The name of Chamberlain became a symbol for cowardice and appeasement.
Hitler and Mussolini double-crossed Chamberlain, Britain and the Allies. They lost no time in plunging Europe into war, brought tragic death to tens of millions all over the world, virtually destroyed the cradle of modern civilization which issued spectacularly from its Judeo-Christian shell. The leer-faced comedian Jay Leno said it wackiest and dirtiest. He guffawed the Philippines’ contingent broke the world record for l00-meter dash by fleeing Iraq when the terrorist captors of a hostage Filipino truck-driver threatened to behead him in 72 hours. That was mean.
So, with a few minor alterations, President Arroyo did agree. So, after negotiating with the terrorist captors, the Philippine government acquiesced. So in a matter of days, if not hours, hostage Angelo de la Cruz will be back in his native land, an icon and a national symbol. Among the majority poor, there will be mass cheering, exulting and rejoicing. The English equivalent of his Spanish name – Angel of the Cross – knifes deep into a religious people whose culture is mesmerized by the Christian cross. The beckoning and compelling image of heaven, bedeviled by the hideous head of hell.
But to the raging issue:
Was it worth it? In reneging on its pledge to remain with "the coalition of the willing" in Iraq till August 30, was the Philippines saint or sinner? In the long run, as our critics say, is it true or does it matter that the Philippines will have to pay for its so-called perfidy? Since in the long war against the scourge of international terrorism, we will need allies who may not trust us anymore? And in that war, we are very vulnerable? For the Muslim terrorists are also among us.
Interesting, relevant and valid questions these. They need to be answered.
To begin. President Arroyo, still to fully relish her victory in the May 10 presidential elections, suddenly was flung to the canvas. She had a crushing left hook on her chin and a dozen bricks slamming on her stomach. To say the least, the capture of Angelo de la Cruz, the terrorists’ ultimatum, the sudden frightening impact on the nation, its international and domestic repercussions, twirled the president like a top. It was the first time GMA was really down in the pit. This was her first real crisis. In a twinkle, if she did not handle it well, she could vanish.
Probably, its most devastating repercussion, if she gave in to the hostage takers, was its effect on Philippines-US relations.
In a way, she and the Philippines would be cut adrift from its most powerful patron, friend and ally – the US. That would wound a thousand times, death supposedly in the slow, Chinese way. At a time the US was stuck in the Iraqi quagmire. At a time the bedeviled and beleaguered George W. Bush was fast losing allies because of Iraq. At a time the US needed the Philippines most if only as a precious symbolic trophy in Iraq.
Could The Lady in Malacañang hack that?
GMA looked down at the other side of the cliff. It was just as damning, as dizzying. Angelo de la Cruz was not just Angelo de la Cruz. He was now the Brown Nazarene, symbol of the Filipino poor’s suffering here and abroad. He had grown long hair and a short stubble, dangling helplessly from the void even as he stood on both legs forlornly, mestizo-looking from afar. He was a pathetic, helpless hostage to a war he was not involved in, seeking mercy, pity, understanding, rent by lonelines, by shock, by grief as he thought of his wife and eight children in Buenavista, Pampanga, whom he would never see.
GMA looked again.
Rather, she heard a slow, still muted rumbling. She heard the poor of her country, the wretched, the jobless, twitch in pain at the sight of Angelo. She knew them, rather she sensed them. GMA remembered Flor Contemplacion, domestic servant, also helpless, slain by the government in Singapore for crimes she may not have committed at all. But the Philippine government then, inept and petrified, could not come to her rescue. Could the same thing happen again? Would Angelo’s death, as was that of Contemplacion, pull off the grenade pin of populist anger? Would it engulf the multitudes of the Filipino poor?
GMA had seen that before. She saw it May 1, 2001 when hordes of the poor clawed at their helplessness by laying siege on Malacañang.
The memory chilled her spine. She had to flee Malacañang as the police and military pushed them back. No, that she could no longer abide. These would be The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck’s chilling novel, not her lyrical, ten-point, six-year agenda for the nation bearing fruit. This time, if indeed the majority poor moved like the swirling sands of the sea, GMA would not be as lucky anymore. Not only that. Worse scenarios could ensue like a military takeover, revolution or civil war.
What then to do? GMA could not keep quiet long. She had her ultimatum from Angelo de la Cruz‚ masked captors. She also received grim warnings from America, Australia, the highest political potentates of the world’s only superpower. Never did Hamlet foresee a more distraught, disconsolate, dejected successor – at that a woman. A little one at that, with a smile omnipresent on her face.
But this woman moved – and decided. Would any other Filipino president have decided differently? A male, for instance?
We will never know. Maybe because GMA was a woman, she decided the way she did. Mother Earth is a woman. Women conserve, men make war. GMA was never a warrior to the passions of war born. She was convent-bred, a professional economist, never known even in politics to be a knock-down-and-drag-out performer. In the Senate, she never barged in for wrangles, for bruising verbal battles, stood by as the protagonists verbally broke each other’s bones. Her Senate contemporaries then said most of the time, GMA stood aloof.
She had a temper, yes, but was never a killer.
No, she was not a Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlains exist only for the great nations. Neither GMA nor the Philippines typified a major leader or nation playing a major role in Iraq. With that 51-man contingent, we were just a bit player. The Angelo de la Cruz drama also offered the Philippines the opportunity to rectify a big national blunder. The US invasion of Iraq proved to be a colossal boo-boo, and we shouldn’t have participated in it. Now, we are out. And that’s a big relief. The US and its remaining allies will eventually disintegrate as unwanted occupiers of Iraq. Watch when John Kerry replaces George W. Bush in the November elections.
GMA pulled a Chamberlain? That’s a laugh.
National strategic reasons compelled GMA to decide that pullout. As the US decided to pull out of Vietnam, out of Korea, out of Angola, of Haiti when the going got really rough. In the end, the Philippines would look like a ragamuffin in Iraq when the US occupation will end as it will inevitably end. What was important was to make sure the interests of our 1.5 million workers in the Middle East would be maintained. They have been there for years, decades, because Filipino labor was highly appreciated and will continue to be direly needed and useful.
Along with those reasons are reasons of national survival, national sovereignty. We have to play the game of world diplomacy as a very small and weak nation – virtually powerless whatever we do.
This nation of 84 million has to hold together. And GMA immediately perceived that problem. If Angelo de la Cruz had died, she would be held responsible. Angelo was that rare Filipino at the time, a Black Nazarene of the Poor, with the mystical power to make social walls crumble, the rich and the powerful shiver with fear.
GMA felt that, and to the extent that she felt that, she passed her most crucial test.