“Sa mga kasamahan kong artistang di nagsasalita, ano? May network pa ba kayo? Wala na! Wala na kayong network, kahit magpa-cute kayo diyan sa IG, mag-send kayo ng mga sad face, hindi niyo nadadamayan ang mga katrabaho niyo na dahilan kung bakit kyo sumikat. Kapag hindi tayo nagsalita ibig sabihin kinampihan natin ang mali.”
The post ‘Kapag hindi tayo nagsalita, kinampihan natin ang mali’ appeared first on Kodao Productions.
The Philippines has been in varying intensities of community
quarantine for 124 days—a world record in terms of the longest lockdown
response to COVID-19. But the fight against the virus is still far from over,
and now it seems like the country is back to square one—overwhelmed hospitals,
rising number of cases, and overall chaos. All those days in lockdown have been
wasted because of the Duterte administration’s louche decisions and inaction on
building up the healthcare system’s capacity for COVID-19 response.
The government, more than ever, should acknowledge the graveness
of the crisis. It should prioritize implementing solutions to flatten the curve
rather than push business-as-usual measures towards so-called recovery when the
imminent threat of the pandemic continues to stare every Filipino in the face.
So far, the measures it has taken—lockdowns, limited triage
testing, and waiting for a vaccine from other countries—have been passive.
On the
verge of collapse
The current healthcare system is now operating close to its
maximum capacity with cases exceeding 63,000; already reaching the projection
of cases 60,000-70,000 by the end of July and cases is increasing by almost
1,000 daily. Still, government has no clear and concrete plan to expand testing
triage and capacity.
The sluggish COVID-19 testing is prolonging the country’s fight
against the virus. Only a small portion of asymptomatic cases are being
detected because of the absence of mass testing. Compared to the rest of the
world, the Philippines has a low number of asymptomatic cases. But this is
mainly because less than one percent of the country’s total population has been
tested for COVID-19, almost six months after the first reported case. As of
writing, only 1,009,511 individuals have been tested.
According to the adjusted estimates of the University of the
Philippines (UP) as of July 13, the mean number of hospitalized patients is
23,747 and it can reach up to 28,024. As of now, the total hospital bed
capacity is at 15,548, with 1,661 ICU beds, 10,410 isolation beds, and 3,477
ward beds. There are only 1,938 mechanical ventilators available. This means
that hospitals may need to double their total number of beds before the end of
July to accommodate these patients.
However, hospital bed capacity only increased by about 2,019 beds since
last month’s total bed capacity of 13,529, according to the Department of
Health (DOH). There was also no significant addition to the mechanical
ventilators available which are important to treat critical cases. There was
also no notable increase in the COVID-19-dedicated ward and ICU beds.
Considering that more suspected and probable cases will be needing
hospitalization, the influx of patients seeking medical attention will be
beyond the country’s healthcare capacity. The exponential increase in the
number of confirmed COVID-19 cases will overwhelm the healthcare system in no
time and hospitals will be forced to deny patients due to the lack of facility.
The ICU bed occupancy rate, which is a huge indicator of critical
care capacity, is already at 41.2% as of the latest DOH data drop. Ward beds
are at 57.1%, and isolation beds are at 48.4% occupancy. Majority of the ward
and isolation beds occupied are also located in private healthcare facilities.
This is despite public hospitals having more COVID-19-allocated beds. This
could mean that majority of COVID-19 patients are compelled to receive
treatment from private institutions charging higher hospital bills and
out-of-pocket expenses due to limited benefit packages from the Philippine
Health Insurance Company (PhilHealth).
Out-of-almost-empty-pocket
Ballooning COVID-19-related expenses of Filipino patients is
another major issue that the government should address. The medical bills of
some COVID-19 patients have ranged from hundreds of thousands to millions of
pesos, depending on the severity of the case. For instance, the bill of one
recovered patient reached Php1.312 million for a 15-day confinement. According
to the patient, a huge chunk of the medical bill were charges for laboratory
tests, doctors’ professional fees, intubation, and the ventilator and
respirator she used throughout her admission. Though all her medical expenses
were fully covered by PhilHealth, this is no longer the case for COVID-19
patients admitted in accredited hospitals from April 15 onwards.
