FOOTNOTES TO U-S MILITARY AID

I was taken aback somewhat that my report for ABS-CBN News on the State Department's intention to reduce military aid to the Philippines kicked up such controversy. All the data's in the State Department's website . It's been there for awhile. So why are officials in Manila acting so surprised?

The State Department Fiscal 2008 "State and Foreign Operations Budget" was approved by the US House of Representatives last June 22; the Senate appropriations committee approved it during a mark-up session a week later and is set to vote on the measure sometime soon (September would be the logical deadline since the US fiscal year starts in October).

Secondly, why are we so concerned whether the US increases or decreases military aid to the Philippines? The amount (from about $33 million to $13 million) is paltry by US standards, and a far cry from the hundreds of millions we used to get when the US still had Clark and Subic.

In 2003, the Philippines got about $115 million in military aid. We became the toast of Washington as a "major non-NATO ally". The following year, Iraqi militants abducted Filipino truck driver Angelo dela Cruz and as part of the bargain for his release, Pres. Arroyo opted to pull back our troops in Baghdad a month early than they were supposed to end their tour-of-duty. The White House didn't like that one bit and they showed it.

"We don't have any big ticket items in the pipeline anymore," one official told me recently, talking about pending deliveries of US military hardware to the Philippines. There's also a "crisis of continuity" plaguing the Armed Forces of the Philippines, he said. No sooner had a new commander set his vision, he was all ready to retire. They blame the "escalator system" prevailing in the military, few top commanders ever stay long enough in office to plan and pursue a decent long-term program. That includes planning for equipment acquisitions through the Pentagon's Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. Anybody who's been inside the Pentagon knows it's a maze, physically and administratively. Long hallways can suddenly become a cul-de-sac. My source tells me that's exactly how you deal with the Pentagon -- you better know what you want exactly, where to go exactly, how to get there exactly. Or face a dead-end.

Last March, a panel of churchmen and human rights activists told the Senate sub-committee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs that the Arroyo administration was not doing enough to stop political killings in the country. With Democrats controlling Congress, America's predilection for promoting human rights around the globe, has become more pronounced.

And only recently, Secretary Condoleeza Rice decided to overhaul the way America doles out its help to the world. "In today's world," she declared, "America's security is linked to the capacity of foreign states to govern justly and effectively. Our foreign assistance must help people get results."

The new system was crafted in large by former USAID director Randall Tobias who managed to finish his template before being forced to resign from the State Department (his favorite masahista turned out to be part of an alleged high-class prostitution ring run by the so-called DC Madam). Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill have complained that the process has become overly centralized, with Secretary Rice wielding too much power over how foreign aid should be disbursed.

So, Secretary Ed Ermita shouldn't feel too bad. There's just too much going on. But the cuts (oh yes, they're coming notwithstanding those US Embassy assurances) do make the Arroyo administration look bad -- but only because they put too much into what the Americans say and do. Which is actually the sad part.