*EPF305 10/01/2003
Transcript: U.S. Supports Strong Philippine Democracy
(Amb. Ricciardone Oct. 1 remarks) (14030)
Who is the U.S. choice for the next president of the Philippines?
Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone answered what has been a long-standing question October 1, during a briefing in Manila to the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines. "The person who will best lead a strong Philippines' democracy would be the person that the Filipinos choose in May 2004," he said.
Responding to questions about the upcoming presidential election in the Philippines, the U.S. Ambassador to that country emphasized: "Our only interest is to see a strong Philippines democracy -- and thus a strong, prosperous Philippines -- emerge from a lawful, peaceful, democratic process. Such an election can only reinvigorate any democracy, and we are confident this will happen here."
Ricciardone said President Bush will be visiting the Philippines on the invitation of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo when he travels to Southeast Asia for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum ministerial meeting later in October. "The emphasis," the ambassador said, "will be on partnership and maturity of the relationship between equals." He acknowledged, however, U.S. willingness to provide the Philippines with additional development assistance.
Regarding the Philippines' fight against terrorism, Ricciardone said: "The Philippines government is putting heart and soul into the effort." The United States is providing aid for this, he said, noting the recent half million-dollar grant from the United States Trade and Development Agency to help the Government of the Philippines maritime organization strengthen the Seafarer Identification System.
"We're concerned about terrorism in the Philippines," Ricciardone said. "We agree with the Government of the Philippines that you have to tackle the problem on many fronts. You need to strengthen the rule of law with good laws and good law enforcement."
The administrations of Arroyo and Bush, the ambassador said, agree that to confront terrorism it is necessary to also overcome poverty. "Not because poverty causes terrorism," Ricciardone said. "There are lots of poor people in the country who are not terrorists. But poverty can incubate terrorism, poverty and disenfranchisement. So, we're working in all those fronts with your government."
The problems of terrorism and poverty, he acknowledged, will not be solved in the near future. But in the end, he said, "democracies will prevail. The United States will prevail. The Philippines will prevail."
Following is a transcript of the ambassador's remarks:
(begin transcript)
Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone
Opening Remarks
Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines
October 1, 2003
Manila Hotel
It's a very special pleasure to be with you all again this morning. This is the third time I'm meeting with this distinguished group of journalists in the Philippines who cover foreign affairs. The third time in about a year and a half. That is probably a good pace - about every six months or so. We last met in January, however, so I am a little behind schedule. At that point, I highlighted some of the advances I had seen over the year 2002 in the United States-Philippines relations, and I looked ahead to some of the milestones that I hoped we would accomplish this year. And amidst the world crisis over Iraq, and the continuing war against terrorism, the challenges and opportunities of the globalizing economy, even SARS, the United States and the Philippines working together have accomplished a lot for our mutual benefit. I think there is no better testimony to the progress in that relationship - to what our two Presidents have called the "maturation" of our relationship, of our partnership -- than the fact that soon, the two Presidents will have met twice, in this one year in full-scale formal state visits. Today, of course, we look ahead to President Bush's visit here to Manila in only a few weeks.
The White House and Malacanang will make the appropriate announcements of further details regarding the visit of President Bush, so I don't intend to offer you a real "briefing" on the details of that visit. I will offer one note of caution. Please believe only what you hear and read coming from the White House and Malacanang on this visit, and do not accept as fact the things you are hearing from any other sources in the Philippines; including, I'm sorry to say, in the Philippines media, where sometimes they do not check the facts. There is some nonsense today, for example, for the past couple of days, about American agents running all around taking over the Philippines, taking over the House of Representatives. Somebody was quoted in one of today's newspapers as claiming that there are a hundred agents. It's simply nonsense. There's nothing to it. It's false, fabrication. I don't know what the purpose is. There are no Americans at the House of Representatives, have not been, a few probably visited for two days in September, earlier in September, when an advance party came from the White House. There have been no others since. They didn't take over the place. Perhaps this information is going on because the House is out of session, and people cannot see the truth for themselves. So a lot of misinformation is coming out.
Please trust what Malacanang says and the White House says regarding the visit. I can confirm having been in Washington in the middle of September, that the visit is very much "on." President Bush looks forward to his visit as a way of advancing our partnerships still further. You will see from our Mission Statement card, that my colleagues have been carrying around, that I carry around for the past year and a half, that President Bush has charged us at the American Embassy to "Revitalize and to carry to maturity the US-Philippines partnership and alliance, by strengthening our mutual security, building our mutual prosperity, and providing excellent service to Americans and Filipinos." That's our mission. Our two Presidents really have led the way in that revitalizing and maturing of the relationship.
As one of more than 130,000 Americans living in this beautiful country, and particularly as a foreign diplomat, it is my privilege to see so much of what works so well in this country: What's right about the Philippines. And that is just one reason why I value the prospect of President Bush's visit here. His visit will offer Filipinos the opportunity to show the world their warm hospitality, their vibrant democracy, their industriousness, their human values -- including a profound commitment to peace, reconciliation, and development.
It is no secret that these are times of stress for the Philippines, the United States and countries around the world. But too often, media highlight the negatives, and ignore the everyday accomplishments and opportunities. The media emphasize "travel advisories," for example, when the larger message is that people -- both world leaders, and ordinary citizens -- are traveling to the Philippines and living here safely, enjoyably, and productively. (In the past few days, it was the Philippines media, not foreign governments, that first warned the world public about an Abu Sayyaf threat against Philippines ferry boats.) Wherever President Bush goes, the world watches, because the world media goes there too. So his visit to the Philippines is an occasion for Filipinos to show to the world what makes them most proud about their country.
What are the United States' expectations and enduring interests in the Philippines, which President Bush will be coming here to support?
We want to see this country -- our ally -- prosper as a democracy. Like us, the Philippines is heading into an election year. Though our elections come only late next year, in the United States candidates are already staking their claims for popular support. Elsewhere in this region, Malaysia, after Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad retires this year, will move toward a general election some time in 2004. So will Indonesia, with its first-ever presidential elections via direct suffrage.
So, I guess you could say that the United States is not neutral about the Philippines elections, and does back a "candidate." And that candidate is: Philippines democracy.
Our only interest is to see a strong Philippines democracy -- and thus a strong, prosperous Philippines -- emerge from a lawful, peaceful, democratic process. Such an election can only reinvigorate any democracy, and we are confident this will happen here. Hotly contested elections, lawful campaigning, and impassioned debate strengthen the democratic process. Whether in the United States or in the Philippines, we look forward to an exciting 2004, with elements of lofty public inspiration mixed with moments of perhaps less lofty public entertainment.
Whether inspiring or merely entertaining, whether in an election season or at other times, the mass media have a vital and often courageous contribution to make in strengthening any democracy. Responsibility, professionalism, and courage mark the media, the best of the media, in the strongest democracies. Sadly, journalists in this country sometimes need to show more than the usual courage and sacrifice. In this year alone, six journalists reportedly have been killed in the Philippines. Since 1986, 38 have lost their lives. We share President Arroyo's outspoken concern over incidents of violence against Filipino journalists.
But many politicians and many in the media here seem to focus almost exclusively on such problems of this country. These cannot be denied and must not be ignored. But, the strengths of the Philippines are what most strike Americans who come here for business, for pleasure, for diplomacy, for joint military training, or for any other good purpose. For over a century, Americans have seen this country's extraordinary human and natural advantages, and we have looked on this country with optimism and with confidence. Yes, we experience the everyday frustrations and the challenges that other foreigners and Filipinos themselves face here, but the charms of this country seem peculiarly to captivate Americans.
