Related link: Transcript of Ambassador Ricciardone's interview with ANC News Live, July 7, 2004

 

Remarks by Ambassador Francis Ricciardone
at the briefing with the
Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP)
Manila Hotel, July 6, 2004

AMBASSADOR RICCIARDONE: I’m really delighted to be back in the Philippines again, and to meet with this distinguished Foreign and Overseas Correspondents Association of the Philippines. When Secretary Powell “asked” me to help him advance Iraq’s transition to democracy, I could hardly say “no.” But I did ask respectfully just one thing in return and that was to be able to come back to the Philippines and resume my assignment in time for the inauguration, and that was to be on the same date that was planned for the transition of the government of Iraq itself.

Today we are keeping up our tradition of meeting about twice a year for conversations covering the whole waterfront of U.S. – Philippine interests, and they are very broad. When I first met with FOCAP in this very room almost exactly two years ago to day. As I recall, it was July 7th. It was right after our July 4th party so I remember that and I remember you helped make me famous. I helped support the President’s ‘jihad’ against corruption, and I remain a strong supporter of her and the Supreme Court Chief Justice, and all the rest who are working hard on that problem.

As you know, I’ve just returned from a special assignment in Iraq and Washington, and I expect you may want to discuss that. We’ll take the conversation wherever you want, but on Iraq, for now, all I would like to do is just reiterate my salute to the foresight and generosity shown by your country in continuing the brave service of the Filipino soldiers and civilian police who are working to support Iraq’s freedom and security. And they are doing so side by side with Iraqis and the people of 30 other countries. I can tell from having visited the Filipino contingent and the community that hosts them, how proud they are of what they’re doing and how much the Iraqis of their host community really do appreciate it.

Let me also commend the Philippines diplomacy regarding Iraq. I had the privilege of being at the Security Council early last month when I saw Security Council President for the month Larry Baja very deftly shepherd a series of hearings and then the vote for a very historic Security Council Resolution 1546, which conferred world recognition and support on the new government of Iraq.

That was quite a diplomatic accomplishment, and from one professional to the other, I salute my colleague and friend.

But I expect you will mainly want to talk about the history you are making right here in the Philippines, and all the developments that fascinate us all the time, and inspire us, and worry us sometimes, and always entertain.

While away for nearly half a year, I did miss the excitement of the election campaign, but I have no doubt that the best is yet to come, as the new presidential administration gets going and the new Congress gets underway.

No matter how bitterly fought and no matter what the outcome of elections, they are the most vital and rejuvenating force in any democracy. In this country, President Arroyo has returned to office strengthened by the lawful expression of the popular will, and the House and Senate have welcomed the infusion of impressive, fresh talent. I look forward to meeting the new members of the Congress at the earliest opportunity.

American interests dovetail very nicely with the inaugural statement of President Macapagal-Arroyo and her vision for the Philippines. We wish her, her Administration, and the new Congress every success in her ten-point agenda. Let me just touch on a few of her priorities for which we will continue to offer American support.

At her inauguration, President Arroyo spoke of a future in which “peace will have come to Mindanao. All insurgents, she said, “shall have turned their swords into plowshares.” As we approach this month’s anniversary of the passing of the MILF’s Chairman Hashim Salamat, we regret that his successors so far have not seized the opportunity to realize the vision of peace and development, which, in his final days, he described in his letter to President Bush. As a result, we have had to divert much of the development assistance, which we had hoped to use in direct support of MILF negotiations with the Government, to other parties and areas that have established the peaceful conditions necessary for economic assistance programs to proceed.

The Philippines media recently reported encouraging news that the MILF may be joining the Arroyo administration in ridding Mindanao of the internationally outlawed Jema’ah Islamiyah terrorists. If this proves true, and if the MILF opts -- in word and in deed -- for the lawful pursuit of the rights of the Bangsamoro people, we remain ready to expand our development assistance programs to communities associated with the MILF. Meanwhile, the United States Institute of Peace has continued its historical research on such fundamental issues as ancestral lands, and the USIP scholars will soon visit the Philippines again and offer, again, to continue such work in support of a serious peace process should one get underway.

Moving also on our security cooperation front, which is also directly relevant to peace in Mindanao and throughout the country, the election campaign proved no distraction at all for the Armed Forces’ steady advancement of the “Philippines Defense Reform” (PDR) initiative. And, the AFP’s advances in “operations and intelligence fusion” have yielded important successes against terrorism in the past several months. I see today’s papers also report further arrests. You will recall that President Arroyo launched both these initiatives, the PDR – Philippines’ Defense Reform -- and ops intel fusion last year, with the full support of President Bush. And, we welcome Secretary Angelo Reyes to the Interior portfolio, as we hope to expand and deepen our support for civilian law enforcement reform, organizational reforms and strengthening the rule of law in this country, building on the work of his very able predecessor, Secretary Lina. I’ve asked Colonel Matt Velasco to join us today. The colonel is over here, in case anyone has any deeper, detailed questions on our defense cooperation.

