US President George W. Bush came here to shore up the Philippines by bringing military and economic aid in their common fight against terrorism. Ironically, however, his visit may have contributed to destabilizing Philippine society and setting back the war against terrorism.

His visit may be said to be destabilizing not because of what he said, but more importantly, what he didn’t say during his visit. His effusive praises for President Arroyo may be understandable because she was a staunch ally in the war against Iraq. Consequently, the administration is going to town with what it says is an implied endorsement by Dubya, the son of a president, of the candidacy of President Arroyo, the daughter of one.

Malacanang is now trumpeting that the US President’s remarks of his friend having “a strong agenda to run on” was a virtual endorsement for President Arroyo. Lakas Party spokesman Heherson Alvarez went so far to say that because US President Bush committed to help in the armed forces modernization and since modernization will take at least five years, Bush effectively wants his “friend” for another six years.
Malacanang can be forgiven for being ecstatic over the Bush visit and milking the visit for political capital. What can’t be forgiven is that US President Bush played into Malacanang’s hands.

What Bush didn’t say in his speech is that the US wants to see clean, peaceful and orderly elections in 2004. While he rebuked the military rebels, he didn’t say the US is committed to strengthening the country’s democratic institutions, like the judiciary, to strengthen the country’s democracy.

Bush’s omission is very significant in the light of the conclusions of the Feliciano commission, which looked into the roots and circumstances of the Oakwood rebellion. The Feliciano commission said that the grievances of the rebels are rooted in the widespread corruption in the military. It warned of an impending “implosion” of the Philippine military unless these grievances are addressed.
US President George W. Bush said nothing about these systemic roots of corruption in our military. By merely rebuking the Oakwood rebels without harping on the need to root out corruption and build institutions, the US President was effectively endorsing the status quo. Indeed, in equating the Armed Forces modernization with acquisition of more arms and supplies, the US President would seem to encourage the corrupt generals in siphoning off more US aid into their private pockets.

The Feliciano commission also stated that the politicization of the Armed Forces was behind the Oakwood rebellion. It concluded that the Oakwood rebellion had a political component. But what the Feliciano commission didn’t say is that the politicization is being caused by both sides. Officers like Brig. General Victor Corpus, who are favorites of Malacanang, are given strategic appointments. Furthermore, despite Malacanang’s much ballyhooed lifestyle check campaign, not a single general has been investigated for corruption.

When US president George W. Bush failed to say that the US is committed to helping develop a professional Armed Forces imbued with the values of democracy, honesty, and public service. In not saying this, Bush seemed to be tolerating the politicization and corruption in the AFP.

With what they believe is the US’s endorsement for the status quo and the candidacy of President Arroyo, Malacanang will likely be emboldened to do a repeat of the 1969 elections.

It must be remembered that the 1969 elections was the dirtiest in Philippine history. Determined to be the first ever president to be reelected to another term, former President Ferdinand Marcos shamelessly used all the resources of government to be elected again. Marcos basked in the knowledge that he was a strong ally of the US in the war in Vietnam.

It’s not illogical to say that history will repeat itself. The internal logic of Philippine rent-seeking is the perpetuation and monopolization of political power. It is thus likely that the 2004 elections will not be credible and will aggravate, rather than reduce, the country’s political instability.

When Bush the elder visited the country during Marcos’s waning years, he toasted the dictator for his “adherence to democratic principles.” Bush the elder only helped prolong the bankrupt Marcos dictatorship and strengthened the communist insurgents.
Now, Bush the younger may also be repeating the mistake of his father. In failing to ally the US with the Filipino people’s yearnings for honest elections and strong institutions and in projecting an implied endorsement of President Arroyo’s candidacy, Bush the younger may be helping set the stage for an implosion of Philippine society.

This, ironically, would be a victory for terrorism in the country.

Thanks for the visit, Mr. Bush, but no thanks.