At the start of the pandemic, the Duterte administration assured
the public that it has individuals infected with COVID-19 covered. However,
PhilHealth announced in early April that it would no longer shoulder all
expenses and would instead implement case rate packages for confirmed and
probable cases effective April 15. According to PhilHealth Circular 2020-0009,
patients with mild pneumonia can avail of a maximum coverage of Php43,997,
while moderate and severe pneumonia patients can have a maximum amount coverage
of Php143,267 and Php333,519, respectively. Critical patients, on the other
hand, can access a Php786,384-worth maximum benefit.
But PhilHealth computations for these packages contradict the
government’s assurances and may not be enough to cover the numerous medical
procedures COVID-19 patients must undergo. Medical expenses in excess of the
case rates will be paid out-of-pocket, and the amount could be considerable. If
the patient with the Php1.312 million medical bill for example had been
confined after April 15, PhilHealth would have just paid the Php333,519 maximum
coverage for severe pneumonia patients. The remaining Php978,481 or almost 75%
of the patient’s total medical bill would have to be paid out-of-pocket.
The abrupt economic shutdown resulted in most Filipinos losing
income and struggling with the recent rise in the cost of living, especially
the poor and vulnerable. Many of them can ill-afford to pay for medical
expenses and may no longer consult doctors despite having symptoms.
Burning
Out
Aside from the health infrastructure, the government also needs to
reinforce the country’s human resource for health. Even before the pandemic,
Filipino doctors and nurses were already treating patients beyond their
capacity. According to the Philippine
Health Review 2018, there are 3.9 doctors and 8.6 nurses for 10,000 people.
This medical worker to patient ratio is a far cry from the World Health Organization
(WHO)-recommended 10 doctors and 20 nurses for every 10,000 population.
A Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) study also
noted that, in a 24-hour set-up, 1 doctor and 2 nurses will be needed to treat
6 ward patients. Critical care patients will need 1 doctor and 1 nurse each as
well as other special healthcare workers such as a pulmonologist, intensivist,
infectious disease specialist, and mechanical ventilator technicians.
The available healthcare workers in the country will not suffice.
With no significant addition to the health workforce, the country’s doctors and
nurses will be overwhelmed and exhausted. There will also be a greater risk of
infection for medical workers since having more patients could mean more
exposure to COVID-19. There are already 3,805 healthcare workers infected and
35 of them have already died.
The DOH decision to reassign physicians under the Doctors to the
Barrios program is another sign that there are not enough doctors in COVID-19
treatment hospitals and reinforcements are urgently needed. However, only 5,216
health workers have so far been hired to fill the DOH-approved 9,297 slots for
emergency hire. This slow hiring means medical frontliners continue to work
beyond their capacity to treat the piling number of COVID-19 patients. The DOH
itself has also noted the difficulty in hiring health workers because many of
them have private services that they cannot leave. It also does not help that
the entry level salary for healthcare workers is low. For example, a medical laboratory
technician—which is under salary grade 6, can only earn up to Php 15,524 per
month.
The country’s shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) is
also contributing to the huge number of infected health workers. According to
the WHO, the global shortage of PPEs is affecting healthcare workers worldwide.
This shortage could have been eased if the country had the means to manufacture
its own PPEs, such as a local textile industry. But the country is reliant on
imported PPEs. The Philippine Exporters Confederation Inc. (PhilExport) stated
that despite factories’ willingness to produce PPEs, they cannot simply do so
because of the lack of fabric and other materials. Had there been a Philippine
industry for essential health protection needs, infection among front liners
and in general would have been minimized.
Overcoming
incompetence
The Duterte administration’s failed COVID-19 strategy in ending
the current health crisis exposes its incompetence and lack of sensibility. The
124 days spent in lockdown and the opportunity costs incurred during this
period have been wasted because the government failed to effectively intervene
and keep the healthcare system from collapsing. It should now set its
priorities straight and put all hands on deck to amplify health responses.
The government is not prioritizing funding for the healthcare
system and social amelioration but it is pushing for ill-timed programs that
will allegedly help in the country’s economic recovery. A concrete example is
the continuation of the Duterte administration’s “Build, Build, Build” program
despite the more pressing need to reallocate more funds for COVID-19 response.
The Philippine Program for Recovery with Equity and Solidarity (PH-PROGRESO)
of the government shows that it is more inclined to save big businesses first
before the Filipino people. The huge budget allocated for private corporations’
benefit should be realigned to help the overwhelmed healthcare structure. Fiscal
measures for health and economic recovery should go hand in hand instead of
pitting one against the other since overall economic performance is very much
reliant on the well-being of the Filipino work force.
