Mrs Aquino’s supporters

Press, 26 February 1986, Page 16

Mrs Aquino’s supporters

Mrs Corazon Aquino, the Filipino Opposition leader, had been relying on support from international opinion and pressure on President Marcos if he held on to power through a fraudulent election. The President of the United States has called on President Marcos to step down. Curiously enough, by the time such a direct appeal came, Mrs Aquino was so sure of her support within the Philippines that she cared less about international opinion. Part of the reason for her strong support is that the Catholic bishops of the Philippines have condemned the election and called for non-violent resistance to the Government.

About 80 per cent of the 54 million Filipinos are Catholic. The statement by the Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines appears to have had a tremendous impact. The later call for non-violent protest has helped to bring people out into the streets of Manila and to prevent troops loyal to President Marcos from attacking the stronghold of those supporting General Fidel Ramos and Mr Juan Ponce Enrile, who have resigned from the Marcos Government and say that Mr Marcos should step down. Shots have been fired in the confrontation; but the passive resistance appears to be working. There are parallels between what is now happening in the Philippines and what happened in Iran before the Shah was overthrown. The revolution in Iran had strong middle-ciass roots. The resistance to President Marcos is mostly in Manila and is strongly middle-class. In Iran, getting rid of the Shah became an overriding concern, bringing together diverse groups. In the Philippines, the same process seems to be working as the idea of getting rid of President Marcos gives more unity to the Opposition.

Religion was prominent in the Iranian revolution and is certainly very influential in the Philippines. One of the disclosures that finally turned Iranians against the Shah was the publication of details of the huge amounts

of money being sent out of the country by supporters of the Shah. Similar reports about investments in the United States by the Marcos family have surfaced. The United States Congress is being particularly vigorous in pursuing these dealings in the United States because of suspicions that American aid money may have been diverted into the investments.

The role of the United States in the Philippines will be watched with some concern. The United States has legitimate interests in the Philippines. It wants to ensure that whatever Government comes to power will accept the American bases there. As a major aid donor to the Philippines, the United States needs to ensure that its money is being spent properly. As a donor of military aid, the United States is acting correctly and morally in saying that it would stop military aid if President Marcos attacked the Filipino protesters.

What is not clear in American attitudes is whether the United States is deliberately taking a more active role in removing repressive leaders. The intervention in Grenada in 1983 and the American role over Haiti this year, as well as the United States reaction to the Philippines election, viewed together seem to form a pattern. Many people might rejoice to see Duvalier go from Haiti or Marcos go from the Philippines, but that should not obscure the point that there should be strict limits on how far the United States should go in easing one Government out, and another into power. The mood among Aquino supporters seems to be that Mrs Aquino should be accepted as President because of “people power.” In the heady times after the fraudulent election the mood is understandable. It would be reassuring for Filipinos themselves’ as well as for other countries, if another election were held soon. If this is done, General Ramos, who has long held presidential ambitions, may be a candidate and some of the coalition formed to get rid of President Marcos will disappear.