The “War on Terror” theater has expanded to the Philippines. A US drone reportedly targeting local terror groups hit a part of Mindanao scored heavy fatalities.
From Brookings.edu (thanks to the Facebook group Filipinos for Ron Paul 2012)
Early last month, Tausug villagers on the Southern Philippine island of Jolo heard a buzzing sound not heard before. It is a sound familiar to the people of Waziristan who live along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, where the United States fights the Taliban. It was the dreaded drone, which arrives from distant and unknown destinations to cause death and destruction. Within minutes, 15 people lay dead and a community plunged into despair, fear and mourning.
The U.S. drone strike, targeting accused leaders in the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah organisations, marked the first time the weapon has been used in Southeast Asia. The drone has so far been used against Muslim groups and the Tausug are the latest on the list.
Just as in Pakistan and other theatres of the "war on terror", the strike has provoked controversy, with a Filipino lawmaker condemning the attack as a violation of national sovereignty. This controversy could increase with the recent American announcement that it plans to boost its drone fleet in the Philippines by 30 per cent. The U.S. already has hundreds of troops stationed on Jolo Island, but until now, the Americans have maintained a non-combat "advisory" role.
The expansion of U.S.' drone war has the potential to further enflame a volatile conflict involving the southern Muslim areas and Manila, which has killed around 120,000 people over the past four decades. To understand what is happening in the Philippines and the U.S.' role in the conflict, we need to look at the Tausug, among the most populous and dominant of the 13 groups of Muslims in the South Philippines known as "Moro", a pejorative name given by Spanish colonisers centuries ago.
While local terrorist groups should be brought to justice for their dastardly acts, the reported incident shows that US has now directly and brazenly intervened in Philippine politics.
This could be part of the protective umbrella deal, which the Philippine government may have secretly struck with the US, owing to the recent territorial disputes. [Again giving weight to my thesis on Scarborough incident as a false flag]
The Philippines rejected the renewal of 1947 Military Bases Agreement in 1991, yet it appears that the treaty has been tacitly revived with clearance and approval of the incumbent local government to use Subic and Clark bases.
This seem to partly validate my thesis
What seems to be the common denominator between now and two decades ago when the Bases Extension Treaty was rejected by the Philippine Senate?
Well both has the Aquino administration (mother and son)taking on the side of—or has fought for an extension of—US foreign policy in the country.
Not that this about the Aquino administration being an American stooge, although they may well be, but about the developing trend in US foreign policy and the possible implications here.
Aside from the free hand to use Philippine facilities to suit US President Obama’s thirst for military expansionism (imperialism) in Asia, drone warfare has substituted for bases to become an intrusive influence to Philippine politics, with the implicit license to kill any US government labeled terrorist (true or not).
Echoing Judge Andrew Napolitano remonstrations
Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers' arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.
Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.
Obama’s war on terror has made him judge, jury and executioner even in the Philippines.
No comments:
Post a Comment