An insult from Canada and Australia that must not go unanswered

This writer was in Rome when the word was flashed around the world that Australia, Canada – and gaddamit the teensy-weensy European Commission office, which almost nobody here even knew existed – closed down their embassies in the Philippines in response to alleged terrorist threats by Islamic extremists.

What amazed me was the total absence of an angry, indignant, and strongly-worded response from our Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the usually courageous Blas Ople (has too much cigarette-puffing and wheelchair diplomacy zapped him of spirit?). The astonishing thing was that Australia’s Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, without even informing and initially consulting with our government and our intelligence and security agencies, announced to the entire planet that Australia had "received credible and specific information of a threat to the Australian Embassy in Manila".

Sanamagan! The Australians didn’t even supply Ople, nor National Security Adviser Roilo Golez nor even the President’s office, a confidential copy of their so-called "intelligence" report, which they decreed was both "credible" and "specific".

Nor did the Canadians. As for the European Commission, who would waste a bomb on them? Yet, the very act of the three "shutting down" – without even giving our Department of Foreign Affairs a date when they might "possibly" reopen – humiliated our country around the globe and once again demonstrated the sneering attitude with which so many foreigners view us Filipinos and our government. (These "foreigners" I hesitate to condemn as white or Caucasian, because as a Saluyot myself, belonging to the Ilocano master race, I don’t want to be accused of racism.)

* * *

Doesn’t President Macapagal-Arroyo get it? When the Australians lost more than 100 of their citizens, among the 180 killed by the Bali bomb blasts of last October 12, did they close down their embassy in Jakarta? Sus, their Prime Minister John Howard and that same Ocker, who’s now bad-mouthing our government’s inability to protect the Aussie Embassy in Makati, Minister Downer, went posthaste to Indonesia, primarily of course to mourn their dead, vow justice for the innocent victims, and set the wheels of investigation in motion, but, just as importantly, to reassure President Megawati Sukarnoputri that they were still friends, and had faith in the Jakarta government’s resolve to track down and deal out retribution to the terrorists who had done the dastardly deed.

In sharp contrast, they didn’t bother to extend us that kind of courtesy. How many Australians have Islamic terrorists killed here? None to my knowledge. Has any embassy been attacked? Not one (knock on wood). The only Australians we lost, lately, were those who perished in the Laoag Air plane crash.

And yet, at the first crank "threat", Canberra ordered the close-down of the embassy here – while not even bothering to inform us what kind of "threat" this was. They made us appear like Mombasa. What did we do to deserve this?

If the Aussies, Canadians – and where the heck does this EC gent, Hans de Kok come from? – want to go home in droves to escape the Islamic threat (back home, incidentally, where they have so many Muslims, too), who can stop, or blame them? It’s only right that they should look to their own safety.

On the other hand, when Embassies shut down, that’s different. It sends a signal that the Philippines is too dangerous a place for even our army, navy, air force, police and justice agencies to cope. It announces far and wide that Canberra, Ottawa and, I guess Brussels, have completely lost confidence in the Arroyo government’s capability to "protect" their diplomats, consular officials, and official personnel as well as their offices and residences from harm.

I don’t care what Dick Gordon says (who’s worried about tourism nowadays when passenger aircraft can be targetted by hand-held missiles anywhere upon take-off?). What concerns me is that we’ve been insulted – and we’ve taken it so meekly even hastily trying to bleat our excuses to justify that blatant official act of the Australians and Canadians. Why should we find "excuses" or alibis for their churlish gesture? (Did anybody mention the move to stop importing Australian beef or cattle, or investigate those Canadian mining scandals here? It was the final act of Agriculture Secretary Leonardo Montemayor to impose a ban on imported Aussie beef owing to the anthrax "threat". This ban is bound to cost the Australians hundreds of millions of bucks in lost revenue. Revenge? Perish the thought!)

I think that Ka Blas – indeed the President herself – should react more forcefully. GMA must issue a stiff protest. If you ask me, she must order our embassies and consular offices in Australia and Canada immediately shut down, too, and summon our diplomats home for "consultation". Does this mean declaring "war" on Canberra and Ottawa? Aw, c’mon. "War" is for wimps. (I’ve been in a number of them.) Diplomacy – that’s a bloodier and more treacherous business.

When all is said and done, it comes down to this: We thought the Australians and Canadians were friends. What they did was not friendly. Don’t you feel the sting of it Mrs. President? They just slapped you – and all of us collectively — in the face.

* * *

The President was completely right in voiding all the onerous PIATCO contracts. She’s right to seriously question the flimflammery which went into propelling the cost of that scandalous project to more than $600 million. She must investigate, charge and send to jail all the crooks and rascals concerned, even those dear to her if it can be proven.

Sure. There’s a storm of protest – generated by the well-oiled and well-heeled propaganda machine of the big boys behind the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO). Haven’t you noticed over the past few months how many loud hosannas (including in this newspaper) have been appearing, trumpeting the glories of PIATCO and the majestic chrome-plating of the "stunning" Terminal 3 buildings? Salamabit. Great shades of Enron and WorldCom!

"All that glitters is not gold," the old saying goes. But when something glitters too much, somebody’s got the gold.

What intrigues me is – now that the government might be poised to take over NAIA Terminal 3 – is whether the wiseguys who collected millions of pesos in "goodwill money" from eager-beaver would-be "concessionaires" in the new Terminal 3 building can be exposed for their chicanery and compelled to "refund" the cash extorted from scores of poor suckers who coughed up millions just to be considered, but no guarantees and, sanamagan "no receipts", either, for a space in the new terminal.

Somebody I know told me that he was asked to pay P1.7 million to enable him to apply for a small 40-square meter space for his business, "in a very undesirable location, at that".

