‘Manila Miracle’ Raises Questions
We commend The Times for your generally accurate perception of current developments in the Philippines, exemplified by your lead editorial (Nov. 25), “Aquino Fights Back.” Given the long-overdue removal of Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, we can all correctly conclude that President Aquino has gained “the chance for a new beginning.”
Your analysis, however, ignores several disturbing questions sparked by Act II of the play, “Manila Miracle,” which opened to a worldwide audience last February.
First, why Aquino removed Enrile while acceding to his controversial demands--a hard-line approach to the Communist insurgency and the sacking of “leftist” cabinet members--remains a mystery.
If Enrile’s demands were patently reasonable, little reason exists to justify escalation of the conflict to a level that demanded decisive military action to resolve it.
If, on the other hand, his demands were intrinsically sound, why were they adopted?
The theory that Aquino intended to appease the left by firing Enrile and the right by embracing his conservative philosophy indicates a dangerous preference for Populism over principle, a trait previously alien to her presidency.
Second, why did armed forces chief of staff Gen. Fidel Ramos make his move without substantial evidence of a coup--whether actual or imminent--and apparently without presidential authority, thus presenting both Enrile and Aquino with a fait accompli?
What choices did Ramos leave Aquino, if any? Did he, in fact, demand both the hard-line approach and the cabinet shake-up in return for forcing Enrile’s resignation? True, Ramos’ decisive action, like Aquino’s summary dismissal of Enrile, was demonstrably popular. The risks it creates, however, lie beneath the surface; the erosion of civilian supremacy can be fatal in a fragile democracy.
Finally, why the public and the media at large appear so enamored by Gen. Ramos’ admittedly likable personality to the point of exempting his methods and motive from standard scrutiny requires clear answers. He remains respectable both in the Philippines and abroad, but his record is not entirely spotless. Throughout the 14-year Marcos dictatorship, he did lend that regime his talents, prestige, and credibility, much of it as chief of the Philippine Constabulary, the branch singled out as having committed the most, and often the worst, human-rights violations.
Ramos has earned his place in the Philippine power structure, enjoys broad military and civilian support, and may well play a pivotal role in suppressing that country’s tenacious, increasingly brutal insurgency. Ironically, however, any successes he is likely to meet with in the counterinsurgency campaign will boost his political stock and tend to strengthen the Philippine military’s newly acquired practice of creating, rather than obeying, presidential policy.
We have to regard the swift developments in Manila of the past few weeks as positive change, perhaps even necessary change. Absent evidence to the contrary, we must ascribe good faith and noble purpose to both President Aquino and Gen. Ramos. But it would be unwise to ignore the questions raised and the dangers posed by the manner by which that change was affected.
DAVID C. MARTINEZ
Los Angeles
Martinez is executive director of the Center for Philippine Concerns.