The Murder of Benigno Aquino

The murder of Benigno Aquino on the tarmac of the Manila airport last month was a chilling reminder of the consequences of a U.S. foreign policy that supports Third World dictatorships in the name of national security and economic stability. From Vietnam to Korea to El Salvador, these regimes have proved that they are incapable of building democracy or supporting their people's aspirations for justice.

So far the circumstantial evidence points toward the involvement of the regime of Ferdinand Marcos in the assassination. Marcos, who has ruled the Philippines for over 18 years, controls the police that met Aquino upon his arrival, and has used the military on countless occasions to terrorize those who have the courage to stand up to his regime. According to a secret Defense Department report recently released to the press by investigative journalist John Kelly, Marcos' agents have even been spying on antigovernment Filipinos in the U.S.

Over the years, the Marcos regime has received crucial military and economic support from the U.S. government and multinational corporations. By embracing him so warmly, the U.S. has given Marcos the message that, no matter how dismal his record on human rights, he will continue to receive this valuable aid. There is a significant precedent: the execution of a former president in Pakistan never fazed the U.S., which continues to view military strongman Zia as a strategic ally.

Who was Benigno Aquino? He was a politician from a very powerful landed family, and was widely recognized as the leader of the pro-American opposition in the Philippines. He was an advocate of peaceful, democratic change, and a spokesman for a Philippines that would continue to work closely with the U.S. and the multinationals. In a 1981 interview with the editors of Multinational Monitor (See MM, February 1981), Aquino stressed that he "wasn't scared of the multinationals," but wanted to prevent giving them "a lock on the major portion of the economy." The Third World, he said, needs multinationals "more than they need us, because we are so many begging. It's like a strike situation when there are so many scabs."

Aquino's criticism of the U.S. was confined mainly to its backing of Marcos: "We over-magnify America's strength. We over-magnify America's intervention; we over-magnify America's power to influence events," he told the Monitor.

To many activists, this was his greatest weakness. Walden Bello, a Filipino writer and frequent contributor to the Monitor, says that his main disagreements with Aquino were over the letter's "naive belief that the U.S. and multinationals could be turned into benevolent allies in the Philippine people's struggle for justice," and his "lack of understanding of how social conditions throughout the Third World work to preclude peaceful change." But Bello stresses that Aquino ;believed in political debate, as opposed to Marcos, who believes in the gun. Aquino stressed the point of common unity and was always willing to work out disagreements with debate. He always tried to get other groups to work together."

Now that Aquino is dead, an important link between the Philippine left and the moderate opposition has been eliminated. A proper U.S. response to this vicious act would be to cancel the upcoming presidential visit to Manila and reevaluate the entire military and economic relationship between the U.S. and the Philippines.

But such a response is unlikely from President Reagan, who seems to enjoy the company of dictators. Until the U.S. has a government that respects the right of Third World people to stand up for their self-determination, there will be more dictators like Marcos - and more victims like Aquino.

Hey buddy, got a dollar for a phone call?

Within ten years, corporate executives will be able to communicate through elaborate, technically advanced systems such as teleconferencing (satellite-beamed video images), while thousands of rural and urban poor people may be unable to afford telephones.

This scenario is a distinct possibility if present trends continue in the telecommunications industry. Multinational corporations are the major users of long-distance telephone services. As they push for more technological innovation and lower rates for themselves, local user phone bills are rising. And as the Federal Communications Commission pushes for deregulation of the industry, the corporations are gaining more and more control over the telephone system.

To prevent a situation in which only the upper classes talk to each other, the Federal Communications Commission should be pressured to consider the needs of the average consumer-at least those of us who would like to call in sick to work or talk to our mothers every once in a while. The public should also get access to the benefits of the new technology.

Communications is essential to life in modern society, and shouldn't be the sole preserve of the corporations.