On second thought, that’s what Party-List Representatives Satur Ocampo and Liza Maza seem to be up to, when they accused a "black" American soldier whom they allege to be "Reggie Lane" of shooting somebody in Basilan named Buyong Buyong Isnijal, wounding the fellow in the thigh. If you ask me, the only way to describe Satur’s and Liza’s accusations is moro-moro. To begin with, why on earth should an American fire a gun in the course of a raid conducted by our own troops from the PA 103rd Infantry? Sus, we’ve got enough soldiers to do the shooting.
After all, this guy Isnijal, an Abu Sayyaf "suspect", was being sought under a warrant of arrest for murder.
I’m not surprised, of course, that Representatives Ocampo (a former NDF-NPA rebel) and Maza, are raising such a stink. They belong to Bayan Muna, a decidedly Leftist, very anti-American bunch. Next, Akbayan Party- List Rep. Etta Rosales, also well-known for her Leftwing affiliations, is declaring the House civil, political and human rights committee will call for an investigation, jointly with the House foreign affairs committee.
Radical groups, leaping vociferously into the fray, are loudly demanding that when US Secretary of State Colin Powell arrives here next August 2, this Friday, should immediately "surrender" this US serviceman "Reggie Lane" for the "crime" of having shot Isnijal. As President Macapagal-Arroyo irritably pointed out last Sunday, why didn’t these same groups – or those members of Congress, for that matter – express the same amount of anger and indignation when the Abu Sayyaf were raiding communities, raping women, beheading the men, and indulging in orgies of torture and murder?
As for this mysterious "Reggie Lane", how do they know he did anything? It reminds me of the nursery joke, "Who Killed Cock Robin?" Was he an "African-American", a Baluga tribesman, or a son of Elizabeth Ramsey? Why not, even the late Defense Secretary , my old friend and wartime guerrilla leader Macario "Mac" Peralta, was so – well, well-colored – he was called "The Chocolate Soldier". Give us a break.
And why drag in poor Colin Powell? Just because he’s a "colored" American, too?
Singapore banned the importation and sale of chewing gum 15 or more years ago – and survived without crashing economically or psychologically. It’s said that the chewing of gum was prohibited after a Cabinet minister sat down in a movie-house and got that gooey stuff stuck to the bottom of his immaculately-ironed trousers.
As Chairman Fernando pointed out, the "chewers" get rid of their used gum just anywhere they please. They stick the gum under tables or chairs. The worst-case scenario, of course, is that many maliciously leave the chewy-stuff on the seats of public benches or chairs in waiting rooms.
The next problem, of course, is what we’ll do, after a chewing gum ban is imposed, about the American servicemen who’ll be arriving in droves for the next Balikatan. (Perhaps Congressman Ocampo, and Representatives Maza and Rosales can raise this as their next anti-American issue!) America is famous, as everyone knows, for being The Land of the Moving Jaws – no reference to the great White Shark in the old Spielberg movie. Haven’t you noticed? Everytime you spot an American – whenever teenager or soldier – he or she is chewing gum. (Unless those are baseball players, then they’re chewing tobacco, in a manner less subtle than our own ex-General, ex-President Fidel V. Ramos, who delicately chews on his unlit cigar.) No wonder the Wrigley Building is one of the most impressive-looking edifices on South Michigan drive in Chicago, the scenic boulevard fronting Lake Michigan.
Our government will have to stipulate "No Chewing of Gum" as one of our Terms of Reference. Do you think this restriction will force the Yanks to leave? When I mentioned this to President GMA at the dinner we held in The STAR last Saturday night, she shrugged and smiled: "That might be a problem."
This struck me when I picked up yesterday’s issue of USA TODAY and saw its front-page lead story (after the rescue of the nine trapped miners in Pennsylvania). It was headlined: "CHENEY DRIVES FOREIGN POLICY". The subhead asserted: "His dominance said to be ‘unique’ in US history."
Barbara Slavin and Susan Page, in a story datelined Washington DC, strongly underlined Vice President Dick Cheney’s "unique influence and worldwide reach".