On the economic and social front, I have also invited my colleague, Dr. Michael Yates, who is the Director of our mission for the US Agency for International Development here, and with him is Carina Stover, who is the Chief of AID’s Office of Health, Nutrition and Population. Either those colleagues can also help us drill down -- if you want to get into details -- on our programs involving educational opportunity, another point that President Arroyo has listed as a priority, our development assistance programs in Mindanao, family planning, other public health issues, such as preventing the outbreak of an HIV epidemic in this country. These are all things that AID is actively working in support of other programs of the United States Government in support of Philippines’ Government programs, and we work very closely with non-governmental organizations as well. As Charge Mussomeli has pointed out in my absence, family planning has to take deeper root in this country if the Philippines is to strengthen its families and communities and reduce poverty and the raft of social ills that go along with poverty.

I’ve also invited our consular officer Kim Harrington to join us, who is here. Many of you know Kim from her work to support the government against trafficking in persons, apart from her visa work as well. But, as you know, the Bush administration has really led a global campaign in support of governments like that of the Philippines that are trying to tackle this horrendous crime against humanity, something that afflicts all of us: a modern form of slavery that we cannot tolerate.

As President Arroyo has made clear, achieving all of the Filipinos’ national aspirations will not be easy, hard choices lie ahead. But I am confident that the new Administration -- backed by the new Congress and a judiciary that is continuing its efforts under Chief Justice Davide to reform and grow stronger -- I’m convinced and confident that this country will demonstrate the courage needed to make those tough but vital choices.

“Change is inevitable, someone said, “but progress is not.” This moment of national democratic revival offers a fresh -- but fleeting -- opportunity to reshape the Philippines’ national destiny. The United States will support Filipinos who reach to seize that opportunity.

Thanks for welcoming me back to FOCAP, and thanks for welcoming me back to this beautiful country of yours. I’d like to have a conversation with you, if you want to begin.

Moderator: As always, regular FOCAP members are allowed two questions including the follow up question. Please identify yourself and the agency you represent.

Q: I’m Marian Trinidad from NHK sir. We just like to know if you already have a date and specific areas where the next military exercises would be held and we already have the number of troops involved.

A: Indeed we do. Quite properly the Armed Forces of the Philippines issued a very detailed press statement just yesterday, which you can find on the Internet. I was shown a copy of it this morning. They got it. All the facts are correct and I would refer you to that. I think in our press kit we may also have a schedule. Did we list the schedule there? Instead of my spending time, why don’t you just refer to the press kit and take the facts. I can make some general observations. These training programs tend to be very small. The largest one- the only one with over a thousand people -- is at sea called the CARAT program. The others are in the low double digits of American forces working with -- sometimes triple digits or more of Filipino forces in various places around the country at the invitation and decision of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I saw some media coverage this morning of a very small program going on based in Carmen at the invitation of General Abaya -- that is accurate. But if you’d ever want to go into greater detail on these things please contact the embassy. Ask us. We’d be glad to respond. Col. Velasco and Capt. Williams (Capt. Williams, are you here?) our Public Affairs Advisor from our Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group would be glad to answer your questions. None of these things are secret.

Q: Sir, why in Carmen, Cotabato -- what is the importance of having a training near to the MILF areas and where there’s a peace process going on?

A: Sure. That was at the request of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I haven’t spoken about this directly with General Abaya but I see him quoted in the media saying that’s where we have military need for this and it makes sense to train in the area where we have a need. Anyway, it’s at the decision of the Armed Forces and the government -- Secretary Ermita. We think that’s fine and we’re glad to accommodate.

Q: Is this directed against flushing out the Jemaah Islamiya near the area?

A: Our military assistance and training programs aren’t directed against a specific enemy. At least none of the ones that are programmed now are. In general they are not. They’re directed at improving the skills and capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Philippines which, you know, they will be called upon to use in the defense of this country- anytime and any place in this country. In the past you’re correct. The Balikatan exercise of 2002 was directed at a specific problem with the Abu Sayyaf Group. These are general capability enhancement programs.

Q: So, it’s not against JI?

A: No, although JI is a serious problem for this country. It’s a serious national security problem that your defense establishment and the civilian law enforcement establishment is grappling with and we’re glad to help support their capabilities to rid the country of these international terrorists.

Q: Nelly Sindayen, Time Magazine. Sir, is the JI, speaking of the JI, is it becoming a bigger source of concern? Is it growing in terms of terrorism -- terroristic attacks?

A: I’d say it remains a very serious source of concern. To say that it’s growing I don’t know how you would measure that. But suffice it to say that they are an armed international terrorist group -- they’ve been outlawed as such by the United Nations. They are present in this country illegally, in violation of your sovereignty and your laws. They murder and they train people to murder. So I can’t see how any group, purporting to fight for the rights of the Bangsamoro people or anyone’s rights, and to uphold the law, could possibly be associated with them.

Q: Well, a not-so related question, sir. Do you think the President is on the right track in so far as her population control policy is concerned?