Let me suggest just a few of the headlines that Americans might have expected to see here in the Philippines, just since we met together earlier this year:
"U.S. Business Community Finds Government Eager to Address Issues of Concern"
Last month, a delegation of American business leaders from 15 prestigious American companies visited Manila. They enjoyed warm and full access to the Government at all levels, including visits with the President, the Speaker of the House, Jose de Venezia, members of the Senate, and Justices of the Supreme Court. As one of the leaders of the delegation put it, "The cooperative spirit of the government and the remarkable access it has given to investors make you believe any obstacle can be overcome."
Another headline:
"Micro finance Programs a Success Story for Poverty Alleviation"
Central Bank Governor Buenaventura related to those same American executives the burgeoning success of micro financing projects in the Philippines. He noted that small-scale borrowers - mostly women -- in the USAID-sponsored Micro enterprise Access to Banking Services (MABS) program have taken nearly three billion pesos in small loans. And they repay those loans at a phenomenal rate -- around 98% -- making them a commercially attractive proposition for banks. USAID programs alone -- remember, there are other Government of the Philippines programs -- but USAID programs alone, provide micro finance services to almost 110,000 of the working poor in this country. Thanks to such an exemplary public-private partnership, micro finance is spreading rapidly in the Philippines, wherever peace permits, even into the conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. This is very good news, for as our two Presidents have often affirmed, alleviating poverty is essential to dry up the seedbeds of terrorism and despair.
How about another headline:
"Philippine Congress Passes Important Reform Legislation"
President Arroyo and the Congress deserve credit for their work in passing such important reform legislation, beginning at the outset of President Arroyo's term, with the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) and the Anti Money Laundering Act, both in 2001. But just since we last met in January, the Government has passed the Government Procurement Reform Act, the Special Purpose Vehicle Act, amendments to the Anti Money Laundering Act to bring them up to world standards, an Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act led by a member of the opposition, Senator Estrada; the Act Rationalizing the Excise Tax on Automobiles, the Absentee Voting law and the Dual Citizenship law. The Administration and the Congress are now considering other important legislation aimed at accelerating implementation of the EPIRA, improving revenue collections, increasing compensation for the judiciary, and strengthening protection for intellectual property. All these reform measures, when passed and effectively implemented, will improve investor confidence and spur economic growth in the Philippines.
We hope, too, that the Senate will soon ratify the remaining six of the twelve United Nations counter terrorism conventions, as President Arroyo herself urged in her State of the Nation address last July. We understand from the senate leaders that these conventions are queued up and ready for ratification at any time.
Also on the fiscal front, Secretary Camacho, Customs Commissioner Bernardo and Internal Revenue Commissioner Parayno have improved tax administration through tighter enforcement, an anti-corruption drive targeting errant officials, and technological innovations. As a result, the Philippines has made important strides against the steady and worrisome fiscal deterioration over the previous years, and the government likely will meet its full-year deficit target. All of this represents steady progress against official corruption and for good governance -- a centerpiece of President Arroyo's legacy to the nation.
And it's a process in which the United States has been proud to assist with some technical assistance.
And one last headline:
"A Pathway to Peace in Mindanao"
Back in January, I spoke to you of our hope that the leaders of the communities in troubled areas of the Philippines would choose development over violence, and enforce peace rather than despair. In May, following President Bush's announcement of his support for peace and development in Mindanao, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front Chairman, the late Chairman Hashim Salamat, wrote President Bush of his vision for peace and development. Only weeks before his death, he evidently had concluded that it was time to put the MILF on a new course in the campaign for the rights of the Bangsamoro people. A course neither of surrender, nor of defeat, but rather a far more heroic and difficult choice - that of peaceful and legitimate political struggle. If and when his successors can come to terms with the Government of the Philippines to build peace and to develop Mindanao for the future of its children after a generation of war and lawlessness, the United States (and I dare say many others) will be proud to support that development process. If this happy eventuality does unfold soon, it will be thanks to the vision and courage of the leaders of the two parties to the conflict and also to supportive parties like Malaysia who have shepherded this process over many years.
But we cannot underestimate the challenges here. A meaningful peace must go beyond nice words, whether on paper or at press conferences. The United States will not provide economic development assistance in areas controlled by the MILF, if that organization maintains its ties to outlaws, terrorists in violation of the written testimony of Chairman Salamat in his last days. We are particularly concerned about the continuing presence in Mindanao of the Jemaah Islamiyah, a foreign terrorist group outlawed by the United Nations. The JI does not bring peace and development, but only death and destruction to all who deal with it. And at a time when the MILF is looking for a United Nations interest in its cause, it makes no sense if the MILF is having anything to do with a foreign terrorist organization outlawed by the United Nations.
I've brought a "door prize" with me today for you. These are copies of a documentary film telling the story of community leaders in Mindanao who chose peace. They are former Moro National Liberation Front combatants who participated in a USAID-sponsored program, following the MNLF cease-fire in 1996. Filipinos will recall that the new Secretary of Defense, Ed Ermita, a man I much admire, was instrumental in establishing that agreement under President Ramos. We designed the "Livelihood Enhancement and Peace" or LEAP Program to support that agreement by helping former combatants reintegrate into normal, civilian life and provide good livings for themselves and their children. Today, more than 21,000 former MNLF combatants have graduated from our "LEAP" program - that is a higher number than you'll see recorded in the film if you wish to take one with you, because the program is rapidly advancing. Almost all of these graduates have already become successful farmers and seaweed growers and fish farmers. Four thousand more, the last ones, are waiting to take the same "LEAP," and we will continue that important support until all 4,000 have graduated. We would be glad to see the MILF choose peace -- a durable peace for the long term -- and thereby enable people in its areas to take advantage of similar development programs to build productive, and peaceful communities.
So, good things are happening in this country. Much more remains to be accomplished, but Americans are utterly confident that they can be accomplished, even amidst the growing excitement over the Presidential campaign.
Let me close by thanking you again for inviting me here today, and open the floor to questions.
Q: Could you tell us more about this letter of the late Mr. Salamat to your President? What were the main points that were raised in that letter?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: This is a letter that the MILF itself had announced publicly that the late chairman had sent to President Bush. The MILF has never published the contents, and I do not feel at liberty to do that, but I can tell you that in that letter the late chairman of the MILF made very clear that the organization condemns and forswears terrorism, and violence and sees itself committed on a path for peace, and wishes to pursue the interests of the Bangsamoro or people through effective and legitimate means. That's what we understood that letter to mean. It was on that basis that we went ahead and put some real muscle behind the process of peace. We've offered to do whatever we can, lend whatever expertise we can to the United States Institute of Peace, which has worldwide experience in conflict resolution and in development, to follow up conflicts that have been resolved or are being resolved-economic development.
Q: There seems to have been an impasse in the peace talks themselves as well as in the MILF choosing a new leadership, following the death of Mr. Salamat. Do you get the sense that the contents of that letter do not enjoy the support of the other senior leaders of the organization?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I really can't say. We are not really in direct contact. We are not party to the talks. You suggest there's an impasse. I don't know that. The United States is not a party to the talks. One could only speculate what is going on within the MILF. All I can note are the results, and what we hope as a friend of the Philippines and of all the people of the Philippines. We haven't yet seen the results of a durable peace agreement that would permit development to go on and enter into the areas where the MILF holds sway.