Inadequate and relaxed response to COVID-19 hinders the Philippine
economy from fully opening. It has only been two months since the gradual
operation of businesses and since workers returned to their respective
workplaces but the government is already losing control of the situation. Aside
from the uncontrollable spread of the disease, hospitals are now reporting that
they reached their maximum critical care capacity. Forty-eight hospitals
already reported that their ICU beds are now full, and it is alarming that 50%
of these hospitals are located in the National Capital Region (NCR). Meanwhile,
Cebu City—which is the new epicenter of the disease in the country, is also
nearing the danger zone in its critical care capacity. If the population of the
Philippines’ major economic hubs keep on getting sick, then it will be much
harder for the economy to recover its losses.
The government must protect first the Filipino people from the
COVID-19 threat. Majority of Filipino workers are at risk of contracting the
disease. The economy cannot recover without a healthy workforce to power it.
According to UP’s analysis, half of the Philippines’ major economic
contributors are considered high risk spreaders of COVID-19, such as
construction workers, security guards and commercial drivers. Many of them are
minimum wage earners lacking adequate social benefits and protection. This
makes them more vulnerable to infection and with limited means to pay for
expensive COVID-19 treatment.
The government should speed up the efforts in broadening and building up testing and hospital capacity. More than ever, it should make healthcare accessible and affordable for every Filipino. This includes making COVID-19 testing and treatment free for all. The pandemic will not be over as long as infected Filipinos are not isolated and treated due to the lack of facilities and expensive healthcare.
In the end, the entire Philippine economy will suffer if Filipinos are not protected from this disease. The economic downgrade will be far greater if the coronavirus crisis lasts longer. The government cannot afford another lockdown since it will not only endanger the economy but will also bring intense hunger and more hardship. It must act now and prevent the health system from collapsing and the Filipino people from succumbing to both the pandemic and to poverty.
Leaders of various progressive groups led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), religious and civil libertarians, and members of the academe filed the 10th petition against the anti-terror law (ATL) on Sunday, July 19.
“Hindi natin kailangan ng consuelo de bobo sa panahong ito ng pandemya at malawak na kagutuman. Ang kailangan ng manggagawa ay ibalik sa kanila ang kanilang trabaho. Ibalik ang ABS-CBN!
The committee knew fully well that denying ABS-CBN’s franchise would lead to thousands of workers unemployed which will further monkey wrench our already dwindling economy. But they did it anyway without a shred of truth – all just to please President Duterte in his wish to bring down the Kapamilya network.”
The post ‘Hindi natin kailangan ng consuelo de bobo’ appeared first on Kodao Productions.
A journalist should be fair but he or she cannot be neutral. In the context of its role as the Fourth Estate, journalism is inherently critical and adversarial. A neutral observer cannot ask critical or hard questions, so in a sense the framing becomes “soft” if a journalist believes in neutrality.
By DANILO ARAÑA ARAO
Bulatlat.com
Two campus journalists asked questions about basic concepts of journalism and the role of campus journalists during the time of Martial Law and beyond. These are my answers.
It is generally accepted, even in journalism, that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. So how objective exactly is a journalist expected to be?
Objectivity is measured by adherence not just to the codes of ethics but also to the principles of journalism. The Filipino Journalist’s Code of Ethics has 11 provisions while Lambeth enumerates five principles (truth-telling, justice, humaneness, stewardship and freedom). What these normative standards have in common is that journalists are obligated to be fair by getting all possible sides of the story. For example, they interview sources of information not based on personal preference but based on the sources’ professional expertise. In other words, a journalist should be objective to the point that he or she is not anymore subjective in their work.
In light of the Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, American journalist Wesley Lowery said that the “view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment” and that some stories should not be approached from a neutral perspective. Do you agree with his statement? If so, what kind of stories should not be approached neutrally?
Neutrality is a myth. Stories cannot be approached neutrally as doing so reduces a journalist to a mere fence-sitter. There is no such thing as neutral observation as it results in a false sense of balance and pluralism. Journalism by its very nature takes a stand against any wrongdoing. Human rights reporting is done for the simple reason that human rights violations should be denounced. Investigative reporting is conducted because certain anomalies need to be exposed. A human rights reporter or investigative reporter is expected to get all sides to ferret out the truth. He or she cannot claim to be neutral about the issue. The choice of topic, after all, already reflects the journalists’ resolve to expose what must be opposed.