A: “Population control” policy?

Q: Or population growth policy…

A: Family planning?

Q: Yes, family planning.

A: You know, it’s up to Filipinos to decide whether their government has the right policy on these things. We are certainly able to support the programs and policies of this government in family planning. And we’ve been proud to do so. We have a 19 million dollar program -- Carina…

Carina Stover (Chief of USAID Office of Population, Health and Nutrition): Yes.

A: --who can tell you more about it. The program and policy of this government in family planning are ones that we can support and do support with a very strong program.

Q: But she seems to be not in a hurry to be implementing her population program.

A: You’re a Filipino. You can judge whether she’s proceeding quickly enough for the national interest or ought to do more. That’s not for the United States to say. As I mentioned- we’re fully behind the program and lending it all the support we possibly can. If the government of the Philippines decides to accelerate it- so much the better. We’ll be behind her if she does so.

Q: But sir, it might also mean that your aid will probably go to waste.

A: I don’t think so. I think that our results have been excellent but it’s clear that there’s a large unmet need and demand for modern means of family planning, and it’s in that are that we’re trying to help. Carina do you want to add anything to respond to the question?

Carina Stover: Yes, I can. Can you hear me? President Arroyo has been very supportive of family planning. The only part of her program that could be considered slow is the fact that she has made a decision until now not to buy contraceptives at the national level. However there are LGU’s today who are beginning to forecast their needs and put their budgets towards buying contraceptives. This is very pro-active and this is going to help strengthen the national family planning program. And we are here, the U.S. government is here, to help support those efforts to get that on the way so that eventually you won’t need our support- you will have a very strong family planning program.

Q: Except that the Catholic Church probably is in her way. It’s not for you to answer--

A: Actually, you can editorialize this. But strictly for foreigners to get these things right, we have to be respectful of what the host country, in this case, the Philippines -- wants to do. What is consistent with your law and your sense of morality and religious values and cultural traditions. You will decide all those things and within your decisions, we will be supportive.

Q: Good morning Mr. Ambassador, Gabby Tabuñar- CBS News. You promised a 30-million dollar assistance in Mindanao once the peace talks get going -- once it’s sealed, signed and delivered. Would that money still be available- this year?

A: That’s a very good question, Gabby. Yes, the Congress had set aside that amount. It was a sort of limited time offer because our appropriations process works that way. We don’t just keep money sitting on the shelf unused. We can’t do that. In fact, that money would need to be re-programmed by the end of the current fiscal year which ends Sept. 30th . As a matter of fact, because there was no serious peace process, it’s always been ‘next month there’ll be a meeting… next month there’ll be a meeting’ -- we were not able to get underway the development programs in the MILF areas that would have tapped into that 30 million dollars. So we’ve had to already shift some of that funding to other places and other programs in Mindanao. I’m very pleased to say we’ve got a robust set of initiatives going on from small-scale infrastructure to micro finance, the Arms to Farms program that we’ve spoken about many times with this group. Those things are all going on and bearing good fruit but unfortunately, not yet, in the areas that are most closely associated with the MILF. It’s been a simple reality. We’ve not been able to use that money there, so some of that has been lost to those areas. But we’ve shifted it to other areas where we can make a difference.

Q: When and if the peace talks finally begin, do you think that you can push for assistance?

A: Yes, but we want more than talks. We want to see actual peace. Whether it’s with the MILF or the NPA. Talks are wonderful things. We’re all in favor of them. But what we want to see is results. We want to see -- you know, both of these slow diseases of the Philippines -- these things that bleed the country and have kept it weak for decades -- we’d like to see them resolved so that we can join forces and help with economic development. There’s a good -- who’s here from Reuters today? There’s a nice Reuters clip on the Internet that I read this morning about these ongoing insurgencies that never get anywhere in the Philippines that continue to weaken the country. So we’d like to see the talks happen -- but beyond the talks, we’d like to see Jemaah Islamiya leave the Philippines. We’d like to see the MILF fight in a lawful way for the rights of the people they wish to represent, and work on development. We’ll be glad to join forces. Likewise, the Communists -- let’s see the talking happen if it needs to happen but then end, and lead to results.

Q: Sir, just a clarification. You said that money intended for the MILF was shifted to other areas.

A: Some of it.

Q: So, the money was still used in the Philippines -- not outside the Philippines?

A: So far, yes.

Q: And how much of that money is still there for the MILF or all of them have been shifted?

A: You know, I’m not sure. Do we have a budget breakdown on the amounts that have been shifted so far? I’m not sure we do.

Michael Yates (USAID Philippines Director): Well not really. I think we have a general sense of the kinds of things that we could use the money for in the conflict-affected areas of Mindanao that do not directly involve working with the MILF but the precise breakdown I suppose will depend also on how the peace process evolves.

A: There’s still substantial funding available but we’ve had to proceed without the MILF so far. We had hoped that a year ago, when there was this dramatic letter from Chairman Salamat, a new advance was going to happen. And then it all kind of stalled when he died.

