|
Philippines: Hope and Revolution in the Age of Duterte |
 |
|
Saturday, 23 September 2017 13:24 |
|
Ellorin writes: "Since Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte declared Martial Law in the island of Mindanao in the Southern Philippines last May, there have been non-stop protests in the country to denounce the return of another declared fascist dictatorship."
Female members of the New People's Army perform a cultural show. (photo: Reuters)
Philippines: Hope and Revolution in the Age of Duterte
By Bernadette Ellorin, teleSUR
23 September 17
In these times of economic crisis, escalating war and rising fascism, we can all find hope in revolutionary struggle.
 ince Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte declared Martial Law in the island of Mindanao in the Southern Philippines last May, there have been non-stop protests in the country to denounce the return of another declared fascist dictatorship.
Forty-five years after the infamously brutal, United States-backed fascist dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos began upon his own declaration of Martial Law, Duterte has threatened numerous times to expand his Mindanao declaration of Martial Law to cover the entire country.
When people think of the Philippines nowadays, Duterte, his foul mouth, his sexism, and his infamous drug war are likely the first things that come to mind. This is thanks to the fact that the international media has relentlessly shone a bright spotlight on these for over a year.
But what the international media has left out completely is the most politically significant and decisive aspect of Philippine society in these perilous times of rising fascism and militarism — the Philippine Revolutionary Movement and the emerging Provisional Revolutionary Government. This burgeoning power is now present in 71 out of 81 provinces in the country on the barrio and municipality levels, born out of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP’s) 50-year old armed revolution that rose and grew in the midst of U.S.-backed fascist dictatorship.
Ironically, when Duterte was mayor of Davao City for 22 years, he not only spoke highly of the revolutionary movement, but allied himself with it on issues such as denouncing U.S.-CIA operations, U.S. military intervention, and ensuring subsidies and food relief for poor peasants and farmers in a country where over 75 percent of the Filipino population live off rich agricultural lands yet experience severe food scarcity and hunger when forced to yield to big foreign corporate agribusiness and mining corporations.
Now as President of the Philippines, Duterte has changed his tune. His pronouncements sound more like that of the U.S. State Department, which tags the leaders of Philippine revolutionary movement — the CPP and the New People’s Army (NPA) — as terrorists. It is important to place this in the context of U.S.-Philippine historical relations, which began in 1899 with the U.S. invasion of the Philippines, the first U.S. war of aggression and conquest far overseas that led to the establishment of the Philippines as a U.S. colony from 1899-1946. From 1946 until the present, the Philippines remains a U.S. neo-colony, or having the semblance of independence but still heavily influenced by U.S. foreign policy in the economic, political, and cultural spheres.
Let’s not forget Duterte’s scrapping of the highly-lauded resumed peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), which sought to address the roots of the nearly 50-year old civil war raging in the Philippine countryside; welcoming US$32 million in US aid in its war against the poor-cum-suppression campaign tagged as a War on Drugs, as well as adding more US Special Operation Forces and US drone operations in its war against the Moro people (Islamized indigenous), government critics, and human rights activists, tagged as a War on Terror.
Neither the U.S. government, nor any Philippine president, has ever been able to fully annihilate the CPP-NPA-NDF or the shadow provisional government it has established in the countryside. And if history is any indicator, U.S.-backed martial law and heightened state repression in the country will only drive the poor rural majority and working poor in the cities to join its ranks by the tens of thousands.
Perhaps it’s because in the guerilla bases of these so-called terrorists you will find free healthcare, education, and farm cooperatives that produce food to sustain communities. Maybe it’s because the NPA is known to be a first responder to disaster-struck areas with their relief missions when hurricanes hit. Or maybe because the guerillas, with mass support, find ways to deter and avert private armies of the foreign corporations as well as Philippine military from occupying mineral-rich areas on which a vast number of indigenous people live. Or maybe it’s the fact that the most marginalized people just feel safer and provided for in these areas.
Whatever it is, the U.S. government wants to kill this movement, and is funneling tens of millions in U.S. tax dollars to the Duterte government to get the job done.