Lowery also said that there should instead be a new approach in journalism—one which he called “moral clarity.” His position is that there are “objective facts” such as that certain ideologies are harmful or that some minorities are oppressed. But strictly speaking, these entail making a value claim. Are journalists ever in the right position to do that when they are developing or writing articles or reports?
Clarity is achieved by observing the highest professional and ethical standards of journalism. While morality is also a good measure, it may be prone to subjective interpretation. Journalism standards of accuracy are relatively precise in the sense that a journalist strives for both factual and contextual accuracy. Indeed, certain ideologies are harmful to making sense of the reality. It is unthinkable for a journalist, for example, to be supportive of human rights violations and repression of basic freedoms (e.g., press freedom). Hate speech also has no place in journalism in the sense that it fails to elevate the level of discourse and ends up tolerating injustice.
Lowery also thinks that trying to be neutral when questioning people in power makes the framing of a story “soft.” Do you think that, because of this, there is due cause to take a side that is inherently critical—and not neutral—when questioning authority figures?
A journalist should be fair but he or she cannot be neutral. In the context of its role as the Fourth Estate, journalism is inherently critical and adversarial. A neutral observer cannot ask critical or hard questions, so in a sense the framing becomes “soft” if a journalist believes in neutrality.
If there is cause to not be neutral at times, must this be a general practice, or should it only be applied on a case-to-case basis?
Fairness should be observed at all times, in the same way that a journalist cannot afford to be neutral. Perhaps the only acceptable form of “neutrality” is the use of gender-neutral words (e.g., “police officer” instead of “policeman”) or value-free words (e.g., “said” instead of “claimed”).
Suppose there is justification for a journalist to not be neutral when approaching an issue. What does this mean for one’s journalistic integrity? Can an unneutral journalist remain credible if they are expected to be impartial and unbiased?
Neutrality and impartiality may appear to be anonymous but they are two different concepts. The former is a myth while the latter requires fairness and balance. A journalist gains credibility by doing the latter.
Opponents of Mr. Lowery’s “moral clarity” position say that it risks making journalism subjective. Is there a way to follow this “moral clarity” view without sliding into subjectivity?
Morality has a tendency to be subjective as moral values tend to change over time. Journalism standards stand the test of time, and the marked difference is the strengthening and reaffirmation of professional and ethical norms.
Much of the issue on objectivity and “moral clarity” also revolves around the publication of opinion pieces. Do you think that a paper should be careful about what columns or op-eds they publish or should it allow, as others say, the free exchange of ideas left to the public to make their own conclusions?
Selection of columnists should be based on authority, track record and ability to communicate important topics to a broader audience. It is possible for the pool of columnists to have varying political beliefs and the readers could benefit from such differences.
Are there any challenges that the Duterte administration and the rise of his vocal supporters have posed to the way Philippine media cover social and political issues?
The prevalence of “fake news” may be rooted in the sheer number of troll armies polluting the Internet, particularly social media platforms like Facebook. Sometimes the public is misled into believing the “fake news” items to be the truth so media literacy should be a continuing project of both the academe and the media. There are times when the critical media are projected in a negative light as they are dismissed as “fake news” peddlers by the President himself. There is a need to constantly expose such unacceptable practice from the powers-that-be.
The human rights abuses committed during Martial Law were also closely tied to the stifling of press freedom; Liliosa Hilao, the first female activist who was killed, was also a campus journalist. With that said, what did campus journalism come to symbolize during that period?
During the time of Martial Law, campus journalism helped keep the torch of press freedom burning. It was part of the so-called mosquito press that provided critical reportage of authoritarian rule. In terms of symbolism, history shows that campus journalism played a pivotal role in the resistance to the dictatorship. In terms of stewardship (an important principle of journalism), it showed the importance of being critical and adversarial in a repressive regime.
A lot of campus publications like Ateneo’s The GUIDON were closed down and eventually went underground as “mosquito press.” How invaluable were these underground publications to the movement against Marcos?
Martial Law was a defining moment to professional and campus journalists. Those who decided to toe the government line ended up working for the crony press (even if there were also people who wrote for the crony press and tried to use whatever limited space they have to provide some critical reportage). Underground publications provided a venue for an information-hungry public during Martial Law. Even if their existence was hush-hush, people sensed that there was something wrong with the Marcos regime’s propaganda of a new society under Martial Law.