Michael Yates: If I may make one additional comment, I would just point out that more than 60 percent of USAID’s country budget for the Philippines is in fact invested in development assistance activities in Mindanao and more than half of that goes to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. And so, as the Ambassador noted, we have a very vigorous and comprehensive program that ranges from micro-finance to renewable energy to health to agricultural development to basic community infrastructure in the conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. And this is the (inaudible) program that we will continue to implement vigorously over the next several years.

Q: I just want to clarify. So when the MILF signs a peace deal with the government will the 30 million still be available or will it be a smaller amount?

A: It will be a smaller amount. But it’s not --just a matter of signing a deal.
It’s a matter of having the conditions where we can do development assistance -- where peace really has taken hold. In a peculiar way, while a signed document would be nice, that’s not the goal. Real peace and development are the goals. So we would like to do that. And there’s another dimension to this. I mentioned the United States Institute of Peace. We are hoping for visitors to come back from USIP to re-engage here. If through historical research, through training in negotiation techniques; in conflict resolution processes, we can help in that way -- it takes a very trivial amount of money to help in those areas. We’re prepared to do that as well. And some of that funding has already been disbursed. As you know USIP has only been active for a year.

Q: You cited a matter of having the conditions. Does the MILF have to de-commission, to demobilize it before the aid can be granted?

A: It’s up to the government to set its terms and come to terms with the MILF and vice versa. So it’s not for us to say. I can tell you for certain the United States is not expecting that any group should give up its lawful forms of struggle for its political cause. In a democracy, you’re free to advocate whatever you want as long as you do it in lawful ways. In the case of the peoples of Mindanao, particularly the Muslim people, the Bangsamoro people -- there are legitimate historical grievances -- we understand that. Most Filipinos say they understand that. But that’s a question of how you go about righting perceived historical wrongs. Do you do it by murder and bombing and discouraging foreign investment and domestic investment and preventing roads from being built? And irrigation projects from going forward? We don’t think so. We think there are other ways of pursuing the rights of people.

You know, historically the Communist party proclaims itself to be fighting for the poor but there are ways of doing that that actually help the poor, that bring in investment and jobs -- whether it be from tourism or investment in factories, in farming and irrigation. But its ways have hurt them, like murdering local officials and burning factories and burning buses and discouraging tourism. There’s also cutting the heads off of people -- that’s not Islam, I don’t know what that is besides murder and terror. That has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with securing the rights of people in Mindanao and this murdering of officials has nothing to do with securing the rights of people in Samar.

Q: May I ask a different question? You spoke of tough choices and fleeting opportunity of Mrs. Arroyo. If you were to list the two most urgent tasks that she needs to do what would they be?

A: It’s not for some foreign Ambassador to prescribe for the Philippines what the priorities ought to be. But the Philippines does have many friends -- not just the United States -- around the world. And we all want to see this country prosper. So when your own leadership -- whether it’s Senate President Drilon, or the President of the Republic Gloria Macapagal Arroyo -- when they set priorities, we listen to them and we decide whether we can support them. And the answer is yes, we can. President Arroyo has laid out anti-corruption goals. She gave another important speech yesterday. We want to see the rule of law in this country strengthened. We want to see her succeed in “making life tougher on those who have it easy and easier on those who have it tough.” I thought that was a good way to put it. So she’s setting the national priorities, the Senate is setting the national priorities. All of them make sense to us and we will do whatever we can to help them succeed.
So it’s not for us to say you ought to first do charter change, and second do fiscal reform -- you will have to decide that through your democratic process and you can count on us to back you up. But these are serious decisions and the fiscal crisis has to be averted. And you will do that by dealing with it frontally, it seems to me . Officials have spoken out on this, other political leaders have spoken on it, and we want you to succeed.

Q: I’m Allan from Mainichi Shimbun. Mr. Ambassador, you mentioned in your opening statement that the kind of leader the MILF somehow failed to seize the opportunity -- can you please expand on this?

A: I’m hopeful that the news reports recently out of Mindanao that the MILF has decided to work with the government against the JI -- I hope those prove to be true. In which case we can see a breakthrough, in the offing, I suppose. But -- while I’m very optimistic and confident by nature -- in particular with respect to Mindanao because I can see how peace can take root -- I’m very cautious about predicting breakthroughs, or going for the latest rumor or news report out of Mindanao. Because suffice to say that in the past year we’ve seen report after report, that talks are going to begin, or talks have started, at one level or another. And talking is good. I’m a diplomat and I favor negotiations, and talks in general. But at the end of the day, there need to be some results. And one result over the past year has been a lowering of the violence, and that has been good for the people there. So I guess you can say there’s been progress. If we can have a more permanent, a determined end to the violence and a shift to political pursuit of rights, at the same time we will see not just foreign economic assistance but also private investment. And not just foreign investment, but domestic, Filipino investment, when these people can be sure that their crops aren’t going to be burnt or their taxis and buses aren’t going to be hijacked and destroyed. We can see life changed for the better rather dramatically, not just in Mindanao but elsewhere, where they’re facing the Communist insurgency. Things can get better in this country as well as worse. They really can.

