Philippine Vote: U.S. Has Stake, Little Leverage

The Reagan Administration and Congress, nervously watching the presidential election campaign in the Philippines, appear caught in a dilemma of powerlessness: The United States has huge stakes in the outcome of the vote but little leverage over the way President Ferdinand E. Marcos conducts it.

“We have been very much supporting the idea that elections must be free and fair . . . in the Philippines,” Secretary of State George P. Shultz said last week.

Although that message has been delivered to Marcos repeatedly during the last two months, State Department officials say, it does not seem to have had much effect.

“We know there is going to be fraud in this election,” one official said. “But there isn’t a hell of a lot we can do about it. We just hope it isn’t flagrant.”

Marcos, who has ruled the Philippines autocratically for 20 years, called a surprise presidential election for Feb. 7, largely in response to complaints from Washington that he is driving the country toward political and economic collapse.

Administration officials warned that a Communist rebellion was slowly gaining strength and, if the government did not regain legitimacy, would eventually threaten U.S. military bases in the Philippines, America’s most important in the western Pacific.

Now Marcos is locked in a tough electoral battle with Corazon Aquino, widow of opposition leader Benigno S. Aquino Jr., who was assassinated in 1983.

Some U.S. aides say unofficially that they would prefer to see Aquino win. But what worries them most is the prospect that Marcos may decide to fix the results to win an election that would be widely viewed as fraudulent--or to call off the vote entirely.

Polarization Feared

“Political life would polarize. The economy would deteriorate. The insurgency would grow,” a State Department official said. “It would be a mess.”

In an attempt to avert such a disaster, the Administration has warned Marcos both privately and publicly of its fears. “A blatantly unfair election (would) make it almost impossible for the Administration to come up and argue for funds for the armed forces in the Philippines,” Assistant Defense Secretary Richard L. Armitage said pointedly last month.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has sent two teams of election experts to Manila to inspect preparations for the voting and report whether there is a chance that it will be fair. If not, Lugar warns, Congress may refuse to send observers, fearing that their presence might legitimize a fraudulent result.

Administration officials and members of Congress say that their ability to influence Marcos is limited and that the real test of U.S. policy will come after the vote.

The United States at present provides almost $270 million a year in aid to the Philippines, most of it in the form of a five-year, $900-million “rent” package for the bases, but the expenditure has bought little direct influence. Even critics of the Administration acknowledge that Marcos is almost impervious to pressure.

“I don’t think the Administration has made the strongest case it could,” said Richard Kessler, a Philippines expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “President Reagan hasn’t made a single public statement in support of a fair election, not one. . . . But the time for pressuring Marcos was before the campaign. Our leverage diminishes as the election approaches.”

Both the White House and Congress are reluctant to now send high-level missions to plead with Marcos for a fair vote.

Control or Cabal?

“If we get too deeply involved, we’ll get charged with interference,” a State Department official said. “The opposition accuses us of supporting Marcos, and Marcos talks about a cabal in Washington trying to depose him. So the basic decision is hands off.”

“I’m not sure there’s anything I could say to Marcos that he hasn’t already heard,” said Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.), who has decided not to visit Manila during the campaign.

A Democratic congressional aide added a more compelling reason: “It’s always difficult to persuade someone to commit political suicide. A real reform could mean the end of the Marcos regime, the confiscation of his wealth, possibly even his life. If Marcos decides that those are at stake, there isn’t any kind of leverage that’s going to change his mind.”

The time for U.S. decisions will come immediately after election day. State Department and congressional aides expect that, despite their reluctance, the United States will send official observers to the election, and that their judgment of its fairness--along with the assessments by Philippine citizens’ groups, the Roman Catholic Church and the press--will become a key factor.

If the election is clearly fair, the Administration has said it will support the victor. If it is clearly fraudulent, the Administration will presumably refuse to recognize its legitimacy.

But if the result is the kind of Marcos victory that one State Department official termed “fraudulent, but not blatantly so,” the Administration will face a decision: Should it recognize the results or force a new confrontation with its longtime Asian ally?

And such an outcome is precisely what many Marcos-watchers expect. The Administration has already complained privately to Marcos that he has not acted forcefully enough to keep the armed forces from intimidating opposition campaigners and to give Aquino’s ticket access to radio and television time--deficiencies that suggest an imperfect election in the making.

Comfort of Consensus

For the moment, the Administration and Congress enjoy a bipartisan consensus on these issues. “We’re essentially on the same wavelength,” said Solarz, a frequent critic of the Administration on other issues.

But if the election results are ambiguous, Democrats and Republicans will undoubtedly disagree over the proper U.S. response. Already, conservative commentators from William F. Buckley Jr. to former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick have spoken up in defense of Marcos.

“It’s a battle for Ronald Reagan’s mind,” the liberal Kessler said. “If Marcos steals the election, it will be up to Reagan to decide whether he can keep it.”

A State Department official, speaking on condition that he not be identified by name, agreed--noting that Marcos is one of a long line of allies who have resisted U.S. pleas to liberalize their regimes.

“We sure don’t have a chain on the guy,” he said, “much to our chagrin.”