Q: Can you confirm the participation of former U.S. ambassadors at the peace conference? When will this happen, sir, and what will be their role?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: It will depend very much on what the parties would like. If the parties would like to have Americans from the United States Institute of Peace in some capacity, in or near the talks, to lend their expertise, then that's what I know the USIP is ready to do. But I won't speak for the USIP. They have a website, They have just had a very good meeting with President Macapagal Arroyo in New York and the USIP will speak for itself and what it is prepared to do. I know the USIP's perspective and the U.S. government's perspective; it is very much up to the parties to decide how they would like to take advantage -- if they see advantage -- in what we have to offer.
Q: I realize that it's too early but do you have any specifics as to the economic aid that you have committed in case the peace agreement is signed? Rather than the broad statement---
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Yes, I can answer in two ways. One is that we have a very strong and ongoing United States Agency for International Development program going on in the Philippines, which is focused predominantly where the worse poverty in the Philippines is and that is in Mindanao; all of southern Philippines. That has been, depending on how you count the money as it works its way through the pipeline, in this past fiscal year, which just ended yesterday, on the order of $74 or $84 million dollars. Again, depending which funds you count and how far in the expenditure process they are. That's going to continue in the conflict-affected areas wherever we can. I think your question, though, goes mainly to the MILF areas where we have not been able to spread our peace and development work so much precisely because of the conflict and the terrorists that are still able, unfortunately to move around there. What the U.S. Congress has done is earmark $30 million dollars to support a peace process between the Government of the Philippines and the MILF. So one has to believe that should a genuine, practical, effective, durable peace come about, that very quickly we would have access to up to $30 million dollars in programs. Not direct funding, but in development programs that we would make available in those areas, and we have to believe that would be a real shot in the arm and really help a peace take root in that area.
Q: The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, I don't know whether he was thinking out loud, but he was saying that perhaps the aid could go to the development all or part of the Ligwasan Marsh, if you are familiar with the area.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I am familiar with the area. The development assistance that we provide this country is always done under the aegis of the national government, and working with local government units as well as international NGOs and contract providers. We also do it in coordination with other foreign donors to make sure that the beneficiaries are getting the most bang for the buck; there isn't duplication or wasted effort or gaps. We work very much specifically through NEDA, the National Economic Development Authority, in determining where the development assistance is most needed. So, it's really Philippines decisions that we subscribe to and work with and cooperate with.
Q: I want to know -Has the U.S. really established the link between the JI and the MILF? And the connection, how, - at what level - and other than that, have you also established the connection of MILF to the other militant groups in southeast Asia?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it -- because of some of the sensitivity of the information -- I will have to leave it at a statement of concern. I would not be stating that concern unless we had excellent grounds for it.
Q: What about the presence in Mindanao of the JI? What can you say about that, then?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: We are very, very concerned about it. This is an international outlaw organization. We have seen the reports in your own media and coming from your own authorities about this. Those seem to be very well founded from what we can tell.
Q: Can you tell us if the presence is increasing, and what seems to be the activity of this group in that area?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: You know I really can't, but your authorities have good information on it and, indeed, journalists seem to have been doing some good first-hand reporting on it from time to time over the past year. So there is plenty out there, I think, in the non-governmental area, even, outside of American information.
Q: Are you happy with how the Philippine Government is handling the anti-terrorism campaign?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Yes. The Philippines government is putting heart and soul into the effort. A lot more needs to be done by all governments, not just by the Philippines. By our own government, if you follow the news out of Washington, you see that we're struggling to get our government organization correct to have the best and most effective control of our borders. Just the other day, Secretary Powell signed a memorandum with Secretary Ridge of Homeland Security to make clear how we're going to divide the responsibilities for maintaining, "Secure borders, open doors" as we call it. We are struggling with that, and it should be no surprise that other governments around the world are working hard to find new ways of organizing, and putting new resources into the effort. Yesterday, I was at your maritime pier, just around the back of this building, signing a half million dollar grant from the United States Trade and Development Agency to help the Government of the Philippines maritime organization strengthen the Seafarer Identification System. That would be a good anti-terrorism measure. These are sometimes long, complicated, hard, slogging tasks that have to be taken by governments but you government is undertaking it and so is mine, and we've had measurable success I think, in the past year.
Q: What about the Philippine government's manhunt for al-Ghozi?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: We wish it success. Early success. Immediate success.
Q: But al-Ghozi remains a big source of concern?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Of course. Anytime an international terrorist, a convicted international terrorist is on the loose - I'm sorry, he was convicted, right? Or he wasn't convicted? There's another one that escaped that was merely under processing. Of course, it's a source of concern. No question. That can't be swept under the rug. He must be found and brought to justice.
Q: Before the visit?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: No. It is not a condition of President-that's another bit of folklore. There's so much urban legend out there. You know, it's been in the Filipino media, all the pundits and politicians-"Oh, the Americans are demanding that al-Ghozi be caught or else, President...." That has never, ever been the case. The United States has never suggested that this, that, or the other must be done or President Bush won't come. We don't deal that way with our partners and our allies.
Q: Your earlier statement had said that U.S. assistance would be contingent on Mindanao or groups in Mindanao's breaking ties with terrorist groups. So on whose assessment, and on what basis will you make that determination?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I think in very close consultation with the Government of the Philippines as well as on our own, based on whatever evidence we get of whether the MILF or parts of it, perhaps, is more truly a terrorist organization, and therefore should be labeled as such under our regulations and laws with the consequences that that entails. Or whether it is more like the MNLF, an organization that seeks to govern and to exercise autonomy and pursue the rights and interests including economic interests and educational interests of its people. If it's that kind of an organization, there's no reason why it couldn't be a partner with the United States Agency for International Development, for example. There is no reason why if they acted as a political organization, our political officers wouldn't meet with it, just as we do with MNLF people all the time. But the MILF, as an organization, has to decide who they are and how they want to pursue their people's interests. For a couple of decades, they have done it one way, and I can't see that they've accomplished much for their people. If they want to follow the course that we understood from the late Chairman Salamat they had decided to follow well, that opens a whole new set of possibilities. Things can be done.
Q: Do you include among those possibilities that there will be splinter factions within the MILF and therefore assistance can go only to certain portions of the MILF and not the entire organization?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I am no expert on the MILF. I really don't know and I would not speculate an organization I don't really know. Any organization takes strong leadership to keep it going on a straight strategy and course. The MNLF went ahead on a course, made peace with the government and at a certain point there were fractures in it - fractures in the leadership. I have to hope that the MILF as an organization will decide on its course, and make it clear to the outside world. I hope that course would be one of peace and development, and that they'll go on that way.
Q: Can you update us on the.... I understand the Philippines has requested access to Hambali because he is charged here for the LRT bombings, the December. 30 bombings? Could you update us on what cooperation is going on in that area?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I don't believe there's been any further development in that since about a month ago when we got back to Secretary Ople, and he said publicly and we reiterated publicly our commitment to provide the Philippines all the information that we get from this man that could possibly help in saving lives and defeating terrorism. We will certainly deal with him and cooperate with the Philippines in dealing with the legal aspects of this case. There is a lot of debriefing yet to be done. These things take time. We have legal questions against him. The Philippines does. Other states do. This will take quite a while to sort out. We will certainly cooperate fully with the Government of the Philippines on him.
Q: But are Philippine investigators allowed to question him or have they been given access to him?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: At this time the investigation is being carried out only by Americans, for good, practical reasons: to keep up with the consistency of approach.
Q: Have you or any security group received any specific threat against President Bush during his visit here?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: No, we have not.
