US Philippine Corrupt Parallels

by Peter G. de Krassel

Hong Kong, February 28, 2005. America and the Philippines have numerous current and historical political parallels. Both have presidents courtesy of their political lineage -- including fathers who were former presidents. Both George w. Bush and Gloria Magapagal Arroyo were first sworn in to office in January 2001 under controversial political clouds. George W. was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court and Gloria Magapagal Arroyo was installed by the Philippine Supreme Court.

America and the Philippines are both fighting terrorism at home and together in Iraq. Both countries fought side by side in Vietnam, against the Japanese during World War II, and against each other after America liberatedthe Philippines from Spain.

The recent presidential elections in the Philippines and America highlight the current corrupt monied political process in both countries.

The unlimited financial contributions presidential candidates and all candidates for political office can receive and accept in both countries naturally corrupts the political process. The financial contributors in both countries expect a reasonable return on their investment. The winning candidates ensure the return to their financial backers by supporting and passing legislation that favors their backers and usually adversely affects the public at large. Enron is the most glaring U.S. example and Philcomsat is its Philippine sibling.

Halliburton's multi billion dollar contracts in Iraq secured without any competing bids mirror countless contract issued in the Philippines, the closed International terminal being the daily reminder. The payback legislation and contracts the major financial backers of the winning presidential candidates receive in America and the Philippines is at the expense of the people that the highest office holders in both countries are supposed to represent. While the corporate and individual financial backers in both countries toast their spoils over champagne and caviar, the masses live in squalor and struggle to make ends meet.

The public needs are not addressed because the president and all newly elected office holders are pre-occupied repaying their political debts to their financial backers as they jointly labor to ensure a comfortable and profitable retirement plan for themselves both in America and the Philippines.

The recent controversial presidential elections in America and the Philippines are a millennium reminder of why both countries need to reform their political systems in the 21st century. Campaign finance reform is long overdue in both America and the Philippines. The Hong Kong campaign contribution law is a good model for both countries to emulate as a first step -- strict limitations on how much money candidates can receive and spend! Getting rid of all private political contributions by enacting legislation that limits campaign contributions to a publicly financed system must be the ideal goal for both countries in the 21st century. Only then will the political process become one the constitution promises. A Government of the People for the People.

Why Keep Losing By Backing Losers?

Hong Kong, February 9. New Year is a time to ask questions and make realistic resolutions. Looking back over the geopolitical events of last year, I reflected on the front page headlines, editorials and accolades the recent death of Madam Chiang Kai-shek generated worldwide, especially in U.S. publications and television broadcasts while American soldiers were being killed in Iraq. The episode was a stark millennium reminder that American foreign policy is a mother lode of history lessons of America losing by backing losers.

The continued U.S. support of Taiwan, the Houses of Saud and Mubarek and rejection of Iran are the latest misguided losing foreign policies on the rich historic trail of protected corrupt blood stained crowns and medals.

Isolationist America was a reluctant participant in both World Wars, and a late bloomer in coming to terms with its power and the reality of contemporary international relations. It behaves like an arrogant spoiled teenager when compared to the civilizations and history of the countries and people it repeatedly slights to it’s own detriment. China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran have memories of insultss that are multi-generational rather than limited to the span of the latest hot music video or hip cultural fashion.

After oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938, and before it entered World War II, America became a careful planner with the British on how it could assist the allied war effort with “Lend Lease” schemes in exchange for the oil discovered in Britain’s Middle East Mandates. The arrangement was sealed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt met Saudi King Abdul Aziz in 1945 in Egypt on a U.S. aircraft carrier decked with Bedouin favored carpets to guarantee the security of the House of Saud in exchange for Saudi oil. President Harry Truman later confirmed the arrangement in 1950. The U.S.-Saudi oil for protection spawned Osama bin-Laden and the 15 Saudi 911 kamikazi bombers.

America brought the House of Pavlavi to power in Iran for the same oily reason. In 1953 America toppled the popular democratic government of Mohammed Mossadeq, a western educated, charismatic leader poised to lead Iran to become the first truly Muslim democracy under the country’s 1906 constitution. He was ousted by a CIA-run coup because he nationalized the country's oil industry, then controlled by American and British companies, and replaced by the puppet Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Had democracy been allowed to flourish in Iran without the intervention of petro-politics, little known clerics such the Ayatollah Khomeni would have remained unknown. It was only a matter of time before a new generation oppressed by the Shah’s repressive regime would rise up in rebellion and adopt radical fundamentalist Islam as an alternative. America’s refusal to establish diplomatic relations with Iran only perpetuates the resentment and schism.

The same holds true for the oppressed younger generations in Egypt where the U.S. keeps in power the repressive regime of the House of Mubarek.

Misconceived U.S. foreign policy is not only perpetuated in Muslim countries, but in Asia and Latin America. China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Korea, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and next door in Cuba.

In China, Mao Tse-tung fought alongside the U.S. forces there against Japan and then wanted President Franklin Roosevelt and the American government to establish diplomatic relations with his new government. His communications to the state department were conveniently misplaced as the pro-Chiang Kai-shek China lobby in the department decided unilaterally to continue supporting Chiang Kai-shek. Unfortunately for Mao and America, the anti-communist pro-Taiwan lobby prevailed and have dominated America’s foreign policy towards China since the inception of the People's Republic. The Taiwan president’s “stopover” visits to America are annual reminders of the effectiveness of the Taiwan lobby.