Can you tell us more about the underground press during this time?
The underground press housed the best and the brightest journalists during Martial Law. At that time, they knew that part of their ethical obligation was to expose the dictator who happened to be the enemy of press freedom. Despite its limited budget and resources, the alternative press managed to influence public opinion and it culminated in the 1986 people’s uprising.
CEGP was also shut down during this time. Can you tell us more about the organization’s operations during this period?
The CEGP was the oldest organization of student publications in Asia. It was one of the many organizations that helped expose the dictatorship, even if doing so led to the various forms of human rights violations against its officers and members.
Attacks against press freedom and journalists aren’t confined to the Marcos era; journalists were also killed during the Arroyo and Noynoy Aquino administrations. Notably, the people implicated in the Maguindanao massacre have still not served time. What does this say about journalism throughout Philippine history?
This only validates the prevailing culture of impunity in the country. Despite the so-called restoration of democratic institutions in 1986, journalists are still at the receiving end of state repression. This is the reason why the fight for press freedom has never ended with the ouster of Marcos.
The Campus Journalism Act of 1991 was signed in order to protect press freedom; but it has its flaws. Recently, CEGP called the law “29 years of toothlessness.” What can you say about this? How can we better protect campus journalists and media practitioners?
The CJA of 1991 has been weaponized by the powers-that-be to repress campus press freedom. This explains why we should call for its repeal. I understand that there is a pending Campus Press Freedom Act in Congress that has been largely ignored. I read the past versions of the bill and it is worth supporting because it seeks to correct the inherent flaws of the CJA.
As the Anti-Terrorism Act has been signed by President Duterte, what are some tips or advice you could give to campus journalists based on your previous experiences in overcoming a similar obstacle during Martial Law?
There is a need for all journalists to unite against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020. They should strengthen their physical and digital security. They should also bring to the attention of their organization any untoward incident so that they would not be left alone in case something happens to them.
In your opinion, what should campus journalism stand for, especially during these times?
They should defend not just press freedom but also the people’s basic freedoms. This is the point in the country’s history where journalism and activism do not simply intersect as they should now have the same mission and meaning.
The post Journalism and activism then and now appeared first on Bulatlat.
“The law serves as the trigger for a hand that has long been poised to shoot. Verily, the prosecution and escalated persecution of activists, dissenters, and even ordinary citizens who dare harbor opinions contrary to the government line are not questions of ‘if,’ but ‘when.’ It becomes a question now of how large a scale the ensuing human rights crisis will be. That is, unless the law is stopped in its tracks.”
By ANNE MARXZE D. UMIL
Bulatlat.com
MANILA – Another petition was electronically filed with the Supreme Court, July 19, seeking to nullify Republic Act No. 11479 or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
At least 44 leaders and members of progressive organizations are questioning the constitutionality of the newly enacted law. They were assisted by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL).
This is the first petition to filed a day after the law took effect on July 18.
The petitioners argued that the law poses a chilling effect due to the ambiguous definition of “terrorism.” They also question the powers given to the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), which has the authority to designate the supposed “terrorists.”
In a statement, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan said that with the law already deemed effective, they are asking the high court to stop the convening of the ATC and the exercise of its functions, to stop the drafting of the implementing rules and regulation and the convening of the Joint Oversight Committee under Section 50 of the law. They are asking the SC to “strike down the entire law for being unconstitutional.”
“The ‘Terror law’ is a bad law,” NUPL president Edre Olalia said in a statement.
“The law serves as the trigger for a hand that has long been poised to shoot. Verily, the prosecution and escalated persecution of activists, dissenters, and even ordinary citizens who dare harbor opinions contrary to the government line are not questions of ‘if,’ but ‘when.’ It becomes a question now of how large a scale the ensuing human rights crisis will be. That is, unless the law is stopped in its tracks,” he added.
This is the 10th petition filed against the controversial Anti-Terror Law.
In gist, the NUPL said the law violates the following:
Olalia said there is a chilling effect of the law on every person in the Philippines and abroad. This, he said, is due to the vague definition of terrorism, as “it leaves the public uncertain of what acts are or may be prohibited and gives state security forces broad discretion to fill in the blanks.”