Q: Do we expect any business deals during the visit, and what's the nature of these deals? Because there are talks that energy companies are planning to invest in the country?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I would guess that, if not every day then, certainly, every week there are business deals going on between Americans and Filipinos. It's in the nature of business from an American perspective that these deals are private -- between private parties. The government is hardly ever involved. Sometimes we get involved with facilitating grants like the TDA grant I just mentioned. There's a business dimension to that. Or EXIM financing or OPIC support - Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Those sorts of things are going on. When some of the more interesting deals take place, very often we do hear about it and often there's some public event made. In the past week alone, I participated in the opening of a Philippines business that is exporting American civilian helicopters here, straight civilian deals. That is because that Filipino businessman and the American exporter sees this country and its economy is likely to be so positive that people will be wealthy enough to buy helicopters in the coming year. That's a big investment and that is quite a statement of faith. I was at another opening just last week of a Philippines holding group - Diversions Holdings - that is celebrating its expansion into several lines of clothing: Guess Jeans, Carl Jr. Hamburgers, Wetzels Pretzels, Gloria Jean Coffee - lots and lots of good things are going on in business between the United States and the Philippines. Last night, I had the American Chamber of Commerce at my house, 250 American companies registered with them - doing business here. I asked them to tell me success stories, and one after another stood up. A private sector deal with your National Statistics Office to make it possible for Filipinos to get birth certificates much more quickly an easily than heretofore. A wild success story. Nobody ever hears about it. The U.S. company is finding it profitable. The Philippines agency that contracted with it is finding it a great way to serve the public. Call centers are growing like mushrooms here all the time. Filipinos complain about globalization while globalization is leading to the transfer of American jobs to the Philippines. Help me out here. So there are a lot of success stories. A lot of business is going on and it will go on regardless of President Bush' visit. Probably during his visit, there will be an opportunity to celebrate some deals and that will be great.
Q: Secretary Ople, in last week's briefing, or perhaps a week ago, he disclosed that there will be some kind of an aid package that will be uncovered during the Bush visit, especially for Mindanao. Will this be other than that one already earmarked for the peace process. Will this be a new one? Can you tell us about that aid package that would be the highlight of the visit?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I can tell you that we've been listening very carefully to the Arroyo Administration throughout our partnership over what the priority needs are in combating poverty in this country. Just since I've been here, I've been speaking with our AID colleagues here and in Washington. I was just in Washington, and I met with Mr. Natsios the Administrator of AID, to talk about some new directions that we might well take and that President Bush might well announce within our ongoing AID projects in this country. But I think I'd rather leave it at that for now and leave any specific announcements for when the President comes.
Q: Are we looking at a specific figure, for example, of the American - ?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I was expecting you would ask that. I would urge you not to measure the value of our relationship in terms of dollars every time a senior American official comes here or a senior Filipino official goes to the United States. That's not how the United States measures the value of its relationships with others or how others measure the value of their relations with us. I won't say it's peculiar to the Philippines, but the question comes up all the time. When President Bush and President Arroyo talk about a maturation of the partnership, I know what they mean is: Let's not look at each other as a big, rich patron and a poor little client. Let's look at each other as equals. Let's look at each other as partners. Each of whom brings something to a relationship and each of whom therefore makes the relationship more than the sum of its parts. So sure, there will be development assistance, reaffirmed and perhaps, announced. We're glad to do that with the Philippines and announce it when we do it but the emphasis won't be on some bottom line of x millions of dollars or billions of dollars. The emphasis will be on partnership and maturity of the relationship between equals.
Q: Sir, you were batting for a strong Philippine democracy. Who do you think will best represent it?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I know who will best represent it.
Q: And you're not saying?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: No. I'll tell you. Ready?
Q: Yes.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: The person who will best lead a strong Philippines' democracy would be the person that the Filipinos choose in May 2004.
(Laughter)
Q: Sir, you were also talking about the continuing source of concern to the Americans. What happens, sir, if the continuing threat is not checked in the region, you know, in Southeast Asia? What kind of scenario do you see?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: President Bush has made clear since September 11th woke us all up, all around the world that this is a long ongoing struggle. The struggle against terrorism, and it has many, many facets, and it has many hot spots around the world. I think the revelation of September 11th for us was that the United States is as vulnerable as the Philippines has been for years. It was a lesson you didn't need to learn on September 11th, and we did learn only then. We're concerned about it in Southeast Asia. We're concerned about terrorism in the Philippines. We agree with the Government of the Philippines that you have to tackle the problem on many fronts. You need to strengthen the rule of law with good laws and good law enforcement. The United States is working with new programs there, by the way. As you ask about new programs, perhaps we will announce some of those. I have new people at my Embassy. I have a police chief from Georgia who has trained policemen in Iraq for four months and who has trained policemen in Kosovo. He has now come to the Philippines as part of the new program to work with the Philippines National Police to strengthen the rule of law. So strengthen the rule of law is one way. Clearly, there are military responses that are necessary in some instances, but that's not necessarily the major thrust and certainly is not the only one. That proved to be necessary in Afghanistan, for example. You're military finds it necessary in certain instances here. But underlying it all, I know we agree with President Arroyo that we have also got to confront and overcome poverty. Not because poverty causes terrorism. It doesn't. There are lots of poor people in the country who are not terrorists. But poverty can incubate terrorism, poverty and disenfranchisement. So, we're working in all those fronts with your government. We see eye to eye on how to do it. We are concerned. It's not going to be solved tomorrow. It's not going to be solved before President Bush comes. It's not a condition of his visit. And in the end, I am confident that democracies will prevail. The United States will prevail. The Philippines will prevail.
Q: So, you think, sir, that poverty alleviation will cut off ties between the MILF and the JI?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: No. Poverty alleviation is not enough because, as we have seen, the September 11th terrorists were not poor people. There needs to be a strong democracy in which all citizens feel like first class citizens and their rights are preserved, and they're adequately and truly represented, and they have some control of their fate, over their future. All those things are necessary. They go along with poverty alleviation. But it is good governance, which is another plank of this government here, on which there has been progress and on which much more progress must be made.
Q: Sir, Maritess Vitug. Two questions. The first one is, Can you please update us on the planned Balikatan in Sulu? Will it ever take place again? And the second question is: the lesson learned from the MNLF peace agreement was that the development aid came too late, almost two years later. Does the U.S. Government believe in parallel efforts, peace talks ongoing with development efforts?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Maritess, let me mention, truly not to flatter you but to compliment you, that when I was back in Washington, I ordered up about a dozen copies of your book for USIP so that they could study the history and learn from your research on the meaning of the 1996 Agreement and the experiences of people like President Ramos and Ed Ermita in helping to reach that historic agreement. So, we're studying. We come as outsiders and as students. We don't come out with ready-made prescriptions. We rather humbly, I think, look to the Filipino experience itself -- from people like you who know far more than we ever will -- as to what we ought to do. So, we're taking our queue literally, from you personally, and people like President Ramos and certainly Ed Ermita and the government here as to how we could be helpful. On the question of Balikatan, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said back last February that we would have some sort of Balikatan activity or exercise in the Philippines. We have an ongoing series of them with this country, joint training exercises all year long, about eighteen in a normal year. There certainly will be a Balikatan 04. I am not at this point prepared to tell you the nature or scope of that. It will be a joint training exercise. You know, whatever takes place, whenever it takes place, it would be fully in conformity with your law and with what your leaders, your political leaders want. We are not insisting on anything. We are not forcing anything. We are not looking for an opportunity to put American soldiers in harm's way. We will work with your government as an ally. We are not going to go sending American soldiers crashing around in Sulu or anywhere. We will have our soldiers training with yours where both sides believe that's a value to both sides, and where the local community thinks that is a good thing.
