Unity
Unity
Updated 11:23pm (Mla time) Nov 01, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the November 2, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I SAW an interesting ad in this newspaper last week, one that will probably run again and again in the coming weeks. The ad, close to a page in Across the Nation, featured a clean-shaven Angelo de la Cruz (I almost did not recognize him because he was so, a far cry from his bedraggled and unshaven face on TV when he appeared with hooded figures behind him some months ago) with some words of thanks and a plea for his countrymen. His message said (this is a rough English translation of the original Tagalog):"I wish... that in facing the looming national financial crisis, we come together again in the spirit of unity, which was the key to my being saved in Iraq. I wish to thank everyone who rescued me from a bitter fate: Our great and merciful God, our nation's leaders, and all those who stormed the gate of heaven with their entreaties. We gave a shining example to the world. Rich and poor, Muslim and Christian, rebel and soldier. All of you begged my captors to spare me, and they did. I hope we can show the same unity in the face of the grievous financial crisis that threatens us. So that we can prosper and no longer need to go abroad to earn a living."
The ad was produced by Rotary International.
I don't know if De la Cruz actually wrote those words, or even expressed those sentiments. I can imagine he is thankful, I can imagine he is appreciative of the outpouring of concern and goodwill that went his way during his ordeal. But I can't imagine him saying those things. The computation, or the adding two and two together, which is that Angelo de la Cruz's past ordeal equals Juan de la Cruz's future one, seems to have been done elsewhere. But let us forget these misgivings and agree that he did say these things. I still have a problem with it. That problem is simple. It is that Angelo de la Cruz was not saved by unity.
He was not saved by the Filipinos coming together and sending their lamentations to heaven. He was not saved by Christians and Muslims appearing on television and begging his captors to release him in the name of whatever divinity they believed in or were doing their beheadings for. He was not saved by the droves of Filipino officials who went to Iraq and Saudi Arabia and other exotic locations, and who brought Angelo's wife along with them at some point, presumably to negotiate with his captors.
He was saved by one thing and one thing only: that was his government bowing to his captors' demands.
That is what George W. Bush and the Heritage Foundation are so pissed off about. I myself have praised that decision as the right one even if it came from the wrong motives. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did not do it out of the goodness of her heart or probably even to save De la Cruz. She did it out of a need to appease a people who were not convinced she won the elections (they would say so explicitly later to the Ibon and the SWS research groups). She did it not to save De la Cruz from a beheading but herself from an uprising. Had De la Cruz ended up dead, she would have, too, politically at least.
Quite simply, the saving of De la Cruz was not another case of EDSA People Power, where the nation rose resplendently and added whole new meanings to the struggle to end tyranny. What makes the ad worrisome, notwithstanding its feel-good sentiments, is that it perpetuates ignorance and forgetfulness. It makes people forget first and last why De la Cruz was kidnapped in the first place. It was no accident he was. Or if there was any accident at all, it was only that he and not another Filipino was kidnapped and threatened with beheading. You do not see the Iraqis kidnapping the French, the Germans and the Chinese. You see them kidnapping the Americans, the British and the Japanese. What distinguishes these two groups? The first did not support the Iraq invasion, the second did.
Unity is not a bad thing. But unity without understanding is. Why should De la Cruz thank the President who saved him only after putting him in harm's way? Why should De la Cruz thank everyone who rose to endorse-or at least did not protest -- the one thing that guaranteed OFWs would be kidnapped and threatened with beheading as surely as day follows night?
If this is the case with De la Cruz, it is even more so with the fiscal crisis. Unity is not a bad thing, but it is if it means uniting behind the very people who brought on the crisis to begin with. Like De la Cruz's kidnapping, this crisis wouldn't be there if this government had not borrowed more than the last two presidencies combined and have only the specter of hunger overrunning the land to show for it. I have no problems with uniting with the rest of my countrymen to oust a tyrant. I have every problem uniting behind a government to solve a problem it itself created for selfish ends. I have no problem scrimping and saving to add to the kitty that will help ease the pangs of those who are hungry. I have a problem giving a single centavo to a government that caused them to be hungry.
The solution to the fiscal crisis is not unity. It is removing crooks from public office. The solution to economic collapse is not rising as one and storming the gate of heaven itself with our prayers. It is compelling those who stole our money to campaign for a second term and who masquerade as Jose Pidal to return it. If we need to unite at all, it is only to unite to demand an explanation for why we should not be storming the gates of Malacañang even now for bringing us to this pass. You do not see the other Southeast Asian countries beset by hunger and a looming economic catastrophe. You see only us.
Unity with understanding produces people power. Joining others out of ignorance produces only herds and lynch mobs. The first ends tyrannies, the second mounts them.