With this, he said “the people’s liberties – even their lives would be at the mercy of a law enforcer’s own understanding of terrorism.”
The NUPL also asserts that the law curtails free speech and the right to peaceably assemble, protest, and petition the government for a redress of grievance. They said that the law adds qualifications to their exercise of their legal rights enshrined in the Constitution so as not to be considered acts of terrorism.
They cited the gravity of the penalties under the law which include warrantless arrest and prolonged detention of up to 24 days even if a person is just a suspect.
The lawyers group said this permits the government to treat “advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights as terrorism based on the speaker’s or actor’s purported intent is an extremely dangerous proposition – one that threatens and dangles a Damocles sword on all persons who may be minded to exercise their civil rights, but who – out of an understandable fear of arrest, prosecution or even extreme prejudice– would refrain from doing so.”
They added that there is a “clear and present danger” rule thus the government cannot just restrict people’s constitutional rights due to the supposed security concerns.
“Otherwise, the exercise of these rights would be held hostage by imagined threats, the kind that the current administration routinely concocts in the face of criticism, dissent or opposition to its questionable policies and odious proclivities,” the NUPL said.
The NUPL also asserts that it is only the judge who has the authority to sanction the arrest of a person through a warrant. Thus, the power given to the ATC to designate a person or a group as a terrorist and order their arrest for a mere suspicion is a violation of the law.
“The ATC, in a manner of speaking, will yet again act as prosecutor, judge and executioner. Granting such powers in one executive body of a political branch of government is an evil sought to be prevented by the framers of the 1987 Constitution, which is why they lodged upon judges the sole and exclusive discretion to determine reasonable intrusions into liberty and privacy,” the NUPL said.
The ATC’s power as well as the grant of powers to law enforcement agents to conduct surveillance operations and the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s authority to freeze the bank accounts of those who are merely suspected of terrorism are unprecedented, said the lawyers group, and “unconscionable attacks on the people’s right to privacy and right against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
“The extent and degree of the pernicious effects of the evils of real terrorism may arguably be not dubitable. However, the evils of curtailed rights and shrinking freedoms are real, clear, present, and compelling. And they are coming from those who are supposed to protect us. And that is makes this law as bad as it gets,” the NUPL said.
The respondents include President Duterte, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and House Speaker Alan Cayetano.
Meanwhile, petitioners include Renato ReyesJr. and Dr. Carol Araullo of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Mother Mary John Mananzan of Movement Against Tyranny, former University of the Philippines President Francisco Nemenzo, former UP-Diliman Chancellor Prof. Michael Tan, Cristina Palabay and Elisa Tita Lubi of Karapatan, former National Commission on Culture and the Arts chairperson Prof. Felipe De Leon, former Social Welfare Secretary Prof. Judy Taguiwalo, Edith Burgos of Free Jonas Burgos Movement, Renato Constantino Jr., former National Anti-Poverty Commission Undersecretary Corazon Tan, Former Social Welfare Undersecretary Malou Jarabe, Boni Ilagan of Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses, Bishop Deogracias Iniguez, former Bayan Muna Teddy Casino, Mae Paner, Vergel Santos, Prof. Temario Rivera, Francisco Alcuaz, Rey Salinas, and Carmen Deunida, among others.
The post ‘Terror law is a bad law’ — petitioners appeared first on Bulatlat.
Huntahan kasama si Rey Salinas | In this week’s episode of Bulatlatan, let’s get to know Bahaghari national spokesperson Rey Salinas’ life story and advocacies.
The post Bulatlatan: Huntahan kasama si Rey Salinas ng Bahaghari appeared first on Bulatlat.
The economist, Nobel laureate, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out that even if the daily average growth of the number of US cases is “only” 20,000 as the Trump administration claims, that number is still five times the rate in the entire European Union (4,000), with its more than 446 million population compared to the US’ 300 million. But the number of additional daily cases in the US, Krugman noted, has actually soared to 50,000.
Some 40 million mostly low-income workers have reported losing their jobs; thousands of companies have shut down; and the country with the world’s biggest economy is likely to suffer an economic catastrophe other economists say can be worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. The unemployment rate during the pandemic, say the same economists, is comparable to that of the Great Depression, when it was 25%.