Q: Could you discuss to us, sir, how your country's relationship with China has evolved since September the 11th?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Only a little bit, because I am not a China expert. Clearly, our relations have improved overall. We are working on a lot of issues together. We have worked through a difficult bilateral problem in the Hainan island incident. Was that before September 11th or just before, or right after? I don't recall the sequence of that. Was that earlier that year before September 11th? And your question was since September 11th. Clearly, we have strengthened our cooperation in counter terrorism. Perhaps the biggest and most obvious thing is that we're working in the Party of Six to try to deal with the very severe problem of nuclear weapons proliferation by North Korea. And in that, our cooperation with the Chinese has been very close, and very, very important. So, I would say our relations are very good and improving. I don't follow them everyday.
By the way, I would note since you asked, our Ambassador from China, Sandy Rand, was just visiting the Philippines on vacation here. He was here this week, the whole week. So, senior Americans come to the country because it's beautiful.
Q: Could you update us on the U.S. assistance that was discussed between President Bush and President Arroyo in her state visit to the U.S.? I understand that there are some Philippine officials who have said, and it's been reported in some papers, that some of the items have not arrived; that the process is slow. In May, they talked about $356 million in U.S. assistance, and there is concern that some of that might not really be coming, given the financial problems of the U.S.?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I am not aware of any slowdown or diminishment of the various military or economic assistance programs that have been announced in May. On the contrary, I'm only aware of increases. I am also not aware of any knowledgeable officials, any responsible officials -- either in the economic side or the military side-- is that what you were referring to, the defense side? Gee, I think I know all the top generals involved in the program. I know the people in the Department of National Defense. I know the people in Malacañang, I know the most responsible politicians who pay attention, who come and see for themselves the training we are doing together, and I have not heard from one of them a complaint about slow deliveries on anything. I went and celebrated the arrival of helicopters that have been outfitted out here. We have so much going on. If you would like a full briefing on the full range of what's in the pipeline, what's coming, and what the timelines are -- none of that is secret, and I'd be glad to set you up with our JUSMAG office and get you a full briefing, and a fact sheet on it.
Q: What about economic affairs?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Economic affairs, even all the more so. I would be delighted to set up a special briefing with USAID, and tell you all the things that we have got going. The successes and the things that have been slower than we have wanted, but there haven't been too many of those. I'd be glad to do that from our perspective, and I'd be glad to send you to our partners that we cooperate with and you can ask them directly and not take our word for it.
Q: Could you give us some broad indications on what might be taken up during the visit?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Only in very broad terms. Clearly, we're going to be talking about the basis of our partnership, our maturing partnership. It is said as I have said based on three broad areas. Strengthening our mutual security in the global war on terrorism. Building our mutual prosperity, because we're major trading partners with each other, and major investors in the country, and we have lots of Filipino workers in the United States; seafarers who come to the United States. And service. At the American Embassy, we are a large service providing organization. Two thousand members of the public every day come into the Embassy. Five days a week, and sometimes, we open on Saturdays to accommodate the visa demand alone to say nothing of the pensions and the other things we deal with. So, those are our three sort of broad areas of the partnership that I am sure our two presidents will touch just because that's the heart and soul of the relationship. Security, prosperity, service.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, you made the comment or an observation about corruption in the Philippine judiciary before. Do you still hold that same observation today?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Famously. It was in July of 2002 when I first met with this group. I was asked, "What do American business people see as the obstacles to further investment and trade here?" And only a week before, the American Chamber of Commerce had come out with a report, which had been publicized all over the place. Until I had spoken at that time -- we counted -- President Arroyo herself on 70 separate occasions before July of 2002 had used the word "corruption" in her speeches. So, when I was asked what do American business people as a problem here, I noted a number of things. I noted all the opportunities, all the excellent reasons why 250 American companies are here, why some of them have been here a hundred years, and why many more come in all the time. And when I acknowledged that the American business people say, "Yes, corruption is a problem here, including in the judiciary, and in the branches of government," that was the headline. Yes, that still remains a fact, a problem, but what I have also pointed out publicly, before then and since then, is that the three branches of this government have identified that problem and have been working on it. Certainly before then, and especially since then, the three branches of government, I can point to specifics, I guess, in the judiciary as well as specifics in the executive branch that these branches of government have made progress, important progress against it. Would the President tell you she is satisfied? No, every time I hear her speak she pushes hard for more. Every time her cabinet members speak, they push hard for more progress. Every time the Chief Justice speaks or one of the justices speaks, they speak about their ongoing programs to remove the backlogs in the courts, which is part of the problem, to increase the pay in the judiciary, to have alternative dispute resolutions means, they have disciplined errant judges. People are tackling this with courage and with results. And commendably, no one is satisfied. In a democracy, I hope you are never satisfied with the quality of government. In my country, we're never satisfied with it. It is the way it should be.
Q: I understand that there are plans to cut back American troops from South Korea and Okinawa. Are there plans or talks about transferring some of them to the Philippines?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Not that I am aware of. If there are plans like that write an article and send it to me, please, so I'll know about it. No, I'm not aware of such plans. We are not - this is probably the thousandth time and I say it every time I meet with you: We are not interested in having bases in the Philippines. Those days are gone. Whether Filipinos think that is a good idea and remember it with nostalgia or remember them with bitterness, those days are long past and receding, and are not going to come back. We're not interested in having bases here. We are interested in training together and building the capability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to our mutual benefit. The Philippines is a treaty ally, so we will do whatever we can within your Constitution and within your law to pursue that mutual benefit. I say your law, but I don't know if you are Filipino, sorry. We are not interested in bases and I am unaware of any talks of any nature involving my government to transfer American forces here. I would think my government would be involved if we were talking about American forces coming here.
Q: Why is the Balikatan in Sulu not pushing through? Earlier, it was announced by the President. Is it because of the reported desire of the U.S. for combat operations, or is there a new assessment on the Abu Sayyaf threat?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: In February we offered a menu of options, forms of U.S. military assistance that we thought the Armed Forces of the Philippines might be interested in, and that we thought, as foreigners, might be consistent with your law and politically acceptable to your government, and that menu included the possibilities on Sulu. People in Sulu were interested because many of those possibilities included community development work such as what we did together with the Armed Forces on Basilan. At the end of the day, there was great controversy, but apart from the controversy there was a hard look at it by Filipino lawyers who said that, "Well, there isn't much from that menu that we can really use." And we said, "Fine. We're your allies. We're your friends. Let's keep talking, and when you come up with things that you think you can use and if we can make available, we'd like to do that together, whether in Sulu or somewhere else." At the moment I am not aware of any plans to do things together in Sulu. It is a matter of what your government - again, I'm saying your government -- the Philippines Government would like to do, when it would like to do it, and very much in accordance with its law, and politics, and defense needs.
