Transcript of U.S. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone’s interview
on ANC 21’s “Straight Talk” with Cito Beltran, July 12, 2004

Cito Beltran: Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. I’m Cito Beltran and you’re watching “Straight Talk.” We are fortunate to have with us today the Ambassador of the United States to the Philippines, Francis Ricciardone.

Sir, welcome to the show.

Ambassador Ricciardone: Thank you very much. It’s great to be back with you, Cito.

Beltran: I couldn’t believe that you actually came back. When you left late last year, I said, that’s it, he’s been shipped home, he’s not coming back. It’s all an excuse, but you are back. What happened?

Ambassador: Well, I really am glad to be back. I was determined to come back. I love serving here. It’s a great country, but it was quite an important mission to be charged with to go and prepare to open a United States Embassy in Iraq, so I felt honored to do that and duty-bound to do it. It was, however, a short-term proposition. We knew an Embassy had to be set up and running before the 30th of June, the planned deadline for the transition of Iraq to sovereignty. So, I knew there would be a beginning, a middle and an end, and I asked for nothing more than to have my current job back at the end of that particular mission.

Beltran: Now, I’m just curious because as far as ordinary people like us are concerned there is still a war. There is still a military situation in Iraq, and people are wondering what are the Americans trying to prove, what are they actually doing. The battle is not over yet, and they’re already talking about a handover, and setting up an Embassy. Could you educate us on this?

Ambassador: Sure. The story of the transition really is one of the story from the occupation, the multinational occupation, to an Iraqi story. The Iraqis really are responsible now for running their affairs, in trying to secure their country and rebuilding it. We’re there to help. We’re there not just at their sufferance, but at their invitation. You know, meeting Iraqis during the series of visits I made to Baghdad and elsewhere was always uplifting. Whenever I would go there I would meet Iraqis that, despite everything you see on television, all the violence, and the problems, they are so determined, so faithful, so optimistic in a very eager sort of way about their future. They have this deep desire for what we have, and we take for granted in the Philippines and in the United States. Imagine, free elections. They are loving having a free media, and being able to say what they want to say, and having conversations in the media. It’s an exciting place for all the violence that is going on. There’s an excitement in Iraq.

Beltran: Correct me if I’m wrong, because if you were to tell me about Afghanistan, I can just picture everything is rubble, everything is dust, and everybody with guns. But what does it look like in Iraq? I mean, does it look like Makati? Does it look like Intramuros? You’ve been around the Philippines, what would be a close description to Iraq?

Ambassador: It doesn’t compare to the Philippines in any visual sense. The Philippines is a very green lush place with the sea all around it. And the geography does influence culture and lifestyle. Iraq is a desert culture and a riverine culture.

Beltran: But I mean in terms of physical situation right now, is it a bombed up place or are there still a lot of buildings?

Ambassador: There are a lot of buildings. But they were not as modern or vast as one might have thought, for a wealthy country. It was a country kind of locked in a time warp. It was hermit state. It was closed off from all the progress of the past three decades and the rest of the world, living under very tight dictatorship. So, the infrastructure had really decayed. They were the effects of previous wars that Saddam had brought in, the effects of sanctions, the effects of gross, gross mismanagement of the economy. The national wealth was put toward weapons, weapons programs, stashing away loot for the ruling family outside of the country. So, I was surprised that the country was rather impoverished looking. I had visited Iraq -- I visited Baghdad last in 1982, and it was a more lively-looking place, and modern-looking place in 1982 than it was now.

Beltran: Now, going back to the scenario of setting up an Embassy, turning over to the Iraqis, why the rush? A lot of people are asking why are the Americans or why did you have a premature turn over? Was it really a premature turnover? And why the rush?

Ambassador: I don’t think it was premature at all. In fact going in, our president had made clear that we’re going to liberate the country, and not to occupy it, not to turn the Iraqis into Americans. And he made clear that we would go in, and stay not one day longer than necessary to liberate the country, and turn it over to the Iraqis. As it happened, it’s clear that we were there much longer than we had intended to be. We got more deeply involved in administering their country than we had ever intended at the outset. So, the fact that it went on well over a year was already much longer than we intended. As to turning it over a few days earlier, I could tell you, from my own visits, we were ready. Our Embassy was ready to open under Ambassador Negroponte, all the staff….

Beltran: John Negroponte has been assigned to Iraq? (Laughter)

Ambassador: Exactly right. One of my predecessors here in the Philippines. You see there is a connection?