The deal offered him by the middleman (a flashy fellow I wrote about some weeks ago) was that he would hand over that amount, receive no promises, and certainly get no receipt or expect any refund in case his application was not approved. Others paid even more millions, reluctantly, otherwise they would be "left out". The wife of this collecting agent alone once deposited P50 million in a branch of a very well-known bank. Was this reported to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, or the Anti-Money Laundering Commission?

I think those disappointed "victims", if La Gloria really cracks down and cancels that sordid deal, ought to swoop down on the bozos who conned them and beat them to within an inch of their lives. But, what the heck. As they say in this cruel world – caveat emptor, Baby!

As for the Supreme Court, why should our Justices take offense because the Chief Executive of our Republic has taken action to protect the interests of the government and the taxpayers? What’s paramount is the pursuit of justice.

* * *

Incidentally, the scamsters are obviously still hard at work.

In yesterday’s STAR, our friend Atty. Mike Varela, former president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc. (PCCI), was quoted as criticizing the President’s voiding of the PIATCO deal in very strong language. On arrival yesterday from Rome, via Hong Kong, I was shocked when I picked up my own newspaper, The STAR in the VIP Lounge at the all-embracing, sweeping and categorical tone of the sub-headline of story which appeared on page 8. It blared out: "Business Shocked by GMA Ruling."

Sus, I exclaimed when I read it. How many businessmen did our reporters interview?

The article read: "Business leaders and entrepreneurs expressed shock and dismay over Malacañang’s decision to rescind the Piatco contract, saying it might set back government efforts to attract more foreign investments into the country."

Then the article went on to quote Varela as allegedly declaring: "What foreign investor in his right mind would dare put a single penny into the country after this blatant disregard for the country’s corporate law by no less than the highest office of the land? This was published not just here but in other newspapers as a direct quotation from "a statement" of Varela.

Would you believe? Mike Varela immediately issued his real statement yesterday DENYING the entire story. He declared: "I categorically deny having made those statements critical of President Arroyo. My investigations show that the statements attributed to me have been done by parties who may have benefited by the unauthorized use of my name and the organizations I represent."

Well. You can see for yourself how those clever and unscrupulous propaganda mills spin. Were our reporters nakoryente – or what? I assure you, as publisher and chairman, I will be conducting my own investigation.

As for NAIA Terminal 3, I guess we can presume that the stupid December 15 "soft opening" is cancelled. Don't worry. In the wake of these corrective events, there will be a better, safer, more modern and efficient – and, probably, far less costly – Terminal 3 opening next year.

* * *

It’s not surprising that so many former frequent flyers now have "fear of flying". The terrorist war against civilization has now entered an even more imaginative and treacherous stage. Instead of attacking aircraft taking off from or landing at better protected and sophisticated airports, it seems, terrorists are now "practicing" how to shoot more vulnerable targets from the sky in more primitive locations. (Primitive? Whew. Sounds like the NAIA!)

This was highlighted by columnist David Ignatius of The Washington Post, as published yesterday in the International herald Tribune. Describing the incident as an unveiling of "al-Qaeda’s (new weapon", Ignatius said that last Thursday's unsuccessful missile attack in Mombasa (Kenya) on a chartered passenger jet belonging to the Israeli company Arkia charter airline shows "the terrorists now have the will – and the means – to destroy civilian airliners as they take off and land at poorly guarded airports."

"If they can do it in Kenya, they can do it anywhere they can get acces,"’ noted one intelligence official. "If you want to hit an American jet, why do it in the United States? You can try it other places, where it’s easier."

The Israeli airliner, with 261 passengers on board, had just taken off from Mombasa airport when two missiles streaked by, narrowly missing the aircraft. It’s believed, according to Financial Times Security Correspondent, Mark Huband, that the missiles might have been SA-7 surface-to-air missiles (also known by their Russian name of Strela-2). Al-Qaeda has utilized missiles before.

"Suspected Qaeda missile attacks include one against a US war plane taking off from Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia in 2001, one against a privately owned US helicopter in Yemen this year, and several in Afghanistan," Ignatius stated. He pointed out that "these attacks suggest that al-Qaeda may have access to a supply of surface-to-air missiles."

What about us? The only missiles we appear to have are "hot air" missiles, like those lobbed by … uh, Congressman Mark Jimenez against Justice Secretary Nani Perez. Good for you, Nani! You’ve been vindicated by that buss on the cheek! As for Mark J., he had better put up or shut up. Instead of hiding behind his "privilege Speech," dripping with innuendo, it’s time MJ produced proof.

Coming back to less frivolous matters, I believe we should take the possibility of al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah (whose "threat" panicked the Canadians and Aussies), and assorted rebels — even those tax-extortionists of the New People’s Army — using hand-held missiles against aircraft seriously. This writer was almost blown into Kingdom come (sayang! some might say) by a hand-held missile. In 1965, we were in a group of 24 helicopters flying into the battle of Dong Xoai, in the Michelin rubber plantation (Vietnam), when our chopper was hit by a B-42 rocket. The two American pilots and four US grunts with us simply disappeared in the blast. Three of us were luckier. Two American soldiers and this journalist were thrown out of the disintegrating chopper – and landed in the soft mud 30 feet below. The other two were painfully burned and had grave shrapnel wounds. As for me, luckily, mala yerba nunca muere.

The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars used those hand-held rockets, manufactured in China based on a Soviet design, with fairly dangerous precision. Each man carried three rockets, and could fire those projectiles quite readily at proximate targets. Fortunately, there were not too many of these one-man launchers available.

The modern terrorists naturally have far more sophisticated and accurate ordinance in their arsenal. Alas, man progresses, year by year, in his instruments of methodical slaughter.