Q: With the collapse of the WTO talks, it has been suggested that there is going to be more and more bilateral agreements between industrial countries and developing countries. Are you aware of any fresh initiatives on the part of the U.S. in this regard in relation to the Philippines?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I see two questions in there. To go to the second one on the bilateral issue: Yes, when the United States Special Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick came here -- I hate to refer to my unchecked recollection but I'm going to guess it was April. Was it April? He announced the EAI, the Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative. I think that's what it was, the Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative. Under that, the United States Government offered -- did not insist, did not demand, did not bully - people love that word here, they like to look at the United States as a bully -- we offered to ASEAN governments who may be interested at such time as they may be interested to explore bilateral free trade agreements. We were just at that time concluding one with Singapore. I think we have done one with Chile, as I recall. We would be glad to look at that with any of the governments of ASEAN that would like to go on that direction. We don't at this time have any serious discussions with the Philippines toward a free trade agreement. I just don't see that happening in the immediate future, but if the Government of the Philippines decides, in the immediate future or in the long-term future, that they would like to take that up with us, we're for freer trade between our two countries or anything that removes obstacle to trade between our two countries, we would like to do. The first part of your question is about the collapse of the talks at Cancun. You said the collapse at the WTO. I would refer you to a very good article by Bob Zoellick in the Financial Times -- I think it was. Do have copies? Because I meant to bring copies with me - since Cancun. He did one before Cancun, and there's another one after. You can find it on the Internet. I think it is the Financial Times in which he points out that - he divides the world into those who 'can do' and those who 'won't do' at Cancun. You know, there is a lot of sloganeering - 'No deal is better than a bad deal,' as if a bad deal was what was on offer. What was on offer from the United States and in this case, jointly with the European Union, because we worked very, very hard, was a substantial reduction of all kinds of barriers to trade, particularly in the agriculture area that would have been of benefit to less developed countries, including the medium developed countries like the Philippines. So, we were sort of disappointed to walk away empty-handed, but the people who were hurt by the status quo, we believe, are the developing countries. We think the status quo is unacceptable. We think the lack of access to developed countries' markets by developing countries, particularly in agriculture, is unacceptable. We wanted to tackle that at Cancun in a serious way. Multilateral diplomacy is hard. It's complicated. It's frustrating. It's difficult. Personally, I hate it. I don't have the patience for it. I have never done it. My wife has. She is at the back of the room you can ask her how she negotiated a treaty on multinational treaty on protecting the environment against persistent organic pollutants. It takes a lot of patience. Very often -- in multilateral fora -- people like to make speeches and posture for the folks back home or for whatever reason. Apparently, that is what happened at Cancun. That was very unfortunate. My understanding is that even some of the countries that were posturing the most loudly are now working to get back to multilateral forum in order to take up was on offer. Because they realize the only way of bringing down these barriers is through hard work and unfortunately, multilateral negotiations. Difficult negotiations with give as well as take. I detected in Washington when I was back there great disappointment over Cancun, but a fair degree of optimism that the WTO is the only game in town, and everybody knows it, and we will all be going back in the WTO forum to tackle these very difficult problems.
Q: Why do you say that you don't foresee any initiatives towards free trade agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines anytime soon?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I don't exclude the possibility. From our side, we're ready. I can't speak for the Government of the Philippines but you know, there are a lot of pressing problems in this country. You are entering a political season. If the Government of the Philippines would like to pursue a free trade agreement or indeed any liberalization... Don't let me give you the wrong idea. We are working intensively with the Government of the Philippines to overcome obstacles to trade on a bilateral basis. That is well short of a full free trade agreement. Just two weeks ago, September 17, I was in Washington during the hurricane, and Filipinos officials had traveled a long way from Manila to Washington and during the hurricane, on the 17th of September, they met with American trade officials to work on a long list of trade issues. We work on this all the time. It is routine. We are in intimate contact with DTI and the Department of Foreign Affairs and others to lower the barriers to trade and to boost trade in both directions. We have had some pretty good success. But let me point out, because there are people who say the United States is bullying the Philippines in terms of trade: the Philippines continues to enjoy a $6 billion dollar - billion dollar, that is nine zeros -- trade advantage with the United States of America. That is a three to two ratio. We had about an $18 billion dollar trading relationship last year, and of that, you were ahead by $6 billion dollars over U.S. exports to the Philippines. Anyone who says that our markets are closed really needs to take a hard look at the numbers. Usually, people who say that really don't know what they're talking about, quite frankly. The United States has over a trillion dollars in imports a year, and about half a trillion in exports. That's worldwide.
Q: The Okinawa Governor was here recently and he mentioned that he discussed training grounds for U.S. forces based in Okinawa.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: With whom?
Q: With GMA. Not bases. Are you looking for some space where U.S. forces in Okinawa can train outside of Japan somewhere in the region?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I've just mentioned; we're delighted to train in the Philippines. Our soldiers -
Q: By themselves.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: No. We only do joint training here. Our soldiers love training with Filipino soldiers because Filipino soldiers are some of the best in the world. When properly equipped, properly trained, properly led, there is no finer soldier. That's what I've heard American soldiers say. So they love training together here. We are not looking for bases. I have not heard about any approaches from other parties for us to have bases here. All kinds of people think all kinds of thoughts, and say all kinds of things. But I am telling you, the United States government has not asked, and I don't think will ask, the Government of the Philippines to have a base here that we use unilaterally somehow.
Q: No, it's not a base. It's some sort of a training ground where you can come and then you go after you train.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: One idea I've heard stated publicly by Filipino officials is of leasing this or that facility not just to Americans, but also to others who might wish to train there. I have not heard that discussed on a formal basis. Publicly, it has been stated but we have not worked toward an agreement on that at the moment. Some kinds of informal discussions are interesting as ideas but nothing is a proposition or a deal.
Q: If you could just go back to counter terrorism, because you had mentioned a while ago that mutual security was an issue of top concern for both presidents. Could you please explain what the strategic role of the Philippines would be in the global war on terror? Could you describe that strategic role of the Philippines vis-��-vis other countries in the region?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Yes, I can offer a few perspectives on why the Philippines is so important. It is an American treaty ally. We have about a million people visiting each other back and forth between the Philippines and the United States every day. So that means that if the Philippines is vulnerable to terrorism, that vulnerability extends to us. We know, from the 1995 Bojinka plot, for example, that the people who wanted to attack the United States' airline industry came to the Philippines in order to try to do that. The strength and the intimacy of our relationship make the United States vulnerable when the Philippines is vulnerable. The Philippines has suffered -- has been bled. The Philippines economy has bled for decades. Three and a half decades, in the case of the NPA, terrorism of burning capital equipment, and killing politicians and business people. So there's a long-running suffering due to terrorism in the Philippines that is, I won't say unique, but not many other countries have suffered so long and so systemically from terrorism as the Philippines. Apart from the NPA, you've had the Islamic, the various forms of Islamist insurgency going on. Terrorism spills over into common crime in the Philippines. We have had kidnapping and drug running, trafficking in people. You get into common crime on an international scale in the Philippines; it is just a particular hot spot so we're concerned about it. The Philippines sits astride the geographic division between Islam and the rest of the world. Not to say that I am a subscriber to the clash of civilizations theory. I don't think there needs to be one, and I think that is too simplistic a reading of Islam. I have spent a lot of time studying Islam and living among Muslims, and I don't think you can identify terrorism with Islam. But for all those reasons -- its geographic location, its history of suffering due to terrorism and insurgency, its intimacy with the United States that makes us vulnerable due to Philippines vulnerability. For all those reasons we're interested in the Philippines as a security partner in the war on terrorism. Also it is a democracy. We think if this democracy is strong and becomes exemplary, the few remaining places in Southeast Asia that are looking to democracy might take a leaf from your book and copy it. And that would be a good thing.
Moderator: Any follow up?