Ho Chi Minh, like Mao, wanted to ally himself with the U.S. to fight the Japanese occupation during World War II and did. Like Mao, however, he was also abandoned and betrayed by the U.S. after Japan surrendered. Had the U.S. supported Uncle Ho as President Franklin Roosevelt advocated, the Vietnam War could have been avoided.U.S. foreign policy that rejects political leaders because they are "commies" and its unwavering support of repressive corrupt regimes because of their oil or blind financial and political support of America has done more real harm in the long run to American foreign policy than any short term illusory political electoral gains. Madam Chiang Kai-shek’s recent passing was a poignant reminder. Why is America still supporting Taiwan, and the Houses of Saud and Mubarek? Isn’t it time for a geopolitical New Years resolution to stop losing geopolitical goodwill by backing losers?

Contact Peter at peter@custommaidbook.com

The Catholic Church

by Peter G. de Krassel

Hong Kong, February 7. The sexual and political hypocrisy of the Catholic Church has to be closely analyzed and more openly discussed in the 21st century if humanity is to survive.

The Church itself has repeatedly begged off the question. But that hasn't stopped it from repeatedly and forcibly injecting its own views on sex, morality and democracy in any one of 90 national elections that took place last year and most notably in America, Hong Kong and the Philippines.

The controversial and politically divisive elections in the Catholic Philippines took place in May. The hotly contested September legislative elections in Hong Kong tested the momentum of people power and the Church's free ride on the democracy wave. The November elections in America tested the public's acceptance of a Catholic candidate for president a candidate who has been rejected by his own church because of his support of a woman's right of choice on the question of abortion.

The Catholic Church in America and the Philippines has taken a very public stand on birth control and abortion. In Hong Kong the Church actively supports the pro-democracy parties and openly opposes Beijing's interpretation of The Basic Law. The Church's political activism therefore justifies taking a closer look at the Church's history of sexual misconduct and democratic hypocrisy.
People in the Philippines, like their brothers and sisters in Latin America and the U.S., are too poor to follow the dictates of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception. If they did they wouldn't be able to feed all their children. That is why there are so many abandoned street children in Catholic countries. It gets more hypocritical!

Consider this term in the 21st century: Padre. In the Philippines, like all former Spanish colonies, padre, or father, has always had a double meaning when applied to priests. Many Latinos have holy blood. Spanish blood from a priest was an honor because it improved the lineage and looks. The most famous descendant of a priest is former first lady Imelda Marcos. I don't understand what the fuss is to have a priest as an ancestor. It was something we took for granted, she said.

It is the heterosexual and gay Catholic priests and bishops who are sexually active with adults that create the web of dishonesty in the Church that allows priests to molest children. These men are reluctant to reveal wrong-doings by fellow clergy, including child molesters, for fear of being exposed themselves. The Catholic Church's Sexgate cover-up is more contemptible than Monicagate because the victims are young and innocent.

The Church's unwavering opposition to politicians who believe that women have a right to choose whether they abort a pregnancy, Senator John Kerry being the latest victim, reached beyond the bounds of human decency when its pronouncements condemned the raped Kosovar women who wanted to abort their unwanted Serb offspring. The Vatican condemned all efforts by volunteers and international organizations, no matter how desperate the women were. Most of the Kosovar rape victims are Muslims, not Roman Catholics.

The Catholic Church's vocal support of democracy in Hong Kong contradicts its historical practices and is a curious exception driven more by China's refusal to recognize the Vatican and the Catholic Church than its love of democracy.
When Hitler came to power the Catholic Church was the first foreign power to enter into a bilateral treaty with Hitler.

The Catholic Church has excommunicated thousands of believers, including priests, for questioning its dogmatic policies. Yet Hitler and his Catholic Nazi henchmen have not. Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Bormann were all Catholics. Why are their names still on the roles of the Church/ The Catholic Church had no compunction in excommunicating every Communist party member after World War II ended. Why not Nazis? Why did the Vatican and the Catholic Church compound their offense by offering the Nazis the Croatian Rat Line and other escape routes, operating in Rome from the Vatican Catholic College, to flee Europe to Catholic havens in South and Central America? Why did the Catholic Church protect these war criminals and hide them from the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal?

The reason: because Hitler's slogan of Totalitatsan spruch, or claim of the whole, was music to the Catholic Church's ears, a promised return to the medieval ideal of one nation and one church. The doctrine of the separation of church and state was as detested by Hitler as by the Popes.

The Vatican declared the Magna Carta (1215) null and void because the Vatican detests the foundation of constitutional government and continuously enjoys the company of dictators. It wants to return to the Roman Catholic Empire's heyday of glory.

The Catholic Church's active opposition to communism in Poland, Russia and Italy is suspect. Communism was a threat to Catholicism. China is the 21st century proof!

The Pope and Church's refusal to condemn fascism was political. Just as political as its active political participation is today in America, the Philippines and Hong Kong.

No political movement should be opposed or supported by any religious leader or religious organization. Acts of barbarism against humanity, no matter what religious reason is cited, must be condemned by all religious leaders. Separation between state and church must be pursued and enforced as a universal goal in the New World Order if humanity is to survive.