Q: But the current breed of MILF leadership right now seems to stay in their own traditional ways of doing things.

A: Traditions are good and we’ll have to work within your traditions. And no one is suggesting that any of the peoples in Mindanao, whether the indigenous peoples or the tribal peoples or the Muslims or the various families, should change their traditions. But change is inevitable, as I mentioned, as the world itself changes. And all systems, all organizations have to adapt to the changes that come. So they have to figure out themselves how to do it. We’re not telling the MILF they have to throw overboard the causes for which they’ve fought. No one is saying that. We certainly are not saying that.

Q: Greg Hutchinson, Fairfax (?) (unknown news agency). Does the Philippines need an anti-terrorism law?

A: You know, that’s an excellent question and it’s one that the Filipinos themselves are going to have to answer. We believe that most countries do need to recognize this as a modern phenomenon that is best fought by legal means. In the United States we’ve passed legislation that was very controversial and remains controversial -- the Patriot Act. But through our political processes we passed it, and it has enabled us to do a number of things through law enforcement processes. One way it has helped is to strengthen our ability to go after terrorist financing. In most countries we have found that terrorist financing was at the root of our vulnerabilities to terrorism. The Philippines itself has passed much better anti-money laundering legislation in the past year. That was one of the accomplishments of the past Congress and the past Administration. But Filipinos themselves are wondering, and the Financial Action Task Force is questioning, whether that was enough. And it seems that there are so many loopholes to be closed. Whether there needs to be legislation to close those loopholes, or this can be done through implementing regulations, is another question. I’m given to understand, from Filipinos involved in anti-money laundering, that indeed passing legislation that makes terrorism a crime could be the way, could be the best way, to tighten up against that national vulnerability to terrorism. It’s for Filipinos to decide. What we can offer, what the Financial Action Task Force -- the coalition of countries can offer, are models of legislation that criminalize various forms of terrorism. And we’re glad to provide that consultation, that advice. And if the Philippines Congress and Administration decide they want to go on that route that would make sense to us, we’d gladly support it.

Q: Would it be my understanding that, ultimately, the fight against terrorism can’t be won unless there is an anti-terrorism law, unless you make terrorism acts illegal?

A: I think, let’s see if I understand exactly where you’re getting at, I certainly believe and my government believes we cannot win the fight against terrorism except through strengthening the rule of law globally, and in our individual countries. That’s what it’s all about. And for the Philippines it seems to me so much depends on that. Not merely protecting the people against terrorism but protecting the people against kidnapping, protecting against trafficking in persons, protecting against drug dealers, arms smugglers, protecting the national finances against tax cheats. It all comes down to strengthening the rule of law. So yes. It seems to me that you can strengthen the laws against terrorism, not just the written law but the implementation of the law, enforcement of the law. You’ll make this country stronger against terrorism and all the other criminals that beset it. And because the Philippines is an ally of the United States, it will make the United States stronger against terrorism and international crime as well.

Q: I’d like to know how deeply involved the U.S. embassy is with regards to illegal human trafficking and what is the role of the Philippines in the whole Southeast Asia with regards to human trafficking?

A: We’re very deeply involved. All our embassies are deeply involved around the world because it’s a priority of President Bush, it’s a priority of Secretary Powell. Each of them has spoken out against this problem repeatedly. We publish an annual report on it which details how we see each country standing. As you know, we came out with our annual report -- was it in April, Kim?

Q: Well, it was just released in June.

A: It was released in June. It was put together in April so the information is a little dated. The Philippines passed landmark legislation against trafficking in persons a year ago or within the past year. Now the trick is to implement that legislation and to see people arrested, and those arrested prosecuted, forcefully, actively and swiftly; and at the end of the prosecution, to be sentenced if they are guilty, and to do time. We believe that’s the only way to fight this horrible crime, and that is through law enforcement. Yes we’re deeply involved. How are we involved? We have people like Kim who are advancing our programs of training and support. Kim arranged for me to go down here to the docks just behind the hotel before I left. I think it was December, to visit with NGOs that were helping the port authorities identify victims before they finish becoming victims. The victims have been recruited in the Visayas or in Mindanao. They were brought up here by slave dealers. That’s the only word for them. And we have people working with the port authorities, the Philippines National Police to make sure that they don’t finally fall into the clutches of these people. Then we have NGOs that help train these young women mostly, children and young women to make them understand what they’ve just gone through, or maybe help them get some skills that will be useful for them in the job market. So we train them for endeavors other than the slavery that they were signed up for. We do it through such programs -- training and assistance through USAID, through other venues. And we also have some very substantial law enforcement agencies -- about 7 or 8 U.S. government law enforcement agencies are represented in our embassy -- and we have a little task force that Kim is a part of that tries to bring them all together in support of Philippines efforts against this crime. Kim, have I left out anything you would like to add?

