billion to $50 billion. (Sus, this seems to be happening again today in Argentina!)

The Argentine military junta, for their part, may have thought the Brits – saddled with more than three million unemployed and a host of in-house problems with the European Economic Community – wouldn’t come charging across 8,000 miles of choppy and chilly ocean (the Atlantic), braving waves that can crest as high as 100 feet, just to recover treeless scatter of islands with only 1,800 islanders, called "Kelpers", and a few score thousand sheep. Why, they might have pointed out, the population of Harrod’s (London’s most famous department store) on Brompton Road in Knightsbridge, with over 5,000 employees on its daily payroll, was much bigger than that of the Falklands!

They didn’t reckon with Maggie Thatcher. She decided that what Britain needed to regain unity and patriotic strength of purpose was a war against a perceived foreign enemy. You know, "Rule Britannia", and all that sort of thing from "The Land of Hope and Glory."

She borrowed back an aircraft carrier from Australia, she befitted a luxury liner, about to be retired from service, into a giant troopship, she sent in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the SAS, the Paras, etc. to retake "Goose Green" from the astonished Argentines – and she achieved a resounding victory.

I happened to be in London at the height of the Falklands (Malviñas) war. You can’t imagine the patriotic fervor that infused Londoners, normally cynical and wordly-wise, even if most of them had never heard of the Falklands, and didn’t care a fiddle or a fig about the "Kelpers" or their sheep.

All of a sudden, Argentine corned beef disappeared from the store shelves (although, I suspect, the same tins reappeared shortly afterwards, re-labeled, "Brazilian Beef.") Everyone I knew there, even, patriotically gave up dancing the Tango.

Well, Thatcher played her cards right. The "war" was soon over. Galtieri and his junta were shortly afterwards overthrown. The Brits and the Argentines are friends again, although ritually every Argentine President has to vow to recover the Malviñas islands from the English imperialists. They play polo together once more.

Ironically enough, the most venerable overseas branch of Harrods has been operating in Buenos Aires since April 1931. Some 17,000 British citizens were living in the Argentine capital when the "war" was raging, plus 100,000 Argentinians of British descent. During the war, the London Grill on the Avenida Reconquista had to rechristen itself simply The Grill, banishing Queen Elizabeth II’s portrait from its foyer. I failed to check the last time I was in Buenos Aires, but the Queen’s portrait is probably back.

And "Iron Lady" Thatcher will always be revered in British history as, well, the "warrior queen." And that’s because she seized the moment, without hesitation or temporizing. That’s how leadership is defined.

GMA, please note.