Hands Off the Aquino Government : Philippine Plotters Should Know a Coup Won’t Be Tolerated

Last February, in stirring scenes that will be remembered so long as men and women cherish freedom, the Filipino people cast off two decades of despotism and proudly reclaimed their democratic birthright.

But today in Manila the talk is of coups and counter-revolution. Juan Ponce Enrile, President Corazon Aquino’s minister of defense, has become more and more brazen in openly courting opponents of the government while supporters of the exiled Ferdinand Marcos noisily call for his return.

In some respects these developments merely reflect the tumult of democracy, the normal give-and-take of a traditionally fractious society. Yet such incidents are deeply disturbing for all those who gloried in the events of last winter. By fostering an impression of domestic instability, they encourage the forces of democracy and embolden those who would impose a new tyranny--of either the right or the left--on the Philippines.

To an important degree the reports from Manila convey a misleading picture. Few knowledgeable observers believe that a coup attempt is likely. Fewer still believe that a coup could succeed. The tradition of civilian supremacy is strongly ingrained in the Filipino military, and above all, in Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, the armed forces chief of staff and West Point graduate whose cooperation would almost certainly be necessary for a coup to have even a remote chance of success.

But more to the point, a coup would be most unlikely to succeed because the Filipino people regard Aquino with undisguised affection. Just as they rose up to support Enrile when he broke with Marcos last winter, they would undoubtedly take to the streets in support of Aquino if Enrile now tried to overthrow her.

Nonetheless, the constant carping and criticism from Enrile and his friends can have a damaging impact. It undermines the ability of the Philippine government to address the serious problems it faces. It could discourage the new foreign investment that the country badly needs in order to rebuild itself. And it will undercut the very beneficial effects of Aquino’s recent triumphant visit to the United States.

Impatience and unrealistic expectations can sap the effectiveness of even the most stable government. In our recognition of all that remains to be done in the Philippines we must not ignore all that has already been achieved.

In the political sphere a new constitution institutionalizing the transition from dictatorship to democracy has been drafted and will soon be submitted to the people for their approval. The political prisoners jailed by Marcos have been released. An independent judiciary and an honest electoral commission have been established.

Equally significant reforms have been achieved in the economic field. The government has broken up the sugar and coconut monopolies, which the former regime used to siphon off much of the country’s wealth. It has reached an agreement with the International Monetary Fund that should foster economic growth, yet enable Manila to deal with the staggering debt left by Marcos. It has begun to privatize inefficient public corporations.

In the security sphere the armed forces have been revitalized. Corrupt generals have been cashiered. Troops have been transferred out of Manila and into the countryside, where the real enemy resides. The government has made significant strides in restoring discipline and curbing human rights abuses by the armed forces.

Immense problems remain. Perhaps as many as 70% of the Filipino people live in desperate poverty. The Marcos regime looted the country of much of its readily available wealth while running up an international debt of $26 billion. In the countryside a stubborn communist-directed insurgency continues to seethe.

Enrile has reproached the Aquino government for its inability thus far to defeat the insurgency. This is particularly ironic since, as Marcos’ longtime defense minister, he bore primary responsibility for combatting the insurgents at the very time their numbers grew from a few hundred to more than 20,000.

But Enrile misses the larger point as well. Military means alone offer no possibility of subduing the rebels. Only by addressing the underlying causes of discontent that lead people to take up arms will the government be able to vanquish the insurgents. This is the approach promised by President Aquino, as well as the promise of the Aquino approach. Enrile’s talk of more vigorous military measures, unless supported by the reforms currently being implemented by the Aquino government, promises only greater bloodshed, increased repression and new recruits for the rebellion.

In restoring freedom to her homeland last February, Aquino pulled off a modern political miracle. Now her critics, in calling for immediate solutions to the taxing problems facing the Philippines, are demanding another. But not even as talented a leader as Aquino possesses an unlimited supply of miracles. What her critics claim to want will take time. Given that time, Aquino should be able to lay the groundwork for resolving many of these problems. But in denying Aquino that time, her detractors, Enrile above all, ask the impossible.

The Reagan Administration has made it clear, in both public and private communications, that the United States supports Aquino’s government and will not tolerate an extralegal attempt to seize power. Those who might be contemplating such a step should know that the U.S. Congress is of one mind with the Administration on this issue. Would-be plotters can be assured that any move against the present government will precipitate the gravest crisis imaginable in relations between our two countries.

If “people power” could topple tyranny in the Philippines, who can doubt that it can develop democracy there as well? But this cannot be accomplished overnight. Aquino needs, above all else, the gift of time. Should they refuse her this, Enrile and his supporters will have shown the world that for them, personal ambition takes precedence over national interest.