He exudes a non-defensive, even somewhat argumentative, mien. He is totally unapologetic about the contract. But the words don’t match the posture. His answers open up more questions that he started with.
Is there anything wrong with a consultancy agreement with a registered Washington lobbyist? From the lobbyist’s point of view, probably not, as long as he complies with applicable US laws. From the viewpoint of the party contracting the lobbying services, the answer is neither unqualifiedly yes nor unqualifiedly no. It depends. On what? On the answers to questions such as those we discuss hereunder.
There is, to begin with, the question of transparency. Was this a matter of national security, the reason why the National Security Adviser took it upon himself not only to identify the lobbyist but also to sign the contract "For the Philippine Government?"
Secretary Gonzales has made no such claim. Indeed, there is nothing "top secret" about the Venable contract. Nothing in its terms would justify a claim of "confidentiality" and the Secretary should not take offense at the factual queries thrown at him.
The first one, to which there has been no coherent answer, is why Gonzales chose the Venable firm. While it is reputedly among Washington’s "Top 100" law firms, that also suggests that at least 99 others were worthy of consideration. Does it have any special expertise, any special "connections" to the Bush administration, the congressional hierarchy or "real" power structure which puts it in particularly strategic position to promote the Philippines in the target institutions? Who introduced Vanable to Gonzales?
Who authorized the engagement of Venable, or did the Secretary, who is famed for his cloak-and-dagger style, act on his own? In newspaper accounts (see, for example, The STAR, Sept. 16, p. 8), he is quoted as "clearing" GMA who "was not previously aware" of the contract. But in answer to my Insider co-anchor Ces Drilon’s question the other night, he said the President knew about the contract, authorized him to enter into it but had not read the final terms of the agreement. So, which is it?
Ces also asked whether anyone else in the Cabinet knew about his Washington caper. Sources have said that Defense Secretary Nonong Cruz and another Cabinet member, whose concerns are in the general area of locomotion and circumlocution, were in the know. Secretary Gonzalez coyly asked Ces to go ask Nonong herself. We’ll take that to mean that Nonong, for one, knew all about it.
In which case, this was an exclusive bunch because everyone else in the Cabinet, including Executive Secretary Ed Ermita who as primus inter pares (first among equals) is assumed to have some idea of what the other busybodies are doing with their time, is affecting an Alfred E. Neuman-esque "Who, me?" look.
On the other hand, this is a Cabinet which is collectively prone to disclaiming what its individual members do. Thus, Press Sec. Toting Bunye was disowned when he famously disclosed those two versions of the Garci tape. Environment Sec. Mike Defensor was disowned when he just as famously disclosed a foreign expert’s finding of contamination of a section of the Alan Paguia tape. Sort of makes you wonder what other naughty little things these mischievous Cabinet secretaries are dreaming of in the spare time which, according to boss GMA, they don’t have.
Then there’s the matter of who’s paying the Venable fee, a hefty $75,000 monthly retainer, out-of-pocket costs plus extra "standard hourly rates" for work "beyond the scope of the retainer arrangement." Not the Philippine taxpayer, Gonzales insists, but "anonymous donors" whose identities he says he is regretfully unable to divulge.
This is at least the second time that anonymous donors have showered their bounty upon GMA. The other one we know of is the Burston-Marsteller contract to shore up the public image of the President. Again, notwithstanding Gonzales’ hectoring that there was "nothing wrong" with the Venable contract, he should understand that as proponent, signatory, and now staunch defender of that contract, he is not exactly the most credible person to lecture anyone about its regularity. His obligation is simply to disclose the facts. The conclusions are someone else’s call.
The identities of the funders are material because of those "specific tasks" which, the Venable contract says, the government "identified." These include securing US government funding for Cha-cha, for a "re-engineering" of the Philippine bureaucracy to "recover" losses from corruption and inefficiency, for a "capability enhancement program" for the AFP and an "upgrade program" for the PNP.
The funders’ identities are important to ascertain the interests being promoted by the contract. If the funders want US government money for such a fundamental democratic exercise as the framing of a new Constitution, and for the upgrading of our military and our local police, for instance, people have a legitimate interest in the identity of those vested interests who should then join in the public debate.
It is necessary to examine these possible foreign interests in the light of current world realities and the aggressive manner in which the United States, the source of the coveted funding, has been promoting its ideas on, among other matters, democracy, the war on terrorism, free trade and globalization.
It is important that our responsible government officials not only ask for money, but also make clear what acceptance thereof implies. Do we thereby enlist in the US offensive to spread those ideas, even if to do so would be contrary to our own national interests?
And if you think this is mere jousting with ghosts, I remind you of the USAID-sponsored AGILE which itself lobbied for pet American "values" such as free trade, globalization, liberalization and open-skies, concepts which are hotly debated in this country. Note too that among the most contentious issues of Cha-cha are proposed new economic provisions which would remove existing "disincentives" to foreign investment.
Secretary Gonzales wonders: "Why are people putting malice onto a harmless and even beneficial contract?" Because, Secretary Gonzales, you have not disclosed facts that convince people that the contract is indeed harmless, much less beneficial. The malice is not in the people who ask, but in those who waffle, dissemble and conceal.