What is needed, says Krugman, is for the US government to “bring the COVID-19 surge under control and [make] sure that Americans keep getting the economic aid they need.” Instead, thanks to the Trump administration’s continuing to play down the seriousness of the problem and its impact on the economy and the rest of society, the “infections will soar further, and millions of Americans will lose crucial economic lifelines in a few weeks.” Krugman, who had earlier been optimistic about US economic recovery, concludes that “The next four months are going to be very, very ugly” as the situation continues to deteriorate.
“Declinists” have been saying for years that the US is declining in terms of, among other indicators, its aging infrastructure, the unaddressed defects of its educational system, and its notoriously expensive, privately-run and profit-oriented health care network. Others add that it is also evident in the rampaging racism and inequality in US society, the destruction of the trade unions, and the vast economic gap between the wealthiest one percent of the population and the remaining 99%.
It is mostly unnoticed by most Americans and unremarked, but all this has been going on for decades. What has brought it to attention, “the most immediate cost of US decline — and the most vivid demonstration — comes from the country’s disastrous response to the coronavirus pandemic,” argues the media and financial company Bloomberg’s Noah Smith. The US failure to stop the spread and toll in lives of the disease, says Smith, “will have real economic costs for Americans as fear of the virus drives people back into their homes and businesses suffer.”
If these dire assessments of the present and predictions for the future are accurate, they will inevitably impact the capacity of the US to continue functioning as the planet’s imperialist overlord, global hegemon, and the world’s only remaining superpower.
Some balk at the description of the US as imperialist. But the reality of US imperialism has been acknowledged by both conservatives as well as liberals. Following the US invasion of Iraq on the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction but in reality to access and exploit its vast oil reserves, an adviser of then US President George W. Bush for example declared in 2003 that the US is indeed an empire. That declaration was tantamount to admitting that it is committed to defending and advancing its political and economic interests through diplomacy if possible, but through military means if necessary.
The US became a colonial power by acquiring formal control over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War at the turn of the 20th century. It eventually morphed into an imperial power,and to secure those interests it intervened in various countries by frustrating popular demands for change, installing US-compliant dictators, and overthrowing leaders whose policies it deemed contrary to its longstanding policy of global economic and political dominance.
The Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos was among the leaders the US supported up to his overthrow in 1986 to protect its economic and strategic interests, even as it continued to intervene in other countries and to surround its perceived rivals, such as the Soviet Union and China, with its over 800 military bases.
Despite its seeming invincibility and triumphs, among them the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, not only foreign but even its own analysts have argued that the US’ power to shape and influence world events to its advantage has been substantially diminished. The process, say these analysts, began with the “loss” of China in 1949, and continued to the stalemate that ended the Korean war in the 1950s, later the war in Vietnam which it lost, and, in this century, the disastrous consequences of its policies in the Middle East.
Of note, as far as the Philippines is concerned, is the US’ lukewarm response to Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea. Its reactions have been limited to reminding China of its Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines and some of its warships’ occasionally passing through those waters. Only recently did it seem ready to do anything about the Duterte regime’s passive acceptance of the militarization of the West Philippine Sea because “it is not against us” but against the US.
In 2004, the American military historian Gabriel Kolko noted that then President George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq despite the reservations of US allies weakened the Western alliance and made problematic the implementation of the policy of waging wars wherever and whenever it perceives any threat to its dominance over land, sea, and air. Although he feared that the 21st would be another “century of war” like the 20th, Kolko expressed the hope that because of the weakening of US war-making capacity, the wars in this century would not be as devastating as those of the previous one.
US President Donald Trump’s campaign and administration slogan of “Make America Great Again” implicitly recognizes American decline at home and abroad. Trump is presiding over a period in which the Western alliance has been weakened, US efforts to prevail internationally are floundering in the confusion generated by his policies, and capitalist China is challenging its global dominance.
But these do not mean the end of US power and influence in the Philippines, where, regardless of Mr. Duterte’s anti-Americanism, it has cultivated, with the collaboration of its local clients, decades of political, economic and cultural pre-eminence. Despite the damage inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the incompetence of the Trump administration, it can still wage the wars it needs to revive its military-industrial complex-dominated economy and to rule the planet for some time to come.
All empires decline and eventually fall. The US has been in decline for decades, but rather than imminent, its fall is likely to take decades more, pandemic or no pandemic.
Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).
www.luisteodoro.com
Published in Business World
July 16, 2020
*Featured image from Business World website
The post Decline — and fall? appeared first on Bulatlat.