BORROWING the term used by former US Vice-President Al Gore to sound the alarm about global warming, I believe there are certain inconvenient truths that need to be confronted concerning the war on drugs being waged by President Rodrigo Duterte.
I think the first inconvenient truth is that, no matter what the anti-Duterte factions and the human rights activists might say, the drug menace poses a real and present danger to the Philippines and Duterte is the only President who has waged an aggressive campaign against the scourge. In other words, he has lighted a candle – nay, many candles – instead of just cursing the darkness.
The second inconvenient truth is that, if Duterte’s intention was to “light up the house” amidst the darkness, he should realize by now that the candles are burning the house down.
The third inconvenient truth is that Duterte can only slaughter so many thousand drug lords, pushers and addicts during his incumbency, but he will not succeed in ridding Philippine society of the scourge, if killing is the principal recourse.
Already, he has admitted that his vow to rid the country of the drug menace and official corruption in six months is not possible. He has asked for another six months. Unfortunately, even if he has all of six years to bury the scourge of drugs, it will merely rise from the grave as soon he steps down from office – as long as the causes of drug addiction are not addressed and the law of supply and demand prevails.
Obviously, Duterte wants “dramatic results” during his brief incumbency. Perhaps, he doesn’t believe in the age-old saying, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.”
He wants a quick fix. Thus: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try a gun.”
But the question is, what happens after he leaves office? Will he just shrug his shoulders and say, “Bahala na kayo diyan – I’ve done my part!” or would he rather take the long view and forge a solution that he can leave as a lasting legacy?
This applies, as well, as to those who are condemning the extra-judicial killings. While some have suggested preventive and rehabilitative measures, their voices have been drowned out by the anti-Duterte rhetoric, fanned by sensationalist media.
The question is: Will those protesting the EJK be willing to help launch a more lasting solution to the drug problem, hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder with the Duterte government?
In this regard, Filipino-American business and community leader, Loida Nicolas Lewis, whom Duterte has unfairly accused of leading a plot to depose him, has, in fact, made a logical suggestion in a letter to the incoming US ambassador to the Philippines:
“As a president dealing with four million Filipinos under the grips of drugs and poverty, President Duterte wants to rid the country of that plague, that curse.
“With all due respect, may I suggest that you offer him assistance in the rehabilitation of the 800,000 drug addicts and drug dealers who have surrendered and are now in prison all over the country?”
If Duterte’s outreach to China has resulted in substantial aid for the construction of drug rehabilitation centers, it should make sense for the US to also offer assistance, not only to help those who are already in custody but also potential victims of drug abuse, as well as those who remain in the shadows, tormented by their addiction. Will anyone argue against rehabilitation as a better option than liquidation?
A close relative of mine was into drugs. At the time that we learned about it, we couldn’t tell the difference between uppers, downers, grass or heroin. Just the knowledge that someone in the clan was afflicted was enough for us to close ranks.
A caring family is one of the best cures. Our relative resolved to drop the habit, got married, raised a family, took up a career as a seaman and has since been promoted captain of his own ocean-going vessel.
Wasn’t that a better solution than sending him to his grave?
In an earlier column, I related how my wife and I addressed the drug menace that had begun to surface in our neighborhood in Parañaque, threatening our four growing children. I put up a gym in our garage, took up running and physical fitness in the hope that they would follow suit. Our three boys and one girl did – and so did their friends. And among themselves, they established a rule: no drugs.
If the US were to actively help fight drug abuse in our country, applying America’s long experience in battling the scourge, Philippine media and civil society cannot do any less. My old friends in the advertising industry should also step forward to be counted.
There is much that media and the ad industry can do, aside from either rising in defense of Duterte or condemning him. All of that creative talent and the communications resources can be harnessed to educate the youth and those who are in the early stages of addiction.
I myself would be happy to volunteer.
One may ask, what about the human rights abuses that have already been committed? What about the victims of extra-judicial killings and their families, particularly those too poor to seek legal redress?
I think that is a separate issue altogether. Let those who have committed human rights violations, particularly cold-blooded killings, be answerable before the law. And that includes Duterte himself, and those in the Philippine National Police who have acted as prosecutors, judges and executioners.
I hope they realize that the late President Marcos himself and his family could not escape the long arm of international law. Soon after arriving in Hawaii after being deposed in 1986, Marcos was sued in the US District Courts for human rights violations committed during his presidency. He was adjudged culpable under the Alien Tort Claims Act which provides, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”
A Hawaiian jury awarded over 9,500 Marcos human rights victims almost $2 billion in compensatory and punitive damages, a judgment that was affirmed on appeal.
In another celebrated case, Gen. Augusto Pinochet was indicted by a Spanish court for human rights violations committed by the former strongman of Chile in his native country. Pinochet was arrested in London and incarcerated for a year and a half before being turned over by the British government to Chile, where he was indicted for his crimes.
According to an Internet entry, it was the first time that European courts applied the principle of “Universal Jurisdiction,” declaring themselves “competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state.”
Will these apply to President Rodrigo Duterte and the PNP? Who knows? Maybe if Duterte stays only in Davao and the others don’t apply for green cards in the US, they will be beyond the reach of the international courts. Only their conscience will bother them. ([email protected])