Updated 11:23pm (Mla time) Nov 01, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the November 2, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I SAW an interesting ad in this newspaper last week, one that will probably run again and again in the coming weeks. The ad, close to a page in Across the Nation, featured a clean-shaven Angelo de la Cruz (I almost did not recognize him because he was so, a far cry from his bedraggled and unshaven face on TV when he appeared with hooded figures behind him some months ago) with some words of thanks and a plea for his countrymen. His message said (this is a rough English translation of the original Tagalog):"I wish... that in facing the looming national financial crisis, we come together again in the spirit of unity, which was the key to my being saved in Iraq. I wish to thank everyone who rescued me from a bitter fate: Our great and merciful God, our nation's leaders, and all those who stormed the gate of heaven with their entreaties. We gave a shining example to the world. Rich and poor, Muslim and Christian, rebel and soldier. All of you begged my captors to spare me, and they did. I hope we can show the same unity in the face of the grievous financial crisis that threatens us. So that we can prosper and no longer need to go abroad to earn a living."
The ad was produced by Rotary International.
I don't know if De la Cruz actually wrote those words, or even expressed those sentiments. I can imagine he is thankful, I can imagine he is appreciative of the outpouring of concern and goodwill that went his way during his ordeal. But I can't imagine him saying those things. The computation, or the adding two and two together, which is that Angelo de la Cruz's past ordeal equals Juan de la Cruz's future one, seems to have been done elsewhere. But let us forget these misgivings and agree that he did say these things. I still have a problem with it. That problem is simple. It is that Angelo de la Cruz was not saved by unity.
He was not saved by the Filipinos coming together and sending their lamentations to heaven. He was not saved by Christians and Muslims appearing on television and begging his captors to release him in the name of whatever divinity they believed in or were doing their beheadings for. He was not saved by the droves of Filipino officials who went to Iraq and Saudi Arabia and other exotic locations, and who brought Angelo's wife along with them at some point, presumably to negotiate with his captors.
He was saved by one thing and one thing only: that was his government bowing to his captors' demands.
That is what George W. Bush and the Heritage Foundation are so pissed off about. I myself have praised that decision as the right one even if it came from the wrong motives. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did not do it out of the goodness of her heart or probably even to save De la Cruz. She did it out of a need to appease a people who were not convinced she won the elections (they would say so explicitly later to the Ibon and the SWS research groups). She did it not to save De la Cruz from a beheading but herself from an uprising. Had De la Cruz ended up dead, she would have, too, politically at least.
Quite simply, the saving of De la Cruz was not another case of EDSA People Power, where the nation rose resplendently and added whole new meanings to the struggle to end tyranny. What makes the ad worrisome, notwithstanding its feel-good sentiments, is that it perpetuates ignorance and forgetfulness. It makes people forget first and last why De la Cruz was kidnapped in the first place. It was no accident he was. Or if there was any accident at all, it was only that he and not another Filipino was kidnapped and threatened with beheading. You do not see the Iraqis kidnapping the French, the Germans and the Chinese. You see them kidnapping the Americans, the British and the Japanese. What distinguishes these two groups? The first did not support the Iraq invasion, the second did.
Unity is not a bad thing. But unity without understanding is. Why should De la Cruz thank the President who saved him only after putting him in harm's way? Why should De la Cruz thank everyone who rose to endorse-or at least did not protest -- the one thing that guaranteed OFWs would be kidnapped and threatened with beheading as surely as day follows night?
If this is the case with De la Cruz, it is even more so with the fiscal crisis. Unity is not a bad thing, but it is if it means uniting behind the very people who brought on the crisis to begin with. Like De la Cruz's kidnapping, this crisis wouldn't be there if this government had not borrowed more than the last two presidencies combined and have only the specter of hunger overrunning the land to show for it. I have no problems with uniting with the rest of my countrymen to oust a tyrant. I have every problem uniting behind a government to solve a problem it itself created for selfish ends. I have no problem scrimping and saving to add to the kitty that will help ease the pangs of those who are hungry. I have a problem giving a single centavo to a government that caused them to be hungry.
The solution to the fiscal crisis is not unity. It is removing crooks from public office. The solution to economic collapse is not rising as one and storming the gate of heaven itself with our prayers. It is compelling those who stole our money to campaign for a second term and who masquerade as Jose Pidal to return it. If we need to unite at all, it is only to unite to demand an explanation for why we should not be storming the gates of Malacañang even now for bringing us to this pass. You do not see the other Southeast Asian countries beset by hunger and a looming economic catastrophe. You see only us.
Unity with understanding produces people power. Joining others out of ignorance produces only herds and lynch mobs. The first ends tyrannies, the second mounts them.
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home