The writers pointed out that "in past administrations, the Secretary of State or the White House national security adviser were the most persuasive and powerful voices on foreign affairs after the president. In the Bush administration, that key role is played by Cheney, administration officials and outside experts say."
This is not good news for us in the Philippines. Cheney doesn’t like us, owing to an embarrassment he suffered here in 1990, when he was the Defense Secretary of President George Bush, the elder. Cheney came to Manila to call on then President Cory Aquino, but Cory refused to see him. Fretting over the snub, Cheney was reported to have fumed and exclaimed, "that ungrateful . . ." (the rest is censored, this being a family newspaper).
Powell himself recalled in his memoirs how Cheney and he in November 1989 had sent F-4 Phantom jets from Clark Air Force Base to "buzz" any T-28s or other rebel aircraft belonging to the RAM-SFP putschists which threatened to attack Malacañang Palace again. (It was also then US Vice President Dan Quayle who had strongly urged intervention.) The order finally came from the US President who was then aboard Air Force One.
Cheney definitely remembers the "snub" he subsequently encountered when he came to Manila.
The USA TODAY piece is even more specific about Cheney’s clout with Bush, Jr.
The newspaper states: "Cheney’s power in part reflects Bush’s lack of prior experience in foreign affairs, the relative isolation of Colin Powell and the role of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as a coordinator more than a formulator of policy . . . The making of foreign policy has changed since the beginning of the Bush Administration. Then, Bush was seen as surrounded by four equally powerful advisers: Powell, Rice, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield. Now, say insiders, Cheney’s is clearly the dominant voice in shaping foreign policy choices for the President. And the vice president’s staff is regarded as more influential than the larger staff of the National Security Council."
Though greatly outnumbered by the NSC’s 80 professional staffers, the newspaper underscores, the 13 members of Cheney’s foreign policy shop "are more highly regarded in Washington and more often attend meetings outside the White House on hot topics."
Although Powell, in his 1995 autobiography, My American Journey, characterized Cheney (who was then Defense Secretary, while he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces) as "incisive, smart, no small talk, never showing any more surface than necessary", there were obvious strains between the two.
USA TODAY reports: "Those strains continue, officials and diplomats say. Visiting foreign leaders almost always hold separate private meetings with Cheney because their ambassadors have told them that such conversations are a necessary addition to sessions with Powell, a relative moderate whose views do not always prevail."
That should be warning enough.
The Times’ editorial admitted that "Powell has been bested on a number of important issues in recent months by more conservative and ideological figures in the Bush administration. Like the good soldier and loyal adviser that he is, he has swallowed the defeats, defended the party line and turned to the next crisis. The administration and the nation would be better served if his views prevailed more often."
On the other hand, the influential daily noted that Powell is not the first Secretary of State to "skirmish" with other members of the security team. It recalled that President Richard M. Nixon’s first Secretary of State William Rogers was "steamrollered by Henry Kissinger, the national security adviser who eventually became Secretary of State himself."
Cyrus Vance, too, fought a series of policy battles in the Jimmy Carter administration with National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. "Vance resigned in protest over the botched attempt to use military force to rescue the US Embassy hostages in Iran."
During the Ronald Reagan years, George Shultz "wrestled constantly" with Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger over how to handle the Soviet Union.
The NYT identifies "the sharks circling around Powell" as including "Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the White House political director, Karl Rove."
The editorial concluded: "Powell has the conviction and seasoning to be a Secretary of State, but he will not achieve that stature if he fails to stand his ground."
Sanamagan. I thought the US was waging a global war against terrorism. It may not win that war, if the "uncivil war" for the ear of President Dubya Bush is not amicably resolved. Remember the adage: A house divided against itself cannot stand.
But who are we to preach in the Philippines? Our Senate is not merely a House Divided, but terribly fragmented – as is true of so many of our other institutions. Sometimes what we mistake as "democracy" may be a kleptocracy held in check only by idiocy.