Commentary
Ricciardone's Disingenuous Indictment

By implying that the constitutional limit on foreign business ownership is a concern that is as problematic as corruption, Ricciardone was trying to make it appear that that provision in the Constitution is bad and that, like corruption, it should be banished from the charter ASAP.

By CARLOS H. CONDE
Bulatlat.com

The recent remarks by U.S. ambassador to the Philippines Francis Ricciardone - that corruption is rampant in the Philippines - has gotten so much flak that the ensuing brouhaha actually deflected attention away from what I think is a far more important issue: his assertion that corruption in the Philippines is bad for foreign (read: American) investments.

Indeed, to appreciate fully the ambassador's point, he did say that, along with corruption, the other thing that worries him (and, presumably, U.S. businessmen) is the Constitution, which limits the ownership of Philippine business by foreigners. The hubristic reaction to Ricciardone's remark should have been precipitated not by pride wounded by a foreigner's observation but on the fact that, if the Americans will have their way, they would want a full and unprecedented ownership of Philippine business. That, to me, is far more outrageous than the suggestion that the Philippines is corrupt.

Just to illustrate, however, the hypocrisy of the Americans, they are among the most corrupt in the world. After all, as Bayan's Renato Reyes points out, who gave us the multi-billion peso Bataan Nuclear Power Plant deal that Filipinos today are still paying for without benefit of a single watt of electricity? Who gave the world Enron, WorldCom and a host of other financial and corruption scandals that are now threatening the very fabric of this thing called American capitalism? And, lest we forget, it was George W. Bush's father, the former president George Bush, who told Marcos when the U.S.-backed dictator was busy ravishing our country with his corruption and brutality, "We love your adherence to democratic principles," or some other obscene words to that effect.

But back to my main point, which is that Ricciardone's remark was not an exhortation for the Philippine government to stamp out corruption. It was more like a pressure applied on the government to start thinking about removing the constitutional limit on foreign ownership of local business. The U.S. probably feels that, with a president in Mrs. Arroyo who exemplifies the art of toadism (it was she, after all, who pleased the Americans no end when, as senator, she sponsored the liberalization laws that are now wreaking havoc to our economy), it can get away with anything.

With an administration that thinks it owes the United States because of the Americans' "help" in the so-called war against the Abu Sayyaf, it is conceivable that the U.S. can get whatever it wants.

Ricciardone's remark was actually disingenuous. By implying that the constitutional limit on foreign business ownership is a concern that is as problematic as corruption, he was trying to make it appear that that provision in the Constitution is bad and that, like corruption, it should be banished from the charter ASAP. But is it?

That provision is about the only thing left that prevents our country from being gobbled up wholly by foreigners. Removing that would be the final nail on the coffin of our sovereignty. When that happens, the very conditions that gave rise to the rebellions in this country, particularly Mindanao, will worsen. Allowing foreigners to control our lands and natural resources will translate to an even deadly policy of dispossession - the same policy that made Mindanao such a troubled island. Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.