UP prof: Killings could be national security policy

By Luige del Puerto
Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 2, 2006

THE UNABATED killings of political activists could be part of state policy known only to a few and possibly sanctioned by the leadership through its sheer inaction or even complicity, an academician said.

The targeting of leftists for killing may have begun in 2004, peace advocate and University of the Philippines political science Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer said in a statement e-mailed to
the Inquirer.

Ferrer teaches the history of Southeast Asia and is a convenor of a group advocating the observance of international human rights by armed combatants in
the Philippines.

The Inquirer sought out Ferrer’s views recently in connection with an
article on how Southeast Asian nations are dealing with communist insurgencies. Contacted again yesterday, Ferrer confirmed she was still holding to her views.

Among her views was that the political murders appeared to be in line with a slant in the national security policy adopted by the Arroyo administration since 2002, when it noticed the good showing of electoral groups espousing “national democracy,” a program identified with the Communist Party of the Philippines.

Ultimately to blame

Ferrer appeared to share the view of the Commission on Human Rights that regardless of who was behind the spate of murders, the Arroyo administration was ultimately responsible.

“Just as in the killings of journalists, whether or not a government
institution or officer is involved, the onus of protecting the rights of its citizens falls squarely on the government,” she said.

“The sheer number of killings of selected targets and the modus operandi point strongly in the direction of a government ‘national security’ policy — strictly confidential perhaps, limited to a few circles, perhaps, but
ultimately sanctioned by the leadership through sheer inaction or inability, or worse, actual complicity.”

Enemy No. 1

Ferrer observed that for the Arroyo administration, the “No. 1 enemy is the national democratic left.”

She said that in the early years of the Arroyo presidency, alarm had been raised within the administration over the good showing of party-list groups and
the communist rebels’ use of force during the elections, including forced collection of fees from candidates.

“Coincidentally, or shall we say consequently, political killings targeting
the Left began in late 2004,” she said.

By the Inquirer tally, at least 244 militants and 47 media persons have been murdered since Ms Arroyo assumed office in 2001.

PNP: No such policy

Militants have suspected paramilitary groups of being behind most of the assassinations, the latest of which occurred on Monday, when two activists and a photojournalist were gunned down by unidentified assassins in different parts of the country.

The police rejected Ferrer’s claim.

“(We) do not see any policy of government that specifically or even implicitly (says go) run after them,” said Philippine National Police spokesperson Senior Superintendent Samuel Pagdilao Jr.

Pagdilao said the policy being aggressively pursued by government was the breaking of the spine of the CPP and its armed wing, the New People’s Army, through intensified military operations and legal offensive.

War on terror

According to Pagdilao, leftist groups have been allowed to join mainstream politics so they can “voice out whatever opinion or stand they have on the matter, especially (in connection with) political and socioeconomic concerns,” he said.

Ferrer said the Arroyo administration’s security policy was founded on the global war on terrorism, in which communist rebels had been singled out along with the Abu Sayyaf, and on the continued opposition to her government.

The national democratic left “plays a very visible role” in the latter, she said.

“These two rationale effectively make the national democratic left the Number One enemy of the current government. The Abu Sayyaf and the military adventurists only come next, and the latter is treated with kid gloves,” Ferrer said.

“Not surprisingly, the national democratic left is being attacked through military, political and extrajudicial means.”

More than Palparan

Ferrer said that while the focus of militants’ condemnation for a long time had been Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, a tough-fisted military officer perennially accused of human rights violations, “the geographic and organizational spread of the victims reflect that a ‘national policy’ is in place.”

“This is not just General Palparan showing the way. This is the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
the Philippine National Police, the National Security Council led by the national security adviser, the Department of Interior and Local Governments and the Department of National Defense at work,” she said.

The justice department can hardly be expected to go against the security forces of government, she said.

A ploy

Ferrer said the killings of leftist leaders not espousing national democracy and of former New People’s Army rebels appeared to be a “ploy to pass on the blame (for) the killings on ‘purges’ or factional fighting.”

“It serves the triple purpose of debilitating all Left groups, further discrediting the CPP, and diverting blame away from the government,” she said.

Ferrer warned that assassinations would only inspire others, especially young people, to go to the hills and join the armed struggle, “given (the) perceived futility to effect changes through parliamentary means.”

“The armed groups fight in the battlefield; the legal arena should be confined to a battle of ideas, or contending politics,” she said.

“Assassinations do not have a place in civilized society; the practice is condemnable, must not be tolerated and must not be allowed to be embedded in our social and political life (thus, the CPP-NPA should also stop the practice of executions and imposing the death penalty).”

Ferrer added: “Whipping up the ‘red scare’ is anachronistic to the post-Cold War age. The resort to assassinations using the communist bogey manifests the weakness of the AFP in the battlefield, and the government’s inability to govern, and get the support of the people.”