Q: When Mr. Zoellick was here, I think the response to the U.S. offer from the ASEAN side was considered lukewarm because they were concerned about further widening of the economic divide within ASEAN. If some of the ASEAN members, who already have a TIFA, would now go ahead with a full FTA, it could leave behind some of the less economically developed ASEAN members. How would you describe the response to the EAI offer of other ASEAN member states?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I don't follow the other ASEAN countries so closely other than the Philippines, obviously. But I do know that when we made the offer we were conscious of that. We did not want the other ASEAN countries to think that we were trying to fragment them and the internal ASEAN liberalization that is going on. We support that. We favor that. We want to see ASEAN internally grow strong as a trading region and see the barriers to trade within ASEAN fall down. Anything that the United States can do to promote that is good and we don't want to do anything to prevent that. When Bob Zoellick proposed the EAI, he made clear that we were not doing this to compete with internal ASEAN liberalization or set it aside. On the contrary, anything we can do to complement or strengthen is what we like to do with the EAI.
Q: So are you happy with the pace of ...?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Sure. Yes, because, again, I know that there is this perception among Filipinos that the United States is bullying the Philippines or other countries to do what we want in terms of trade. Our perspective is: We are free traders. We want to lower barriers to trade. We think it is a good thing for business people to go back and forth and trade goods and services using the comparative advantages that each country has. There are always things that you will always be able to do in ASEAN cheaper, better, faster than we can do in the United States. Things you can produce, services you can provide, and the same is also true with the United States. We have to keep scrambling in a globally competitive world to keep going up that value chain. That is the way the world is. So, whenever the Philippines or any other ASEAN country wants to move forward and bilaterally to lower trade barriers with us, count us in, sign us up. We will come and talk.
Q: Just one more question related to this, and then another one that's not related.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I hope we are not boring the whole group. I'm not feeling that we are starting to--
Q: I am just curious about why you would prefer to this bilaterally instead of the US with the region - the same with Japan and China.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Glad to do it with the region. If the region wants to do it with us, we will do it with the region.
Q: (inaudible)
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I haven't been aware of any ASEAN initiative as such to come to the United States and do that. Let's look ahead to the APEC summit and see what happens on the 20th of October in Bangkok. There are liberalizing initiatives going on there. There's good governance ones. One very important one that's pro-trade and will build trade and investment is an anti-corruption initiative, an anti-corruption monitoring initiative, that the APEC leaders had proposed in the past, and we'd like to see that prosper. That would be a great thing to do regionally, by the whole of APEC, and if the whole of APEC doesn't want to do it, maybe the whole of ASEAN.
Q: Okay. This one is not related. I am just curious about the U.S. participation in the MILF and government talks. How come it remains so vague?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I don't know that it is vague. Again, we're not bullies. We are not forcing ourselves down anyone's throats. There are people who would love us to be that way because it is good for them, I guess, or they can complain about it, but we are not going to force ourselves into anything. There are two parties to a conflict. We see that this is a conflict that people have been working on for a long time. Read Maritess' book. It looks like a golden moment in history when the parties may be able to resolve it. The United States Institute of Peace has some expertise all around the world in resolving conflicts. If we can be helpful, we're offering to be helpful. Both parties have to agree that we have something to offer, and if they do, we'll offer it.
Q: So the MILF and the Government of the Philippines have not agreed?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: You know at this stage they want to work things out together themselves, and we respect that. They're making progress. That is a good thing.
Q: Does the U.S. think that anti-terrorism and anti-poverty are equally important in the Philippines, or which one is more important? Thank you.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: They go together, of course, and as I tried to indicate earlier, I don't think it is an either-or choice. That would be a false choice for me. You got to keep working on both, on all their many dimensions. Poverty, for example -- you don't do that by giving handouts. You do development assistance, but you also encourage good governance and by liberalizing the economy. President Bush spelled out our approach on March 15, 2002 in his Millennium Challenge Initiative. For us, the way you combat poverty is by promoting good government, but opening the economy, liberalizing the economy, giving people opportunity, and, thirdly, by investing in people - investing in public health and education. This is the education president after all, and we believe in that. So those are the ways you combat poverty, and the ways we'd like to help the Philippines combat poverty.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, you talked about bullying tactics. Critics of the air agreement -
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Ah, finally!
Q: Ah, yes!
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I thought you'd never ask.
Q: Critics are calling you the biggest bullies of the world. I mean, they picture you as a totalitarian state, making the Philippines agree to what is not good for the country.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Yes, we do. You know it's very disappointing for me when people resort to the "bullying tactics" of calling us a bully. Yes, today is October 1st. Today, a 1982 agreement, a 21-year-old agreement, fully enters into force. It has been in force except for one last provision. And that provision has been delayed five times in 21 years because of the resistance of a certain party in this country. It's finally come into effect because the government determined it ought to lapse into effect. And its practical effect will be zero.
I have a fearless prediction: that the Philippine Airlines, and all the Philippines' carriers, and all the American carriers will continue to prosper in doing business in this country tomorrow. And the next day. And the next month. And in the coming year. This does not change anything. This is not going give any unfair advantages -- or any advantages --to American carriers. The only provision that happened today that's different this morning from before midnight last night, was that there is no restriction on the number of flights that people can fly - that Philippines' carriers can fly - to the United States, and that American carriers can fly here. That's it: one restriction. Other restrictions stay in place - as to how many carriers can be designated and so forth. This gets very technical very fast. We have a fact sheet on our website, which I would refer people to, but I guess we can all just be glad that now if Philippine Airlines, or now Cebu Pacific, or any other Philippines carrier, wants to fly to the United States, if they see a market for it, they can do it, without any artificial restrictions on the number of flights. The same is true if American carriers want to do it here.
I may have colleagues in the room who know the exact numbers. I think there are 14 weekly flights by Northwest; there are seven by Continental. That's 21. I think PAL has high up in the 20s. They are nowhere near that cap, so it's really kind of academic for now. You have to ask Philippines Airlines why they are so worried about the lifting of the caps. I frankly do not understand, unless they are worried about, not American competition but the Philippines competition; that could be.
Q: They can fly only to nine points within the domestic region of the United States.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Well, be careful. There's an awful lot of, quite frankly, nonsense, that's put out there. I would refer you to our fact sheet when they talk about that. The fact is that they could fly to more. It gets very technical, very fast, and I think it would bore this group to tears if you want to get into a discussion of technicalities. We would love to see Philippine Airlines do more business with the United States. We'd love to see the aviation industry grow and prosper between our two countries, not to the exclusive benefit of U.S. carriers because there can be no exclusive benefits. You cannot, in this business, have one-sided benefit. It has to be a mutual benefit. We have offered - offered, not demanded, not insisted, not been bullies - we've offered open skies agreements all around the world. Sixty countries - more than sixty - have taken us up.
And by the way, in your neighborhood, another country that's often compared to the Philippines, which I will not name, has recently agreed to sign an open skies agreement. I will not steal the thunder by announcing it, although some of it has leaked out in the industry publications. That country is going for a full, no-holds-barred passenger, cargo, and seventh freedom open skies agreement with the United States because they see it in their national interest, not because we demanded it.
We are not demanding an open skies agreement with the Philippines. We do not have an open skies agreement with the Philippines. The October 1st - the agreement of 1982 is not, in 2003, an open skies agreement. Philippine skies still have lots of restrictions that the Philippines government wants to protect your carriers, and we respect that. If you want to keep them until kingdom come, we will respect it until kingdom come. If you would like to open and liberalize some more, we'll be glad to talk about that. We're not bullying; we're offering. Your neighbors are taking us up on the offer at their own pace, and on a menu of different ways they want to liberalize. That same menu is on offer, whenever it makes sense for Philippine national interest to liberalize. Let us know, and we'll do it. We're partners, we're allies. We're not pushing the Philippines around.