A new documentary project, Moving the Mountains, is currently underway to challenge the mainstream narrative of misinformation by examining the history as well as continuing relevance of the Philippine revolution from the stories of its aging founders and the young Filipinos who continue to take up arms in the countryside. The filmmakers, three young Filipino-American grassroots activists, are currently fundraising to shoot more footage in the Philippines and complete by next year.
Watch the trailer and learn how to donate online at bit.ly/mtmdonate.
In these times of economic crisis, escalating war and rising fascism in the Philippines, U.S. and around the world, perhaps we can all find hope in revolutionary struggle.
 |
|
FOCUS: John McCain and the Fight for Health Care |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 23 September 2017 11:14 |
|
Rather writes: "I've known John McCain for many years. He is a man who has charted his life according to his own stars."
Senator John McCain. (photo: NBC News)
John McCain and the Fight for Health Care
By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page
23 September 17
 've known John McCain for many years. He is a man who has charted his life according to his own stars. But for all he has accomplished over the course of his career of public service, his opposition to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act while he battles a grave illness will be one of his signature achievements in terms of its effect on the future of this nation.
The perils that face our country in our current age are significant, but I do think that the majority of Americans have come to an agreement that we want common-sense and empathetic policy decisions coming out Washington. Maybe a cynical and obstructionist partisan fever can begin to break under the stress of its own ridiculousness.
This is only a small step. Major structural and self-interested hurdles remain. But I see the dawn of some hope when we can rally around what unites us as a nation and as fellow human beings.
|
|
|
FOCUS: Bernie Sanders Just Gave His Best Speech in 2 Years |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 23 September 2017 10:52 |
|
Pierce writes: "There's a lot of tsuris all over the place over the fact that Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar will be putting on a show-pony debate next week on CNN with the Clueless Twins, Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, on the subject of healthcare."
Bernie Sanders. (photo: AP)
Bernie Sanders Just Gave His Best Speech in 2 Years
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
23 September 17
He established liberal internationalism as a coherent foreign policy.
 here’s a lot of tsuris all over the place over the fact that Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar will be putting on a show-pony debate next week on CNN with the Clueless Twins, Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, on the subject of healthcare. Most of said tsuris revolves around the fear that the debate will get framed as Dog’s Breakfast vs. Eeek! Socialism! I’m not wholly convinced that these fears are groundless; the elite political press is hungering to turn the Graham-Cassidy calamity into a Both Sides failure—here’s all the evidence you’ll ever need of that—and this might indeed be the vehicle through which they do that.
But what I do know is that Bernie Sanders is better versed on his position than either Graham or Cassidy are on the bill that bears their name. Also, there are more than a few signs that Sanders—who must always be kept separate from the more febrile of his followers—is more with the Democratic program than he’s ever been. On Thursday, he gave a speech in which he set out a progressive approach to foreign policy that was clear, coherent, and was probably the best speech I’ve seen him give in two years.
He called out regime change for its own sake while, at the same time, defending the role of the United States in championing international human rights. (He did this by shrewdly pairing the catastrophic Iraq War with the Iran nuclear deal.) But the most impressive passage was the one in which Sanders pointed out that American foreign policy must now take into account the ongoing international effort to undermine liberal democracy being undertaken by Russia and other transnational oligarchical operations.
In both Europe and the United States, the international order which the United States helped establish over the past 70 years, one which put great emphasis on democracy and human rights, and promoted greater trade and economic development, is under great strain. Many Europeans are questioning the value of the European Union. Many Americans are questioning the value of the United Nations, of the transatlantic alliance, and other multilateral organizations. We also see a rise in authoritarianism and right wing extremism—both domestic and foreign—which further weakens this order by exploiting and amplifying resentments, stoking intolerance and fanning ethnic and racial hatreds among those in our societies who are struggling.
We saw this anti-democratic effort take place in the 2016 election right here in the United States, where we now know that the Russian government was engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths: The integrity of our elections, and our faith in our own democracy. I found it incredible, by the way, that when the President of the United States spoke before the United Nations on Monday, he did not even mention that outrage. Well, I will. Today I say to Mr. Putin: we will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world. In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win.