Kim Harrington (U.S. Embassy Political Affairs Officer): Yes, just a couple other things on the ground. We do have a few other NGOs mostly aimed at raising awareness. And we do give a few grants to American Center for International Labor Solidarity. It runs an excellent website completely dedicated to informing the public about trafficking in the Philippines- its called www.trafficking.org.ph. It’s an excellent resource on trends in the country, new laws, new legislation that’s being passed and any new initiatives in the country to fight trafficking. You asked about the Philippines’ role in Asia. Trafficking is really a problem throughout the world. We wrote our report this year on a hundred and forty countries. It wasn’t just focused on the Philippines -- it wasn’t just focused on Asia, really it’s international in scope. In terms of trends in Asia, people are trafficked, internally in the Philippines and other countries in Asia, throughout Southeast Asia from Cambodia to Thailand and vice versa, it’s really a problem that affects the entire region.

Q: Are there any statistics, any numbers?

A: In the annual report, certainly.

Kim Harrington: Right, in the annual report. Frankly,- the U.S. government estimates in the entire world … 600 thousand to 800 hundred thousand people trafficked annually between countries. That does not include internal trafficking. For instance here in the Philippines, young girls and men being trafficked from Visayas and Mindanao up to Cebu and up to Manila, mostly to work in --- they’re also being sexually exploited-- working in bars and restaurants. But there’s an additional 1 million people in the world that are estimated to be victims of internal trafficking. (inaudible) In the United States we estimate, I think it’s 10, 000 to 15,000 people trafficked in the United States every year as well. So it’s a problem that the U.S. government recognizes we also have to work on, we also have to prosecute traffickers within our own country.

Q: You’re talking about women and children?

Kim Harrington: We’re mostly talking about women and children and also about men. I do want to refer you, if you would like more detailed information, to our State Department website www.state.gov… . Also it gives a link to our report this year on the 140 countries and a synopsis of the 140 countries on the state of trafficking today.

Q: Mr. Ambassador, going back to the 30 million U.S. dollars, do you have a time frame for this, sir? How much longer can you keep the money?

A: The particular pot of funds needs to be used, (inaudible) and if it is not, it will be reprogrammed before the end of our fiscal year. Before the end of September -- so that’s the time frame. And as a practical matter, given the Congressional calendar in our election year, that means much sooner rather than later. We’ll have to go back to Congress and ask for authority to spend that money in other ways.

Q: So after September, there has to be a new allotment?

A: Well, before September. We really have to begin spending that in support of the earmarked language the Congress put in- or request from Congress permission to spend it in other ways or show Congress how we are spending it in support-

Q: And the Arroyo administration is fully aware of this, sir?

A: Yes. We’re in very close touch with the Arroyo administration on all of the development assistance programs and very much on the question of how we can support the administration and for that matter the parties in coming to terms -- on getting a serious peace process and then concluding it with real peace.

Q: And are you confident sir, that the Arroyo government will meet that deadline?

A: I’m confident that the Arroyo government is doing everything all it possibly can and is going about this wholeheartedly, and we could not ask for more commitment or good faith on their part.

Q: There is the downsizing of U.S. forces in Okinawa, I understand, and that there were published reports that there may be a possibility that some of those troops might be relocated in the Philippines?

A: I don’t see that happening. It has not been. There is no plan that I’m aware of within the United States Government for the transfer of U.S. forces from Okinawa to the Philippines. I’m simply not aware of any such plans. And I should think I would be asked about it, and no one indicates to me that they’re thinking along those terms. Globally, we’re relocating our forces to deal with a new world. You know why? Why should we worry about Russian tanks coming into Germany? It doesn’t make any sense. Why should we have many forces that deal with that. So, we’re repositioning our forces worldwide. So, in that context, I wouldn’t be shocked if there are Pentagon plans regarding forces in Okinawa or anywhere else. But I’m not aware, as Ambassador to the Philippines, of any U.S. Government plans to reestablish bases here, or to bring substantial numbers of U.S. forces here for any purpose, and certainly not on a permanent basis. Substantial numbers in the hundreds and even thousands sometimes for annual exercises, and we’re talking about for a few days or weeks. Yes, that’s been very profitable for both sides. But I don’t see moving the Okinawa facilities to Clark or something like that.

Q: When you were in Washington, Mr. Ambassador, were you made aware, with your talks with officials there, about the current level of threat of terrorism in Southeast Asia? And any links whatsoever, if any, with terror groups in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia with Al-Qaeda?

A: Yes, there is concern. Before coming back, I asked for an intelligence briefing on this and some other subjects regarding the Philippines and the region. And without referring to any specific intelligence reports, in general, there remains a very strong concern within my government about networks of international terrorism that include Southeast Asia, exploits Southeast Asia. A month or so ago we had a flare up, more visibility given to a problem in Southern Thailand. People were not paying much attention to it. With respect to the Philippines, we remain very concerned about the presence of training camps for the Jemaah Islamiya, that is simply a danger and a threat that affects not only all of the Philippines but elsewhere. When you train someone in Mindanao to devise bombs and how to plant them, that becomes a threat that is not limited to just the immediate neighborhood where that person was trained. It could blow up throughout the Philippines, throughout Southeast Asia, throughout the world and murder people. So, it is a continuing threat. They clearly have international links with flows of funding. Certainly across borders, we know that there are at least ideological links and personal links from here to the Middle East, from Mindanao to the Middle East. There are personal connections, family connections that travel back and forth. They’re quite worrisome.

