Is President Aquino Being Programmed by the U.S.?

The warning of US led multinational consultancy and intelligence firm to President Benigno Aquino III that his promise of change is likely to follow the same path as that of American President Barack Obama did not surprise us at all.

In a report titled “Chasing a Legacy: Assessing Aquino’s Ability to Impact Change”,  Pacific Strategies and Assessment (PSA), a consultancy firm doing intelligence work for the world’s top corporations and embassies in Manila, warned that like that of his US counterpart, Mr. Aquino reform program appeared  likely to fail to institute change for the greatest majority of Filipinos.

“Approximately 100 days into office, it appears the bubble of expectations around Noynoy is beginning to burst,” PSA said in the October 2010 paper study.

The dynamics are not too desimilar to the shared doubt being cast on US President Barack Obama because he simply has not lived up to the hype and soaring oratory expectations of those who voted for him,” PSA said referring to the big losses suffered by President Obama’s Democratic Party in the midterm elections.

“Mr. Obama’s grace period has expired and even and eventually so will Noynoy’s,” it said adding that while Mr. Aquino have done fair job acknowledging and framing the country’s main issues he had not articulated any semblance of a strategy to address them.

According to PSA the early sign of trouble for Aquino’s agenda was the mishandling of the Aug. 21 hostage crisis in Manila that ended in the death of eight Hong Kong tourists; Aquino’s ability to bring about genuine change was made larger by the continued hold of power by a few powerful families, and traditional politicians or “trapos” are still dominating Philippine politics at both the national and local levels.

Also said Noynoy’s inability to control two competing factions: “Balay” and “Samal” factions demonstrate how powerful interests were clashing for dominance. The “trapos” have continued their reign and Noynoy can do a little about it.

It said Philippine democracy is actually the institutionalization of powerful families who have long controlled the nations incestuous political economy.

We are sorry to say that there is nothing new in the PSA study that made us conclude that it’s part of an American game plan to destabilize the Aquino government to pressure Noynoy to abandon his plan to renegotiate the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

Everybody knew that the disastrous rescue attempt in the hostage-taking incident at Rizal Park was isolated case and police matter that the President has nothing to do with.

Control of economic power by a few powerful families is inherent in a capitalist system where 90 percent of the wealth of the nation is controlled by 10 percent of the population. This is also true in the US where the few rich led by the Jews in New York control the wealth of America; the situation is also the same in Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore where only 20 to 30 families control their nation’s businesses.

If I remember right Noynoy merely promised “to walk on the right path” which is the eradication of graft and corruption in his belief that “walang mahirap kung walang kurap” or there will be no poor if there will be no corruption. I don’t remember him promising the people the restructuring of Philippine society that can only be attained through the barrel of the gun or revolution.

This so-called PSA study predicting the failure of Aquino administration to deliver the goods, and terror alerts in the Philippines issued by the United States and its Western allies are parts of an American game plan to scare Mr. Aquino not to pursue his announcement to renegotiate the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The Senate ratified the VFA in 1994 during the state administration amid concerns that it may infringe on the country’s sovereignty.

The agreement allowed the return of US troops to the Philippines in 2002, or a decade after they left their military bases in the country, then the largest outside the continental US.

Another reason for the US to oppose Mr. Aquino is his being a populist leader. America in its long world dominance never supported a popular leader whom they consider difficult to manipulate or manage. A populist leader consult first the people in making big decisions which usually detrimental to the interest of the US and its allies. Ninoy, the father of Noynoy, could have not been assassinated if he was less popular than he was at the time of his death. The late President Ramon Magsaysay a popular leader too during his lifetime could not have been killed in a plane crash if he was not a populist leader. Cornelio R. de Guzman


About Gwenn

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply