LESSONS TO BE LEARNED ON: A History of Zionism and the Creation of Israel

 This is an information material for study on the development of a nation. This is not a foreign, political, nor religious policy propaganda material.  In fact, information on a certain nation is always and must always be studied, not only by the friends and allies of that nation, but also by the enemies of that nation which will be only beneficial to the recipients.

This information is about how a people was able to keep intact a national identity inspite of their having been driven out of their land and scattered around the world for 2000 years, and came back to recover the original land of the birth of their nation.

It was the Determinant of National Attributes or DNA of the israelis that has been driving them towards becoming a nation with the kind of defense, economy, and agriculture system that they have today.  This Israeli DNA is the belief that they are a people set apart thru historical development, organic to them.  This historical development of their having been set apart as a people became the definition of their nation which they have kept it as their own.  Having conquered and been driven out from Palestine thru historical development several times for thousands of years, Zionism movement developed as a response.

The value of Zionism as a movement to us filipinos, is in our struggle to be free of the degenerative disease of Alienation Impotency Dependency Syndrome.  At present, we filipinos are divided into classes, sectors, profession and individuals with conflicting interests.  Each of our classes, sectors, profession and individuals are dependent on the americans for protection, and economic sustenance, as well as intellectual, cultural and social prestige.  The  left, are clamoring for the dismantling of american militarization of our country.  It is only the militarization and not the United States north americanization of the different areas of our country that they are objecting. The more subtle but deeper invasion which is the control of our economy, education, culture, and the whole of our developmental code which is the control of our destiny is being overlooked.

We filipinos, who have been driven out of our inherited identity, our own origins of our nation, our inherited constitution, our inherited defense institution, our inherited national culture, and the whole of our national developmental code of excellence, and our loyalty to our nation was scattered for decades, and need to recover them, can learn a lesson.

Zionism Movement is explained thru clicking on the following paragraphs:




How can we expect to defend our nation when we filipinos do not even possess and control our resources and direction of our development? 

As of 2012 October 20, the Philippine Government as in the past, failed to formulate an effective Anti-Money Laundering Law.  It was due to in 2001, when the chinese compelled the Philippine Government to remove tax evasion as one of the crimes covered by the Anti-Money Laundering Law.  This has blocked our efforts in regulating the manner of paying taxes for effective and equitable financial sustainability.  The Philippine Government adjusted the law according to what the chinese wanted.


In the 1900s, the Philippine Government passed a law requiring books in business written in chinese to be written in the language Philippine government auditors could understand.  The chinese refused.  The United States Government stopped the Philippine Government from enforcing the law.

Around November of 1924, we developed a setup to check foreigners entering our country as part of our defense system of checking further foreign infiltration.  However, the United States dismantled them.  An editorial appeared on June 5, 1926 in The Tribune.  It made a comment regarding: the chinese making a plaything of our exclusion laws; their out maneouvering us from the start of our border checking operations, making a fool out of us.

Meanwhile, we filipinos dismantled chinese bases of economic controls in many parts of Manila and Luzon.  The Philippine Constabulary, a U.S. established unit to be the auxillary corps of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Philippines, intervened.

We tried strategies based on our present condition to gain control of as much area of our nation as we could against the foreigners. The start of our series of manoeuvres thru legal operations with the Retail Trade Nationalization Law in 1954 however, was out-manoeuvred by the Chinese. After we implemented this law, some 8700 of the 10,000 chinese who rushed to get hold of certificate of filipino citizenship papers after 1946, did so after 1954.  Thus in paper, the number of chinese registered as engaged in the retail trade was reduced and the number of us filipinos engaged in the same business was increased. In reality however, there was no physical difference. The difference was only in paper.

Many of these chinese were able to aquire legal documents of being Filipino Citizens in order to make their control of our resources resulting to displacement of us original filipinos constitutional. They applied what the famous Chinese General Sun Tzu said something like, “Therefore, the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.” They conquered our cities without the use of traditional combat weapons.  Except for President Carlos Garcia, all of our presidents have been more than willing to be their puppet government. They have been protected by the laws of the land. They have been protected by the law enforcers of the land. They displaced us filipinos from our source of livelihood and we have no big brother to protect us.


Today and here, what has been the result when as of 2007, between 80,000 to 100,000 chinese have been moving covertly inside our main homeland?  These do not include those who have already gained access to having legalized their status.  They have been able to continue taking over of our banking system, building construction system, rice distribution system, real estate development, airline industry, retail industry, etc..  They have been rendering us impotent in solving the chronic rice shortage for decades.  Now they have been taking over development of our education thru Asia Pacific College, UE, Centro Escolar University, etc.?  What has been the result? 

They have developed a situation where in our military, police, and political officials have been locked in under their social and economic influence to provide them protection and access to having legal status of control of our resources and development.


How many decades have we been under what the U.S. term as, tutelage, protection, training, technological support, and guidance of the mighty protective north americans since the 1900s?  In all those years, our defense system could not proceed at any direction of development other than that under U.S. control, tutelage, protection, training, technological support, policies, guidance and dependence on. How many decades have we been at war against brother filipinos in what the the U.S term as insurgency? How many years have been our defense system been functioning as defense against brother filipinos? The situation is equivalent to the autoimmune disease of the immune system of an individual human entity.  In all those years, have we ever been able to develop a defense system capable of defense against foreign invaders?

In all those years that other nations like France, Germany, Israel, Japan, and Vietnam, developed their nation, how has their status of economy and defense become?  Did they let their economy and defense be controlled by and dependent on the U.S. or other foreigners?

If we let the U.S. continue their tutelage, protection, training, technological support, guidance, and control of our nation as what they have always been doing, how many more years will it take before we will this time be able to end being at war with brother filipinos? How many more years will it take before we will finally be able to have the economic and defense status of nations mentioned who have never been controlled by nor dependent on the U.S.?


An HIVirus infiltrates the human body thru an immune cell of that human body.  Attached inside the immune cell, the virus utilize the DNA of the host immune cell to establish its identity as that of the host immune cell, and takes over control of that cell.  Other uninfected immune cells are not able to detect the HIVirus because it has the identity and DNA of the infected host immune cell.  When it has completely taken over the host immune cell, that immune cell dies.  The HIVirus replicates the process to the next human immune cell.  After 15 years of replication of the process, what will be the status of all the immune cells?  Can the immune system still defend the body against other invading pathogens that result to TB, tumors, meningitis, and other apparently non HIVirus initiated?

In the national body, it is no different.  When a foreign body takes over control of our Determinants of National Attributes, can our defense system still defend our nation against other invading nations?


When we became separated from Madre España in 1898, we were born as a nation.  We inherited the organic Determinants of National Attributes from the founding fathers of our nation. This unwritten code was the factor inherent in us, in: producing a national character and identity that binds us, as a nation; driving the direction of our development; and providing cohesion and continuity of development thru generations.

Carrying that unwritten code within us, as a nation, we developed a system of politics, defense, judiciary, economy, and education.  Being an infant nation, we struggled to be united, to adapt to the situation, and to control our resources and direction of our development. 

"The Friars in the Philippines" by Coleman, and "GDP per capita in 1900 by country. Definition, graph, and map" by NationMaster.com 2010 reported that during our birth as a nation in 1898:

We were among the most educated in all of Asia.  Our economy and standard of living were ahead of most of our Asian neighbors and even many European countries at that time.  In 1900, the estimated GDP per capita for the Philippines was $1033.oo.  We were the second richest nation in Asia, just a little behind Japan, having $1135.oo.  We were far ahead of China, having $652.oo or India having $625.oo.

Corpus in his “Roots of the Filipino Nation” and Jose in his “Rise and Fall of Antonio Luna”, reported how our nationalism and unity at their peak in the 1900s were unprecedented and never anymore been surpassed.


At the birth of our nation, we had an infant but vibrant national defense system.  It was clear who our defense system belongs to, for it was clear who we were, not as individuals, not as tribes, nor petty kingdoms, but as a nation. 

Our newly developed but infant defense system underwent the ultimate test of its class and potency when a foreign entity, the north americans of the United States, violated our newly born nation in 1898 by their invasion.  Without any aid from any nation, our defense forces engaged the aggressor forces of the emerging most powerful nation in the world in 1899.   It was our first encounter with a foreign aggressor force as a filipino nation.  We lost in many battles but we also defeated them in battles like Balangiga, Mabitac, Pulang Lupa, and other documented battles.  So potent were our defenses that, the aggressor forces were not able to break our resistance for years.

Ellis G. Davis, Company A, 20th Kansas of the U.S. occupational forces in the Philippines, wrote about us in the 1900s: "They will never surrender until their whole race is exterminated. They are fighting for a good cause, and the Americans should be the last of all nations to transgress upon such rights. Their independence is dearer to them than life,…". 

The aggressor forces of the emerging most powerful nation in the world had to resort to what terrorists engaging a stronger force today do- kidnapping of civilians among us.  But at that time, it was on a massive scale which included extermination of the civilians among us.  According to just the documented reports, among the places where these form of terrorism took place were in Marinduque, Rizal, Bulacan, Batangas, Laguna, Albay, and Samar.  Their demand: surrender of those of the defense forces among us.  It was because of such terroristic acts that the defense forces among us were compelled to give in to their demand.  It was because of such terroristic acts that 800,000 to 1,000,000 of us filipinos died.

To be able to function effectively in defending our nation against foreign aggressor forces, we must first, have a functional defense system.  For our nation to have a functional defense system, we must first of all have possession and control of our resources and direction of development which includes that of defense.  To take possession and control, we must first take possession and control of not cash, not oil, nor any materials which strong nations of today did not have when they started to be a nation.  We must recover our Determinants of National Attributes.  It must be our inherited DNA, and not tampered by the U.S. during their occupation in the 1900s.  It is our DNA of 1898, that we have lost today that we need to recover.  Only then can we even start to build a defense system that can equal the status that we had in the 1900s.

Jose Miguel Garcia


A PEOPLE UNCOWED BY US BOMBS by Amado Doronilla, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2008

Inquirer Headlines / Nation


Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 07:22:00 10/22/2008

(Editors’ Note: Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Amando Doronila’s distinguished service as a foreign correspondent forms the backbone of the first volume of his reminiscences, “Afro-Asia in Upheaval: A Memoir of Front-Line Reporting.” In this string of excerpts from the chapters on North Vietnam, he details scenes from a country under intense US bombardment in 1967. “Afro-Asia in Upheaval,” an Inquirer book, will be launched Thursday, Oct. 23.)
(Second of three parts)

ONE AFTERNOON, WHILE strolling down the street around Hanoi’s beautiful Lake of the Restored Sword (Petit Lak during the French colonial period), considered the city center, I was caught in a raid signal. I observed how the people reacted to the raids. I thought they were a little too careless and self-confident. People cleared the streets calmly—no panic at all. They merely sat on the edge of the foxholes looking skywards, as though waiting for the bombs to fall before they jumped in. Alerts usually lasted 15 to 20 minutes, and after the all-clear siren had sounded, people reappeared in the streets just as calmly as they had disappeared.

In my hotel, pretty Vietnamese reception clerks, barmaids, and waitresses turned instant militia fighters at the sound of the alert. They removed their aprons, posted themselves in battle stations, which could be in bunkers or in camouflaged machine-gun nests on the rooftops. Every tall building—most were no more than two stories—had some sort of machine-gun nest made of brick battlements and turrets manned by militia. The ambition was to shoot down an American plane with their Chinese-made rifles and light machine guns.

Every man and woman who could carry a rifle was armed by the government, and, according to one diplomat, that showed the confidence the politburo had in the popular support for the war effort. “If the Hanoi government does not have the support of the people,” the diplomat said, “it will fall tomorrow, considering that almost everybody is armed.”

THE RECEPTION ON THE 22ND anniversary of North Vietnam’s independence from French rule was scarcely over when I set out at 9 p.m., 30 August, for a tour of the Red River Delta south toward the 17th parallel. National Day itself was 2 September, but, as a security measure, the politburo of the Vietnam Workers Party secretly celebrated it days earlier at 6 p.m. at the National Assembly. A program was held followed by the reception at the presidential palace, while anti-aircraft batteries vigilantly scanned the skies: this was one of the first times the politburo, including Ho Chi Minh, sat together under one roof since the air war started.

The government took no chances. It issued invitations to journalists and members of the diplomatic corps [only] two hours before the official program. Prime Minister Pham Van Dong was to deliver a much-awaited policy speech. My guides came quietly to my hotel room after lunch and hustled me to the National Assembly. Such was the secrecy I didn’t have the slightest idea where they were taking me. It was a rare chance to see the politburo leaders. There were no interviews, despite requests from journalists. Between the meeting and the reception, I obtained a text of [Pham’s] speech.

As soon as the reception ended, my escorts took me back to the hotel to collect my bag. That was the beginning of nearly two weeks of nocturnal tours in bomb-devastated areas in the Red River Delta. “Nhan Dan,” the party newspaper, carried a daily scoreboard of US planes shot down since February 1965: a total of 2,232 against the Pentagon’s claim of 600, by the previous day’s published count. I took a Russian jeep, accompanied by my guide, Lang, and two interpreters.

We took Route Nationale No. 1, the old French main highway to Saigon in the south, running parallel to the narrow-gauge railway. Our jeep traveled with dimmed lights. A few kilometers outside Hanoi, I saw a convoy of five trucks mounted with camouflaged anti-aircraft guns moving south. Crates were piled along the sidings of the railway tracks, with mounds of sand, gravel, and railway tiles. The crates were stenciled with marks indicating they came from Poland. Truck traffic was heavy moving south. Women militia directed traffic at checkpoints and detour routes. We made a detour at 40 km from Hanoi, where women gangs protected from rain by straw conical hats were breaking rocks and piling them piece by piece on cratered roads that had been hit by bombs. We had a quick meal of sandwiches as we waited for traffic to move on. Empty trucks were moving in the opposite direction toward Hanoi.

The railway stations along the way had been bombed. People were waiting on the platforms. Repairs were going on in the night on damaged railway tracks. Air raid shelters dug in the mud and ditches were filled with water.

Route No. 1 started to narrow as we moved farther south. Trucks traveled with dark taillights and only with one headlight, with shaded beams. Trainees in small groups were marching at militia centers in self-defense exercises. Bicycles carrying loads of 200 kilos each and bull carts hauling charcoal and sacks of rice were also traveling on the highway. The traffic was an eerie procession of shadows and twinkling dots of faint lights, like fireflies dancing in the horizon.

AS WE TOOK THE FLAT BOAT across the river, I was always on the lookout for aircraft. From our base in the village to the dikes, we drove early in the morning at 7 a.m. in two Russian jeeps. My guides told me it was risky to travel late in the day. They cautioned me that if there was a raid I must stay calm and do what they said.

We took Route No. 1 again, entered village roads, crossed a wooden bridge, one of four, and a pontoon bridge built after the main bridge was destroyed. Gangs of women were reinforcing the road bed with rocks so it could take heavy truck traffic. Three anti-aircraft guns were concealed under trees on the roadside. There was a dummy of a US plane from a bamboo pole. It was used as target practice by the militia. On a hill across Route No. 1, villagers made signs from white painted stone. The signs were large enough to be visible from aircraft. They read: WE ARE DETERMINED TO FIGHT U.S. AGGRESSORS (yes, it was written in English).

At 12:30 p.m., I heard airplanes and explosions—I was having a cool bath (it was autumn in North Vietnam) from a well. We had lunch inside an air raid shelter carved inside the rocks of the hill. Despite the raids, the Vietnamese managed to maintain the amenities of normal life. We had a lunch of vegetables and boiled chicken. The food was served by young Vietnamese women on a table covered with white tablecloth. A flower vase was at the center of the table. Food was served with fortified Vietnamese liquor made from fruits. Always, food was washed [down] by rounds of strong Vietnamese black tea. Lunch was followed by siesta at 2 p.m.

After lunch, the telephone rang. Village officials were informed that a dike 10 km from where we came had been bombed. The bomb hit a dike but missed the sluice gate.

THE BOMBING ON FRIDAY came while I was interviewing the bishop of the diocese of Khiet Ky, a village five km from the town center. An hour after the bombing, we hurriedly inspected the bombed sites with town officials. Eight bombs had been dropped. Two exploded amid the ruins of a building that had been bombed in 1966, some 50 meters from a tiny bridge connecting the main street and the road leading into the town. Two of the bombs did not explode. Two other bombs fell on the hamlet a kilometer away across the irrigation canal, killing a 40-year-old peasant, a dog, and a pig, and destroying four huts made of straw and mud walls.

The peasant’s wife was in the fields working and the couple’s son was in the army. The peasant lived a wretched life. In the rubble of his hut, the only possession I saw was a shattered ceramic rice bowl and chopsticks. The peasant was having lunch when the bomb fell. Apparently, according to the officials, the target was a one-lane wooden bridge, one hundred meters long. On 29 August, a US plane bombed and missed the same bridge. The rockets fired from the plane decapitated a man and killed two water buffalos.


Anti-Money Laundering Law: TAX EVADERS, OTHER OFFENDERS OFF THE HOOK FOR NOW by Sheila Samonte-Pescayo, PCIJ


 3-4 OCTOBER 2001

Our two-part story examines the debates on the recently approved anti-money laundering law and shows that Congress has little to crow about when it passed the landmark law and beat the September 30 deadline imposed by the powerful, Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Rather, the law protects vested interests, including those of Congress members themselves. As pointed out in this report, the law approved over the weekend, was debated largely in secret. The law was being debated less than a year after the Estrada impeachment trial and amid allegations that Senator Panfilo Lacson hid proceeds from drugs and other illegal activities in secret overseas accounts. But as this report says, rather than providing the impetus to enact a tough law that would curb money laundering, these twin events created a “chilling effect” on lawmakers, who wanted to make sure that the law they draft today would not be used against them tomorrow.
DESPITE dire predictions, Congress passed last week a landmark anti-money laundering law, beating the deadline set by a powerful international body, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). But unlike others who welcomed the passage of the new measure, Sen. Sergio 'Serge' Osmeña, one of the law's original sponsors, is not in a celebratory mood.
"There are hidden agendas here," he said. "We had a marvelous opportunity to collect P100 billion more in taxes but now we have a situation where we're signaling we are even condoning tax evasion."
Tax evasion was not counted as one of the 14 crimes covered by the anti-money laundering law, which provides sanctions for those who use banks to keep proceeds from the following unlawful activities: kidnap for ransom, drug trafficking, graft and corruption, plunder, robbery and extortion, jueteng and masiao, piracy on high seas, qualified theft or white-collar crimes, swindling, smuggling, electronic fraud, hijacking, destructive arson and murder, securities fraud and felony.
This omission was not surprising. After all, even the government version of the bill submitted to Congress did not include tax evasion. This was because of the objections raised in a meeting between government representatives and the influential Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industries.
The group, which until recently was identified with tobacco tycoon Lucio Tan, thumbed down the inclusion of tax evasion in the list of predicate offenses for fear the law would be used to harass them. The Ramos government had slapped a P26-billion tax evasion case against Tan.
Moreover, at the Sept. 11 joint hearing of three House committees, Dante Go, president of the Chinese-Filipino Business Club, endorsed the anti-money laundering bill but only if tax evasion as an offense were to be removed. During the hearing, several congressmen assured Go that his sentiments would be considered.
To be fair, there is some basis for the businessmen's fears. After all, over the years, corrupt revenue officials have used their discretionary powers to extort money from businessmen they accuse of tax evasion. But at the same time, the exclusion of this offense from the anti-money laundering law deprives the government of the additional powers it needs to clamp down on tax evasion and other crimes.
Thus, Ernest Leung, former chairman of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp., says the drafting of the law was a "pathetic waste of time and scarce resources to have labored on such a useless Act." He said the measure was passed merely to comply with a deadline, but many government officials themselves had been reluctant to pass an honest piece of legislation. The result, Leung said, is a law that represents "subservience to vested interests."
That may be true, but a review of the process that led to the passage of the law shows that legislators often behaved in unexpected ways and were motivated not solely by self-interest but by a number of other, sometimes incomprehensible, motives. Moreover, the executive department, including Malacañang, did not fight for the anti-money laundering law with as much conviction as it did for the power reform bill.
Ironically, it was Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez, an ally of former president Joseph Estrada who is facing charges of illegal campaign donations and tax evasion in the US, who lobbied for the inclusion of tax evasion in the law.
According to transcripts of the Sept. 12 House committee hearing, Jimenez said this was needed so the country could generate more revenues. He even produced a copy of the provisions of the US anti-racketeering law that listed violations of the Internal Revenue Code as the number one unlawful activity.
Jimenez said he feared that legislators might be "ridiculed" if they pass a law not recognizing tax evasion as a punishable crime because "we are cooperating with the (Chinese) businessmen".
Jimenez's arguments did not sit well with Makati Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr., who said including tax evasion will make the committee renege on the "assurance" it gave to the Chinese-Filipino businessmen who had attended the previous hearing.
"I don't want to go on record as a defender of tax evaders… I just feel my sense of fair play is violated… When they (Chinese businessmen) were here, we can't think of an argument for including (tax evasion) so we excluded it… they left with that assurance," Locsin said.
Jimenez, however, won over Manila Rep. Jaime Lopez who said he would talk to the Chinese- Filipino business groups to explain the inclusion of tax evasion. In the end, however, the House approved a version of the bill that left out tax evasion from the four unlawful activities it recognized. The Senate-approved bill was also silent on the matter.
Another provision that drew a lot of debates was on the agencies that will have jurisdiction over the anti-money laundering council (AMLC) that will implement the law. The inter-agency version of the bill included eight agencies - the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, the Cooperative Development Authority, Department of Tourism, the Philippine Gaming and Amusement Corp. (Pagcor), and the Insurance Commission. This was meant to cast a wider net in tracking down the proceeds from illegal activities.
The eight "supervisory authorities" in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, however, were trimmed down to only three: the BSP, SEC and the Insurance Commission. Committee sources said there was a strong lobby not to include housing and real estate developers, cooperatives, casinos, and travel agencies from the list of entities that will be reached by the arm of the law.
House economic affairs committee chairman, Rep. Oscar Moreno admitted the authorities will not be able to trace whether the proceeds from a crime had been funneled to buy real estate, for instance, because of the limitations of the law. The only consolation, he said is that "unlike cash, which is liquid, you cannot sell land right away" to escape authorities.
The Senate initially approved a "working draft" that placed the AMLC solely under the authority of the BSP. This was despite some lawmakers' claims that they did not want to give the central bank "too much powers."
BSP Governor Rafael Buenaventura, however, lobbied against this and convinced Senate leaders to instead include the SEC commissioner and the Insurance Commission head in the three-man task force overseeing the AMLC. Aside from anticipating the load of work, Buenaventura said the BSP only has jurisdiction over banks and financial institutions. It could not supervise entities outside of the banking system.
Sen. Joker Arroyo of Makati criticized the BSP for "overloading the draft bill with unnecessary provisions that are very controversial." He cited the "enormous quasi-judicial powers" vested in the proposed AMLC which may be challenged as "unconstitutional".
"How can a bank make a determination of whether the money is clean or not? A bank is a mere depository, not a judge… We are making the Council very powerful by giving it an authority to freeze the account," he argued.
Arroyo's position on the anti-money laundering bill surprised some government officials. The former Makati congressman was a prosecutor in Estrada's botched impeachment trial yet he was also pushing for provisions that would make the anti-money laundering law almost toothless. These included the right of the suspected money launderer to sue the AMLC "to seek redress," and shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff (the government unit filing the anti-money laundering case) from the accused.
During the floor deliberations on Sept. 27, Arroyo also pushed for the adoption of the House version on obtaining a court order to peek into bank deposits, even if, as a prosecutor in Estrada's impeachment, he was railing against banks disobeying the order from the impeachment court to pry open the former president's bank accounts.
To Arroyo, the problem was the BSP. "In the impeachment trial, he (BSP governor) didn't cooperate with us… They didn't help us one bit. We discovered all (the accounts) on our own. This shows the BSP is not immune to political pressure… That's why this bill is dangerous. Gloria might utilize it to go after the opposition," he said in an interview.
He also said his "prejudice" against the BSP is "institutional, not against the governors." He said he will oppose any move to give the BSP more teeth than it currently has because "I just cannot trust them as truly independent."
While the law only gave the AMLC the authority to freeze the suspicious account for 15 days, there were attempts to erode this power even further. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who himself is being linked by intelligence chief Victor Corpus to money laundering, proposed an amendment that would give the owner of the suspicious account three days to explain before the deposits could be frozen. Sen. Edgardo Angara endorsed the amendment for style because it was "concise."
When Senate President Franklin Drilon banged the gavel approving the Lacson amendment, BSP Governor Buenaventura and Finance Secretary Jose Isidro Camacho, who were seated at the Senate gallery watching the proceedings, suddenly sprang from their seats and talked to Osmeña. Convinced that the amendment will erode the powers of the AMLC and enable the suspected money launderer to buy time to conceal the money, Osmeña rose to the floor and sought for a reconsideration of the Senate move.
In the final version that was ratified, the suspected money launderer has 72 hours or three days to explain why the freeze order should be lifted. The depositor would be notified that his account has been frozen "simultaneously" with the release of the freeze order. While the provision relaxes the bank secrecy rule, it added a bureaucratic layer that would delay the opening of suspicious deposits.
Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. also proposed to lessen the penalty and jail terms for convicted money launderers. He said the imprisonment term of seven to 14 years under the proposed bill is "a draconian approach" and should be shortened to one to five years. The senator, however, failed to push strongly for the move.
Congress made sure it will exert influence over the anti-money laundering body by inserting a provision giving itself oversight powers on the drafting of the implementing rules and regulations of the law.
The truth is that, were it not for the threats from the FATF, Philippine officials would not have mustered the political will to pass an anti-money laundering law. Three administrations - under former presidents Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada - failed to fulfill the country's international commitment to criminalize and combat money laundering.
Thus, on March 12, 2000, the US State Department issued a scathing report citing the Philippines as one of six Asian countries being used as money laundering centers. The report rated the Philippines "a concern," with because of rising crime, pervasive corruption and the absence of anti-money laundering laws.
The report came just three months ahead of the FATF announcement listing the Philippines among 15 countries and territories not doing enough to fend off the flow of dirty money. Then in early August 2000, the US abstained from voting for the approval of a $1.4-billion International Monetary Fund facility for the Philippines. The US, which entered the lone abstention, reportedly raised doubts the Estrada administration was sincere and serious in curbing money laundering.
At a luncheon at the White House the same month, then US President Bill Clinton also followed up on the Philippines' international commitment from then President Estrada who was there on a state visit. A Philippine senator who was in the meeting said Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers also pressed Buenaventura and then Finance Secretary Jose Pardo, "and gave them a mouthful."
Despite the opposition, the bill relaxing the deposit secrecy law was miraculously approved on second reading at the Lower House on December 7, 2000. This was amid raging controversy during the impeachment trial on Estrada, linking banks used as depositories of the president's alleged illegal funds. Barely a week later, however, the Lower House suddenly recalled the bill due to a technicality. "Clean copies" of the bill were not distributed before its approval, reportedly a violation of the House rules.
The measure thus went back to second reading and never saw the light of day. Dust started to accumulate when Congress had a Christmas break last year, and thickened when Estrada was ousted.
In April, the Macapagal-Arroyo administration called for a special session of Congress to pass one of the two pending bills: the power reform bill. A top government official who attended the first Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council said: "The President pushed for the one that is less controversial and has more likelihood of getting approved." Pushing for the deposit secrecy bill would be a costly political exercise given the many vested interests involved, the source said.
The President reportedly said she would include the anti-money laundering bill in her list of legislative priorities to be announced at her State of the Nation Address, but she did not. On August 29, 2001, the joint Senate committee on banks and financial institutions, and justice and human rights held its first hearing on four anti-money laundering bills - not one of which came from Malacañang.  Government officials present at the hearing said the draft legislation had just been endorsed by DoJ to the Palace when banks committee chairman Ramon Magsaysay, Jr. asked which one is the government version. The draft bill had not been certified urgent and had not yet found a sponsor only a month before the FATF deadline.
Sources said it was only when Bangko Sentral Governor Rafael Buenaventura and Finance Secretary Jose Camacho came home empty-handed from a trip to Paris that the President realized the FATF was not bluffing when it threatened to impose sanctions on the Philippines by end-September if an anti-money laundering law is not yet in place. There was no choice now but to rush the bill through Congress.
"We were rushed certainly," said Drilon. "There was no specific notice to us about the warnings of the FATF." Last April, when the government was lobbying for the power reform bill, an administration-party senator said Arroyo "would call up three, four times" a day to speed up passage of the bill. In the case of the anti-money laundering bill, however, he said "there was no such urgency."
Government sources said Malacañang actually had a dilemma in deciding whether to certify the bill or not. Given the number of solons who filed their own versions of the anti-money laundering bill, the sources said the president did not want to "endorse just one and offend the others."
"In the end, it was a political decision," said another official who declined to be named.

Copyright © 2001 All rights reserved.



What will be the result of the chinese taking over of a peripheral territory like Panatag Shoal to us filipinos in the future? 

Yet today, have we ever been alarmed by the fact that as of 2007, between 80,000 to 100,000 chinese have already been moving covertly inside our main homeland?  These do not include those who have already gained access to having legalized their status.  They have been able to continue taking over of our banking system, building construction system, rice distribution system, real estate development, airline industry, retail industry, etc..  They have been rendering us impotent in solving the chronic rice shortage for decades.  Henry Sy, Lucio Tan, including Danding Cojuangco, have been able to continue unchecked in displacing us filipinos of access to our own economic resources and control of our development.  Now they have been taking over development of our education thru Asia Pacific College, UE, Centro Escolar University, etc.?  What has been the result?

They have developed a situation where in our military, police, and political officials have been locked in under their social and economic influence to provide them protection and access to having legal status of control of our resources and development.

Lives of millions of us, filipino families have already been damaged caused by our having been displaced from access to economic resources and by their destruction of environment as a result of whatever mode of their operations to gain huge profits. We have been so unable to have access to our very own rich resources that while the chinese are gaining strength here and are the ones enjoying such resources, we are forced to leave our own country to work or migrate abroad and have our human resources benefit foreign countries

Compare this with the status of development of nations whose people are the ones in control of their own development like the israelis, french, germans, vietnamese, australians, and the japanese today.  How is the direction of their economic, political, defense, and educational development compared to that of ours?   Compare this with the defense system of these nations who are able to sustain and protect their own people.

Compare our developmental status today with that of ours when we were a newly born nation in 1898 up to the early 1900s when our national identity and our control of our political, economic, defense and educational system was still strong even when they were being wrested away from us by the most powerful nation in the world- the north americans of the United States.  Inspite of our being a newly born nation then, the invading forces of the U.S. were unable to catch, lock and control our defense system for years until they resorted to massive hostage taking and extermination of the civilians among us. 

Despite of these, our moves were still instructed by our organic national developmental code we inherited from the fathers of our nation.

The Father of the Philippine Army, Gen Artemio Ricarte and hero in the Filipino-American War, "...envisioned...the country divided into twelve 'confederate states', the islands of Guam included as well as Jolo 'and its adjacent islands'.  Manila, as soon as seized from the Americans, would be the federal capital; the official language would be Spanish; the death penalty and all prisoners would be abolished; the Chinese would be barred from business and banking;..."

We also inherited the code of Jose Rizal.  In 1895, while he was in exile in Dapitan in Mindanao, in the southern Philippines. Rizal was filled with righteous indignation at the “exploitation” of the natives by the Chinese traders, and appealed to the local residents to boycott the Chinese shops.  He also opened a small sari-sari store to compete against the Chinese.  (Wickberg, E. The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898).  Nick Joaquin said: “And because Chinese financiers had a stranglehold on native agriculture, Rizal set up the Cooperative Association of Dapitan Farmers, a pioneer in economic nationalism…”

Compare our alarm level over the chinese in the Philippines today compared to that of ours in the 1900s when we conducted defense actions mostly at the developmental level against the chinese creeping invasion.  Unfortunately, the chinese government provided support in complement with the US government dismantling of the defense set-up we have established against the chinese invasion here and their taking over of our economy.

If even our fathers and heroes who were alarmed by the chinese creeping invasion of our nation already in the very centers of control of our development in our main homeland which stimulated an appropriate response of resistance then are not anymore stimulating any response from us today,  why should a chinese invasion of our peripheral territory like the Panatag Shoal stimulate an alarming response from us?

Before we get alarmed with the invasion of our peripheral territories in the near future, let us review our present situation today and examine if the chinese has not already applied to us today what the famous Chinese General Sun Tzu said something like, “Therefore, the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.”

It is the chinese invasion along our border like Spratly Islands that we get excited and scramble to engage them in heroic combat just like in Hollywood.  Yet we cannot even check our main homeland here with its rich natural resources and centers of control of our development already being overrun by the chinese.

If ever we have to commit lives for our fatherland, whose lives will we commit?  Then, let it be commited for a reason based not on Hollywood, but on our real situation and needs.
We should not be manipulated into engaging a physical military confrontation with the chinese just because of their invasion of our peripheral territories like Spratly Islands or Panatag Shoal.  What benefit will this give us?

This will only give the north americans of the United States an even stronger justification and on whom we filipinos perceive to be our savior, for an even increase in extent and intensity of their presence here.  This will give them an excuse being a perceived ally of the Philippines, to engage China in a military confrontation for an opportunity to reduce the threat of a looming takeover from the U.S., world military dominance.  This seems inevitable as China is already overtaking U.S.A. from world economic dominance.

If ever we have to sacrifice lives for our fatherland, let it not be ours but those of who are invading our land and displacing us filipinos from our source of sustenance and control of development of our nation.


What is NSSM 200 "Population Control" by Kissinger?

Posted: 2005/01/19
From: Mathaba

In December of 1974, shortly after the first major international population conference was held under UN auspices at Bucharest, Romania, several of the major U.S. government agencies involved in foreign affairs submitted a detailed report on population control in developing countries. Contributions came from the Central Intelligence Agency, The Departments of States, Defense, and Agriculture, and the Agency for International Development. Their contributions were combined into one major report with the title, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The final study, which is more than 200 pages in length, covered many topics from the viewpoint of each of the participating agencies. The following questions and answers cover just the most basic aspects of this crucial historical document.

What does the term "NSSM 200" mean? "NSSM" stands for "National Security Study Memorandum," and the number 200 identifies the order in which it was produced. The original request for a review of overseas population policies is also called NSSM 200, and was written April 27, 1974 by Henry Kissinger. The actual study, which covered 229 pages of text, represents one stage of the NSSM 200 correspondence series, and was submitted on December 10, 1974. It became the official guide to foreign policy November 26, 1975, when a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM 314) was signed that endorsed the findings of the study.

Who actually was responsible for the study? NSSM 200 was compiled by the National Security Council, which is the highest level of command in the U.S. government. The NSC is headed by the President of the United States and his designated Security Advisor, and its purpose is to coordinate the overseas operations of all executive branches the U.S. government.

Is NSSM 200 still in force? Technically, the answer is yes. It remains the official strategy paper on population until it is replaced by another of equal importance. However, the implementation of the guidelines may differ from one administration to another. Jimmy Carter, for example, showed considerably less interest in curbing population growth than did his predecessors Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. And the Reagan administration took a somewhat different approach (i.e., the Mexico City Policy that banned direct U.S. financing for abortions). The facts that funds for population control increased rapidly and dramatically during the Reagan and Bush years does not necessarily indicate a newer NSC directive was issued.

Why was NSSM only discovered in 1990? NSSM 200 was originally classified as a secret document, meaning that neither the public in the United States nor the people of the developing world who were the subject of the study were allowed to know of its existence. A schedule for declassification appearing on the cover authorized its release in mid-1989. However, the document was not actually made public until almost a year later, when it was given to the U.S. National Archives in response to a request from a journalist working for the Information Project For Africa.

Why was the study kept confidential so long? It is difficult to promote birth control on a giant scope unless the recipients can be persuaded that it is intended for their benefit. NSSM 200, on the other hand, acknowledged that the purpose of population control was to serve the U.S. strategic, economic, and military interest at the expense of the developing countries. Such a revelation, particularly if it were to leak out prematurely, would seriously jeopardize program goals. In fact, the declassification date on the memorandum would not necessarily be mandatory, and NSC could still have kept it from public view. But by 1990, at least two very important changes had taken place. For one thing, many of the study's recommendations for pushing population reduction policies on aid-receiving countries had been accomplished. Second, the U.S. had elected George Bush, a former Director of Central Intelligence, to the White House in 1988, which may have signalled to classification review personnel that the American public had grown more tolerant of covert activities overseas.

Whose population did the security advisers want controlled? The recommendations for reducing fertility applied only to the developing world -- and to all of it. However, NSSM 200 also states that 13 countries of "special U.S. political and strategic interest" would be primary targets. They are: India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia (page 15 of the introduction).

What were the study's main concerns about population? NSSM 200 states that population growth in the developing world threatens U.S. security in four basic ways: First, certain large nations stand to gain significant political power and influence as a result of their growing populations. Second, the United States and its western allies have a vital interest in strategic materials which have to be imported from less-developed countries. Third, societies with high birthrates have large numbers of young people, who are more likely than older people to challenge global power structures. And last, population growth in relatively-disadvantaged countries jeopardizes U.S. investments.

Which countries would benefit politically from population growth? The memorandum cites Brazil as one example. Brazil "clearly dominates the continent demographically," the report says, noting that Brazilians could outnumber U.S. residents by the end of the century. Thus it foresees a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years" if population programs were not successful at curbing fertility (page 22). Nigeria was also given as an example of a nation that can benefit from population increase. "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million," says the formerly-classified report. "This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa south of the Sahara" (page 21).

How does population control help the west acquire minerals? The study explains, first of all, "The location of known reserves of higher-grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" (page 37). It then advises, "...the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States" (page 43).

What have youthful populations got to do with it? Young people have historically been advocates for change, and are more prone to confront imperialism. NSSM 200 quotes a June 1974 State Department cable from Bangladesh to make this point: "Bangladesh is now a fairly solid supporter of third world positions, advocating better distribution of the world's wealth and extensive trade concessions to poor nations. As its problems grow and its ability to gain assistance fails to keep pace, Bangladesh's positions on international issues likely will become radicalized, inevitably in opposition to U.S. interests on major issues..." (page 80).

How are U.S. commercial investments affected by birthrates overseas? The document points out that growing nations need to provide for their growing needs. Thus, it warns, they are likely to make increased demands of foreign investors. Under such circumstances, western corporate holdings "are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary inter- vention." The report adds that this could be a consequence of "government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance," and concludes: "Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frus- trations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" (pages 37-38).

Did the Americans really think they could get away it? NSSM 200 repeatedly acknowledges suspicions about U.S. motives on the part of "LDC" (less-developed country) leaders, and recommends a strategy to deal with these reactions. "It is vital that the effort to develop and strengthen a commitment on the part of the LDC leaders not be seen by them as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or to reserve resources for use by the `rich' countries," says the study. "Development of such a perception could create a serious backlash adverse to the cause of population stability..." (page 114). The next page adds: "The US can help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children ... and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries...." (page 115).

How were NSSM 200 s population goals to be pursued? In addition to disguising hostile intent by "repeatedly asserting" that birth control is useful to development, the writers demand that the United Nations and other multi-national institutions be used as fronts to conceal the extent of the U.S. involvement. They argue that the U.S. should "[a]rrange for familiarization programs at U.N. Headquarters in New York for ministers of governments, senior policy level offi- cials and comparably influential leaders from private life" (introduction, pages 20-21). In some countries, the memo reported, "U.S. assistance is limited by the nature of political or diplomatic relations ... or by the lack of strong government interest in population reduction programs (e.g. Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil)." In these cases, it would be wise to channel population assistance should through "other donors and/or from private and international organizations (many of which receive contributions from AID)" (pages 127-128).

Did NSSM 200 mention compulsory population policies? It clearly does. It recommends, for example, that the World Bank take the lead. "Involvement of the Bank in this area would open up new possibilities for collaboration," the document says (page 148). The study also advises that the U.S. government played "an important role in establishing the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to spearhead a multilateral effort in population as a complement to the bilateral actions of AID and other donor countries" (page 121). And it says that, "with a greater commitment of Bank resources and improved consultation with AID and UNFPA, a much greater dent could be made on the overall problem" (page 149). Moreover, the report asserts that "mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now" (page 118). It also finds that there is already "some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements" and concludes that "allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion" (page 106- 107).

What about propaganda? NSSM 200 concentrates mostly on efforts to get heads of government to adopt population policies against their own people. In this context, it says that U.S. diplomatic and embassy officials should "be alert to opportunities for expanding our assistance efforts and for demonstrating to their leaders the consequences of rapid population growth and the benefits of actions to reduce fertility" (page 128). It also notes: "There was general consternation [at the 1974 population conference in Bucharest when] the Plan was subjected to a slashing, five-pronged attack led by Algeria, with the backing of several African countries; Argentina, supported by Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, and, more limitedly, some other Latin American countries; the Eastern European group (less Romania); the PRC [Peoples Republic of China] and the Holy See" (page 86-87). Thus the study emphasizes the need to convince foreign leaders to drop their objections: "The beliefs, ideologies and misconceptions displayed by many nations at Bucharest indicate more forcefully than ever the need for extensive education of the leaders of many governments, especially in Africa and some in Latin America. Approaches [for] leaders of individual countries must be designed in the light of their current beliefs and to meet their special concerns" (page 96).

How about the mass media? At the time NSSM 200 was written, U.S. policy makers gave only passing thought to wholesale propaganda operations, apparently concluding that this course of action would be too difficult and too controversial. "Beyond seeking to reach and influence national leaders, improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other popula- tion education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA and USAID," says the formerly-secret memorandum. "We should give higher priorities in our information programs world-wide for this area and consider expansion of collaborative arrangements with multilateral institutions in population education programs" (page 117). But it also makes reference to the risks involved: "First, there is widespread LDC sensitivity to satellite broadcast, expressed most vigorously in the Outer Space Committee of the UN. Many countries don't want broadcasts of neighboring countries over their own territory and fear unwanted propaganda and subversion by hostile broadcasters. NASA experience suggests that the US must treat very softly when discussing assistance in program content" (page 191).

Is NSSM 200 the only important policy document on population trends? Certainly not. The Central Intelligence Agency had a population and manpower subcommittee at least as far back as the 1950s. Over the past 40 years, hundreds of reports have been prepared by the Defense Department, the Department of State, the CIA and others about population control and U.S. national security. Many of them remain partially or entirely classified. To give just one example, a February 1984 CIA report called "Middle East-South Asia: Population Problems and Political Stability" warns that "one-fourth to one-third of the populations of all Middle Eastern and South Asian countries is in the politically-volatile 15 to 24 age group, a consequence of high population growth rates during the 1950s and 1960s." These young people, the intelligence analysts continued, "will be ready recruits for opposition causes [such as] Islamic fundamentalism, which currently offers the principal ideological haven for Muslim youth." Similarly a study done in 1988 for the Pentagon calls upon high-level security planners to ensure that "population planning" is given the status of weapons development (see "Global Demographic Trends to the Year 2010: Implications for U.S. Security" in The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1989). And a 1991 report to the U.S. Army Conference on Long- Range Planning warns that current population trends -- extremely low fertility in developed countries and rapid growth in the southern hemisphere -- raise serious concerns about "the international political order and the balance of world power." The document -- reprinted in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1991 as "Population Change and National Security" -- says that these changes "could create an international environment even more menacing to the security prospects of the Western alliance than was the Cold War for the past generation." Military and intelligence assessments such as these do not change the importance of NSSM 200, however, but merely update its message to address current concerns.

Web sites and blogs DO NOT link to this print page,
the original article is at: http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=90207