When we talk about foreign policy it is clear that there are some who believe that the United States would be best served by withdrawing from the global community. I disagree. As the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, we have got to help lead the struggle to defend and expand a rules-based international order in which law, not might, makes right.
He drew a bright line from the dangers of domestic economic inequality, the rise of oligarchy here, the establishment of kleptocratic oligarchy elsewhere, and the danger all of these present to liberal democracies around the world. If anything, he spoke too little about the domestic strength required to carry out the program he has proposed abroad. Bernie Sanders: liberal internationalist. Damn. I think that guy can handle Lindsey Graham.
|
|
Trump Pushes the US Closer to War |
|
|
Saturday, 23 September 2017 08:54 |
|
Sachs writes: "Donald Trump's speech to the United Nations on Tuesday moved the world closer to war. The speech was Hitlerian in tone and content, filled with vitriol and grievance. Germany, said Hitler, was stabbed in the back by its own leaders after World War I."
Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Trump Pushes the US Closer to War
By Jeffrey D. Sachs, The Boston Globe
23 September 17
 onald Trump’s speech to the United Nations on Tuesday moved the world closer to war. The speech was Hitlerian in tone and content, filled with vitriol and grievance. Germany, said Hitler, was stabbed in the back by its own leaders after World War I. The Obama administration, declared Trump, signed an agreement with Iran that was “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” Trump threatened, from the very podium of the UN General Assembly, to “totally destroy” North Korea, a country of 25 million people.
Almost as chilling as the speech was the reaction. US neo-conservatives who had led the United States into the disastrous war with Iraq, such as former Ambassador John Bolton, cheered. So too did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recklessly and relentlessly itches for the United States to destroy Iran. Most pundits chastised Trump for his tone or demeanor, but viewed the speech as a television spectacle to be rated rather than a threat to world peace. Don’t worry, they tell us, the United States will never launch a war against nuclear-armed North Korea.
This complacency is perhaps our greatest danger. Take Trump, President Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and Netanyahu at their word. They mean what they say, even if what they say is irresponsible vainglory that could get millions killed. Bombastic and self-absorbed narcissists throughout history have meant what they said. And yes, they have gotten many millions killed. Now one warhead can do the job.
Even if such talk is bluster and bluff, the consequences can be the same. The game of chicken often ends in disaster. That, after all, is what the game is all about, daring to go beyond the limits. And accidents are likely even when leaders imagine they are in control. As John F. Kennedy observed during the Cuban Missile Crisis, “There is always some son of a bitch who doesn’t get the word” despite an order for restraint from above.
War is avoided by cool heads and steady hands at the helm, the opposite of Trump. War is avoided by solving political problems, by seeing the deeper reasons for the confrontation through the eyes of the adversary. War is avoided by diplomacy, not bluster.
Trump is doing the opposite, aiming to humiliate his North Korean counterpart, even mocking him as “Rocket man,” and thereby (he seems to believe) forcing a highly visible retreat by North Korea.
North Korea told the world about its strategic objectives a few days ago, but the Trump administration has pointedly refused to acknowledge the statement, and the media has failed to analyze it. The North Koreans declared that they seek an “equilibrium” with the US military to deter a “military option” by the United States. In their own words, they are not seeking war, world domination, or nuclear annihilation. What they are seeking is to avoid being overthrown by the United States.
Their fear of US-led regime change is, alas, all too realistic. The United States is addicted to overthrowing its adversaries, most recently Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Moammar Khadafy, and (unsuccessfully) Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. In the case of both Saddam and Khadafy, the US-led regime change came after both of those leaders had renounced their nation’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
In the case of Iran, Trump’s overheated rhetoric is even more bizarre. A nuclear agreement has already been reached and is being fulfilled. Iran’s moderate President Hassan Rohani has won re-election against hardliners. The country is fighting ISIS effectively. The real explanation in the case of Iran lies with the US administration acceding to the reckless lobbying by both Israel and Saudi Arabia to lure us into a war with Iran for the narrow interests of those two countries (at least “interests” as warmongers in the two countries perceive them).
Have no complacency. Speak out against war. Demand democratic constraint over the US military and oversight by our hapless, so-far useless Congress. War typically seems impossible until it is too late. Then it is utterly disastrous and ruinous for all.
|
|