Q: Number two, the critics say: "American cargo carriers are already violating the sovereignty of the country by flying to and from the Philippines to anywhere in the world without any homeport connection."
AMB. RICCIARDONE: The American carriers that are working out of Clark and Subic understand, on the basis of the Philippines legal counsel they have retained, that they are completely in compliance with Philippines law. That's what the United States government understands. That's what the government of the Philippines understands. Whenever anyone has gone to investigate the facts, they have found the facts are that they are in compliance with Philippines law.
Critics say a lot of things in your country. It's a free press, thank God. They can say whatever they want. They can put out things that are not true even, if they want. That's one of the blessings of the free press. And that means you got to have a discriminating readership that can decide for themselves when they are reading nonsense and when they are reading fact. In this case, the government has, I understand, checked the facts and is satisfied that the American carriers are staying within Philippines law. I know the American carriers would have it no other way. The United States government would have it no other way.
Q: Well, again, the critics say that the cargo carriers should have 60 percent equity.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: You know I'm not going to be a little lawyer for the American carriers here. All I can state with certainty is, any American company doing business here -- if they are going to do business here very long, if they are going to do business profitably -- they have to do it respectfully of the Philippines, on all fronts and, most certainly, respectfully of Philippines law. The U.S. carriers concerned believe they are doing so. They have checked the Philippines legal counsel. They are working very closely with civil aviation authorities at Clark and elsewhere, and in Subic, and at such time as the authorities determine that they are not in compliance with the law, I am sure they will revise their operations to comply.
Q: Just one more small question. Answer "true" or "false," or "fact" or "legend." You talked about headlines. Headline: "Arroyo is postponing her decision on what to do in the 2004 polls because she might get an endorsement from President Bush." Fact or legend?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: You know...
(Laughter)
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I would say that you should ask the President herself that, but if you did, I think she'd shoot you. (Laughter) Only President Arroyo can speak for President Arroyo and her thinking and her calculations. What is a legend is that the United States has in any way hinted, suggested, much less told her, what she should do with respect to her political decision-making, or when, for that matter. There are those who say, "Okay, you're not telling her what she should decide, but you're telling her she ought to announce." No, we're not. We have too much respect for your president and your system of democracy to tell your leaders about their most deeply personal and national political decisions. They will make them purely on their own, and we will respect whatever President Arroyo decides with respect to her candidacy, or non-candidacy, for that matter. Most of all, we will respect another decision, and it is the one I mentioned to Nelly earlier: we're going to respect the decision of the Filipino people. I'm probably going to be saying that about ten thousand times between now and next May.
(Laughter)
Q: Excuse me, just a follow-up, sir. But her indecisiveness is a source of instability, according to former President Ramos.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Or, Nelly, or whoever it is.... But, yes, and? I mean that's your comment...
Q: And you are... and instability anywhere is very much a source of your concern.
(Laughter)
AMB. RICCIARDONE: You're putting all kinds of analyses and such into that. Maybe I would put it another way: Is the United States unstable when we have knockdown, drag-out political debates among our candidates? We're just getting started in the United States. People haven't taken their gloves off yet. Is that instability when candidates attack each other, and people speculate, you know, "Will so and so be a candidate? Will he not be a candidate? Who will be the running mate?" I don't think that's instability. I think that's the rough and tumble of democracy. When you don't rough and tumble in democracy, it's a dead body, I guess. Here in the Philippines, as I said before, you have a really vibrant and lively democracy. There will be moments of high inspiration. They will be moments of low farce - just like in my country. Just like in my country - look at California.
(Laughter)
We enjoy that because its the way we Americans are, and Filipinos are so often like Americans, only more so.
(Laughter)
Q: But, of course, sir, it helps that you're the most powerful country in the world. So sometimes people think you are a bully. Sir, but you're not a bully. But are you a bully when it comes to IPR?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Well, I don't know. I mean you have intellectual property too. You have artists. You have filmmakers. Your filmmakers seem to think that they ought to have their property protected and not stolen. You have some of the smartest and best software designers in the world. I know because American companies come here to hire them. And those people, I think, deserve protection for their property, unless you think only Americans have intellectually property and Filipinos don't. We think everybody's intellectual property ought to be protected. When a Filipino designs some software, do you think Americans ought to have the right to take that for free? Or that the Chinese ought to be able to copy it for free? I don't think so. No, seriously, I'm not being facetious. We think everybody's intellectual property ought to be protected, and that's the way you get more intellectual property. That's the way you encourage people to use their brains, and get patents, and create capital, create wealth. So, we certainly hope you will pass the optical media bill. It's been supported on both sides of the aisle. The House has finished its work. The Senate is very nearly finished. We hope that as soon as the Senate comes back it would push the optical media bill for your protection, for ours, and to encourage investors in intellectual property here, and traders in intellectual property.
Moderator: We only have time for last two questions. Ellen and then Ariel.
AMB. RICCIARDONE: And then I get another six months off, right?
(Laughter)
After.... This has gone on ... this is an hour and a half already.... Okay.
Q: Sir, you said it's up to the President and the Filipino to decide. But as a political observer, do you think it's all right for her to change her December 30 decision?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: This is democracy. Any citizen of the Philippines can decide that he or she wants to run, I guess, unless they're convicted criminals. You must have some restrictions like that. As far as I know, President Arroyo is a first class citizen of the United...of the Philippines.
(Laughter)
(Laughs) ...Of the Philippines. I think we admire her so much we might make her an honorary citizen. She's free, as any Filipino is free, to decide whether she wants to run or nor. This is not for an American to say. Your laws dictate who can decide if they want to run or not run. And, as far as I know, she's free to decide.
Q: (Off-mike.)
AMB. RICCIARDONE: Filipinos need to decide what's negative and what's positive in anything any of your politicians say or do. That's up to Filipinos to decide.
Moderator: Last question. Ariel.
Q: Sir, Ariel, of TV Asahi. But wouldn't the U.S. rather have an old hand at the helm, rather than a new leader to negotiate with?
AMB. RICCIARDONE: You know I actually am optimistic about this country. We're going to go through a very interesting period here for the next eight months. And at the end of that period, my expectation is that you will have a government that is renewed and reinvigorated because it will have fresh electoral mandate. Whether that is a government that consists of the current president or incumbent senators and congressmen, or if it is someone new in Malacanang, I have to believe this country is going to enjoy that particular benefit of democracy, and it is going to have fresh bounce in its step. It is going to have a fresh load of optimism, confidence and popular support behind it - whoever it is. So if I were Moody's - I saw Moody's this morning, in the headlines, if I were Moody, in the long-term I would buy. I'd rate the Philippines a "buy."
There are going to be some bumps here for the next little while, as there are bumps in my country. But this time next year, you are going to have a new government. You're going to have fresh faces in the Congress. You're going to have fresh faces in the Senate. People are going to be looking at rolling up their sleeves and tackle the problems of this country, and that's going to be great.
Moderator: Is that a long-term buy, sir, or a short-term buy?
(Laughter)
AMB. RICCIARDONE: I guess I'm not a financial technician enough to know what's long-term or short-term. I'd say long term and medium term. Short-term, you know, it's going to be interesting. I'd buy some things.
Moderator: With that we'd like to thank Ambassador Ricciardone. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to Public File Main Page
Return to Public Table of Contents