Q: Did you get a sense that there was a link or was it just a perceived link between Al-Qaeda and the terror groups here?

A: Yes. It’s not necessarily in a formal, organizational card-carrying sense, but rather personal links. People who trained together in Afghanistan in the past, for example, or in Pakistan. People who know each other, and communicate with each other. Those links are certainly there. Now, it’s not the same as a tight corporate structure with a president, a board of directors, you know, marketing directors and research departments. Those sorts of organizations may or may not be there but they’re not as visible. It’s more personalities who know each other, who spent time together in training camps, etc., who move money around, and sometimes plan together. That’s all there.

Q: Following on to that, isn’t that probably the secret of their success that it wasn’t corporate? That it is actually being covert and hard to monitor, and isn’t that still the problem?

A: Yeah. I think it is. Almost like criminal syndicates, only more so. The degree of decentralization and compartmentalization clearly is, must be part of their ability to continue to survive.

Q: Would there be much success in really getting into that and infiltrating, so then we can avoid September 11s in the future?

A: I believe there has been. You know it’s always hard -- it doesn’t make the news when we’re prevented an attack. . When a building was not blown up, or a plane was not hijacked, it’s not news. But we’ve had substantial evidence, and even in the public domain. There have been many plots that have been foiled that have not been made public, simply because we’re exploiting them further, and going after other people who are related to those who have been apprehended. But just in the public domain, even here in the Philippines, you’ve had many reports of people who have been plying their trade of bombing or kidnapping. Particularly Abu Sayyaf people, people who have been moving money around, smuggling, have been picked up. And when one is picked up, it leads to another, to another, and another. So we’ve been able to establish the networks retrospectively, that we could only suspect were there before. There have been successes, substantial ones.

Q: Can I go on to a different topic? American forces have lost their exemption to international prosecution, internationally. What is the status of U.S. forces in the Philippines? Does the Philippine Government still give a waiver?

A: I think you’re referring to the recent United Nations question of U.S. forces deployed with U.N. Missions in other countries.

Status of forces issues are very complicated legal ones, on a country-by-country basis. Here in the Philippines, however, we’re quite comfortable that the legal picture is clear, the duties and responsibilities of visiting American forces are all laid out under the Visiting Forces Agreement, and various other agreements with the country. So, we’re comfortable that there is no ambiguity. And U.S. forces have to be respectful of the law and have to be disciplined, or the penalties for failing to do that are quite clear.

Q: Is there some sort of policy change in the wind in the future to recognize that perhaps having exemptions in the future can be counterproductive? That there has to be a universal system of laws. Has America studied the change itself? Can we look forward to America joining the ICC, for instance, and say well it is probably better to have everyone abide by the law than to have exemptions?

A: We have serious concerns about the ICC. You know, we respect what the ICC seeks to accomplish, but we believe it’s not set up for success. We believe that the people who we would most like to get to an international criminal court are the ones least likely to face it. And because of the way it is set up, it is open to abuse. You refer to exemptions. We’re not looking for exemptions for U.S. soldiers or officials from international law or from American law. What we’re looking for is a strong legal system that would ensure order and discipline of not just U.S. but foreign forces wherever they may be. We have, you know, training and programs and so forth that sometimes fail. We failed in the case of Iraq, for example, some limited cases there. It has all been exposed. Not only will those soldiers be punished, but also we’re going back and looking to see how to strengthen our system. So, we’re not looking for exemptions as the first goal. We’re looking for a stronger system to strengthen the rule of law internationally, to strengthen the controls on military forces and foreign officials when they go from one country to another, but also protections for them. If you were to ask U.S. forces to come and help protect our allies, to help come and help to keep peace, they have to be protected legally in what they’re doing -- the legitimate things they’re doing. They still have to obey local law, they can’t go out and violate not just local laws but also local sensitivities. (inaudible). We’re not going around the world and being exempted from international law.

Q: But that is a perception…

A: It is a perception, I understand that. But in our thinking, when we’re asking young American men and women to go out and risk their lives around the world, we want to make sure that they’re in a legally clear situation wherever they go. And we have such a situation in the Philippines, and many, many other countries where our people can train together and act together. We’d like to see a legally clear situation for them wherever our forces are deployed. That’s what the issue is about at the United Nations. If American forces have gone to help the United Nations to keep the peace here and there, please don’t expect our soldiers to be serving where they can be prosecuted on frivolous or politically-motivated grounds. Or Philippines forces for that matter. Can you imagine sending Philippines forces into such a situation?

