In pictures: U. S. soldiers used ‘water cure’ on Filipino ‘insurgents’

Before ‘water cure’ or ‘water boarding’ was known to have been used on ‘terrorists’ or ‘insurgents’ by the U.S. soldiers, this mode of torture have already been used on Filipinos they also called ‘insurgents’.

“This is a photograph of the “water-cure,” one mode of torture and interrogation used by the U.S. soldiers” during the Philippine-American War/photo by Jonathan Best Collection; from the book The Blood of Government, by Paul Kramer.

The impotence of the Manila coup

The short-lived revolt in Manila last week, led by a soldier-turned-senator, will be added to the Philippines’ history of dozens of coup attempts since democracy was restored in 1986. All of these military-led attempted coups were crushed.

Unlike the recent soldier-led coup, the uprising that ousted President Joseph Estrada in January 2001, under allegations of massive corruption, was led by the people. Estrada was convicted for plunder earlier this year.

The notion that Estrada’s ouster would eventually put an end to corruption, and that new leadership with high moral ascendancy would take his place, has unfortunately not occurred. Years later, the new leadership has failed to improve the lives of Filipinos and to provide meaningful change.

Many believe that the present administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is even “worse” than Estrada’s, with the current government facing serious allegations of corruption amid a deteriorating human rights record that pushes the Filipino people to the depths of frustration. Some Filipinos living and working abroad even maintain that life was better previously.

However, the country’s long history of military coups and People Power activism undoubtedly demonstrates that deep-rooted and systemic problems cannot be solved merely by a change of leadership. No attempt by soldiers to take power or topple the civilian government can succeed in addressing the problems underlying the coup attempt.

This claim is not a theory but a reality based on years of experience by Filipinos themselves. The call for meaningful change begins from the people who suffer and are directly affected by the country’s depressing conditions — not by soldiers espousing coups and soldiers-turned-politicians who face criminal charges in court. Change is not effected by replacing a condemned leader with a new one, be it because of mere dislike or dissatisfaction with the current leader, nor does it happen overnight.

Meaningful change develops over time by strengthening the basic institutions of the country, including the police, judiciary and other civilian institutions. These institutions have the constitutional right and duty to provide practical solutions to practical problems. Such solutions will not materialize through empty rhetoric by soldiers or coup leaders who claim their actions are based on the “people’s mandate.”

Thinking they can decide the fate of the Filipino people based on their own judgment is not only an insult to the people’s intellect but reflects complete disrespect for the country’s institutions and the people’s right to take part in the country’s affairs. Any attempt to weaken or dismantle the country’s basic institutions through coups, mutinies or other illegal acts, without the consent of the people directly affected by these actions, is a threat to democracy.

It is a fact that there is widespread discontent within the country. However, discontent should be expressed according to the law and by nonviolent means unless there is no space for lawful action and the government is irrationally consuming the people’s lives.

If deep frustrations justify illegal and violent action, then Burma’s democratic leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi undoubtedly has the right to resort to violence. Yet after many years of incarceration and tremendous abuses inflicted on her people by the military junta, she remains resilient in pushing her cause, and has earned worldwide sympathy and understanding. Indeed, her detention has become a symbol of both oppression and hope for democracy in Burma.

A history of walk outs

Even before Senator Antonio Trillanes and Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim walked out from a court in Makati City, our country and outside has already had histories of walk outs that made change.

But unlike other walks outs, for instance the officers of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel) in 1986 snap elections; and the senators during the Joseph Estrada’s impeachment trial in January 2001, theirs was a complete failure.

When Mexican-American or Chicano students in East Los Angeles, US in 1968 felt extremely discriminated against, they too had series of walk out from their schools to protest unequal treatment of students; for instance, they are not even allowed to speak their native tongue, eat Mexican food and toilets open at all times.

Namfrel’s walk out eventually lead to the toppling of the dictatorial Marcos regime, Senator’s walk out from impeachment trial lead to EDSA II, the Chicanos walk out to eradicate discrimination of Chicano students in US schools and eventually improves treatment of students there.

What made this histories of walk outs successful that eventually get peoples’ involvement is that they felt the object of protest and walk out are the people’s issues too. That in their daily lives they have long been suffering and directly affected by this.

I first thought that when Senator Trillanes and Brig. Gen. Lim walk out from court, it was meant to protest the delay of their cases in court and question of fair trial–which is widely common in our court system. Cases in our court drags on for years, if not decade, and thousands of detainees are presently in extremely poor jail conditions waiting for their case to be resolve. Others could not even obtain fair trial due to their inability to get competent lawyers.

But it turns out that Senator Trillanes and Brig. Gen. Lim’s walk out was different, and their demands for change too also was different. Their walk out fails to obtain enormous public support and involvement as those mentioned above. We could only conclude that perhaps the people felt it wasn’t their issue or concern at all, only theirs.