Q: Sir, you mentioned the southern Thailand flare-up that people have not been paying much attention to it. Did you mention that as a cause and effect situation? That there was flare-up because people have not been paying much attention?

A: No, I didn’t mean to suggest that. I’m certainly no expert on Thailand. I was responding to Mr. Tabuñar’s question regarding terrorism in the region. It was just to point out that there are regional networks. There are local rings and local networks that do have international ties and draw their inspiration, if nothing else, their funding sometimes – sometimes even planning or weaponry.

Q: About the ability of the JI to take root in Mindanao. Is it because Filipinos are not paying much attention to the problem?

A: Generally, a weakness of the rule of law, I think, especially in Mindanao is part of the problem. Clearly, foreigners exploit it. The ability to enter the country illegally and stay here illegally to the detriment, I think of the national defense and the national sovereignty. But the government is working to correct that. We need to support that.

Q: To what would you attribute the failure of the rule of law to take root in this former U.S. colony? Is it race, culture? Lack of government will? Insufficient funds? Or is it because the ruling classes benefit from the way things are?

A: Nice try. (Laughter)

You know, the rule of law is something that we need to make stronger in our own country, and the same is true in every democracy. It’s a constant struggle and – it’s a human struggle. The weaknesses in the rule of law come from human weaknesses. The law elevates humanity. It makes the best of us come out, whether it’s among Filipinos or Americans or anyone else. So, I’m certainly in no position to diagnose, you know, why the rule of law is stronger or weaker in this country, or in my country or some other. You have great scholars who can do that, and politicians who prescribe the ways of dealing with it. All I’m acknowledging is what Filipino acknowledge -- that strengthening the rule of law in this country is critical to releasing the Philippines to seize its destiny -- to make this country as great as Filipinos believe it can be, and Americans believe it can be. Americans always have believed it can be. You made pointed to our colonial history together. We’ve always loved this country. It could be wealthy and strong, and one of the leaders of the region. We still believe that. I think this moment with the new government, the new Congress, you know, it offers yet another opportunity for this country to kind of suck it up, and march forward. Achieve all the things that the Filipinos have known this country could achieve. Why not? Why not now? It could happen.

Q: Dana Batnag, Gigi Press. Would you say the JI is a bigger threat now to the Philippine government than the Communist insurgents and the MILF?

A: That’s comparing apples and oranges. I can’t. It’s not for me to evaluate which is the bigger threat. They’re both threats. But I remain optimistic that, you know, right now, this year under this new administration, and this new Congress, both insurgencies can be dealt with effectively through a combination of tools. On the one hand there is the political process. Why shouldn’t the political processes be effective? There are economic development tools that could be disposed of by the government, and many foreign governments would help the Philippines with those tools. And of course, there are the tools of law enforcement and national defense. …Those people who continue to insist on bombing and murdering, and extorting revolutionary taxes from people who want to invest, improve, and modernize -- they need to be dealt with in effective ways through law enforcement and the military. We will do everything we can to help this government on all fronts. Economic assistance. Supporting, and not getting in the way of the political processes, we’ll help that way. And if we can be of help in law enforcement and military assistance, we will do that.

Can you imagine anything more powerful as a shot in the arm in this country, in this economy, than the Communist and the Islamic insurgents saying “We’re going to pursue our causes in lawful ways. We’re going to stop threatening people. We’re going to stop killing people. We’re going to stop burning buses, and attacking power lines and telephone service for the poor. We’re going to stop the destruction, and we’re going to start now, this year, this month to help build this country and serve the poor.” Wow, can you imagine, you’d have investors coming back. You’d have Filipino investors going to these wonderful beaches and mountains, and agricultural areas. Why should that not happen? Why has it gone on for decades? I don’t know. I’m an American. How would I know? You’re Filipinos. Why should that not stop right now, and see this country take off? So, I’m asking you a question. (Laughter) I believe the answers could be positive.

Q: Sir, just a footnote on the military assistance program from the Americans. What materials are we expecting for this year, and are we paying for some of the helicopters that are arriving?

A: Do we have on our website or in the press kit details of all the military assistance from the pipeline? We do have everything. Col. Velasco, do you want to sketch some of these?

Col. Matthias Velasco (JUSMAG chief): Yes, sir, I can.

The Philippines is paying for ten helicopters that will be coming in toward the end of the year, beginning next year. These are the ten that President Arroyo had requested. Additionally, we’ve got other programs ongoing in terms of training and in terms of other equipment. Then of course the Philippines is also buying helicopters from other countries as well in support of the fight against the insurgents.

Q: Sir, just a confirmation. Was the money for these helicopters already paid in full under the modernization program?

Col Velasco: That is correct.

Q: How much money was paid to the U.S. Government?

Col. Velasco: It was about 7.3 million dollars for the military sales account in terms of refurbishing the helicopters.

Q: Was this in March or May?

Col. Velasco: I believe it was in either March or April. I’d have to look for the exact date.

Q: Thank you very much.

A: Thank you very much.

 

###