Beltran: Yes. He has the sufficient training. Everybody seemed to have been trained in Manila, and shipped to Iraq. (Laughter)

Ambassador: Well, there are some good reasons that I could get to. But we were eager. We were ready, and the Iraqis were eager, and the Iraqis were ready. The Interim Iraqi Government, as it is called, the Government that would be in place until January of next year or so if they don’t hold the elections in December, is a strong group. And they were raring to go. They were ready to take charge, and had the reins turned over to them. As to why John Negroponte or why me? I learned something during this period. It turns out the Embassy we opened in Baghdad is our third largest in the world. And previously the prize for being third biggest was our Embassy here in Manila. So, experience in managing and leading a large overseas American mission was useful to me in setting up Baghdad, and I’m sure it’s been useful -- it was one of the factors I’m sure, in choosing John Negroponte. He’s been an Ambassador. This is his seventh presidential appointment. He’s been Ambassador in the Philippines, Mexico, Honduras. So, he has experience with large…

Beltran: Did he also bring his adopted kids to Iraq? (Laughter) Is it a safe place – relatively a safe place or it’s not?

Ambassador: We need to be honest. It is not a relatively safe place. For American diplomats, and I think diplomats of all countries, it is what we call an un-accompanied post. It is not a post to which we send people with their families just yet. I hope, though, within a very short time, within a couple of years, it will be a place, not only stable, but on the road back to prosperity and regional leadership. Why not?

Beltran: You’ve mentioned that it’s not a safe place, and I think that case has been brought home for the United States, for South Korea, for the Philippines, and for other countries – Bulgaria, I think. We’ve had nationals being kidnapped in Iraq. And right now, the situation is -- we’ve got Angelo de la Cruz somewhere in Iraq, and the hostage takers or the kidnappers are demanding that the Philippines to pull out. Now, the government has made it clear that “we’re staying.” But a lot of critics are saying, “Hey, it’s only 30 days difference, why can’t the Philippines just pull back to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or somewhere and we’re sort of there and not there.” What are the implications of a pullout right now, and how important a role does the Philippine contingent play?

Ambassador: Well, I would say this is a moment for both compassion and fortitude, and the Government of the Philippines, the President of the Philippines has shown both. We certainly also feel both. Our hearts and prayers go out to Angelo de la Cruz and his family, as also to the Bulgarians, and the Egyptian who are still being held hostage and their families. Not only do we appreciate what the foreigners in Iraq are doing. More to the point, the Iraqi Government has made it clear that they appreciate what foreigners are doing to helping Iraq get back on its feet after the terrible trauma of three decades. Three-and-a-half decades of dictatorship, wars, sanctions, internal problems. Iraqis count on outside help at this hour of their need. Yes, there are problems there. There is a dreadful insurgency. They will overcome that though. This is an anomalous situation in Iraq.

I saw the Philippines’ contingent in action there, and I met with local religious leaders who were surprised to hear, when I told them, that the presence of the Philippines’ troops at that time was at all controversial. This was a man with his turban and his beard, a religious leader who said “how can that be? We’ve been released to practice our faith. Look at the mass graves over here. Here’s a monument to the tens of thousands in mass graves. How can anyone doubt the nobility of what you are doing, and the requirement for us. Please stay. Please help us; whether it’s the United States, or the Philippines or others, you are doing God’s work here. Thank you.” The Filipinos I spoke with had high morale, saw the value of what they were doing. At that time, there were civilians there.

Beltran: What exactly are they doing there, Ambassador Ricciardone? You’ve been there, we haven’t. We don’t get to see these things. What are they? Are they nurses, doctors, engineers -- what are they?

Ambassador: At that time, the official Philippines’contingent were not only police and the Armed Forces, but also civilian health workers. There again, the local Iraqi leader said “do you understand what these Filipinos mean to us? We have female Filipino civilian nurses and because of our culture, they are the first medical care that has ever been provided to some of our women, because we don’t allow our women to be seen by male medical professionals…”

Beltran: And medical services are denied to women in that area…

Ambassador: Well, at least in that area, they did not have female professionals. Here of course, Filipina nurses are known as the best in the world – among the best in the world. They’re providing their patented Filipina TLC to these Iraqi village women who had never seen a medical professional. That was so meaningful…

Beltran: So essentially, it’s social service component. But we’re not in the shooting?

Ambassador: No.

Beltran: It’s Americans who get shot at, who get killed. I mean I’m just being straightforward.

Ambassador: Yes. It was a humanitarian -- it has been a humanitarian relief contingent, which necessarily had armed components because that reinforced the stability and peace in the area. The Iraqis needed to see that there were armed forces to help stabilize that particular area. In Hillah, which was ancient Babylon, where they are, there was not a particular problem. More broadly, there are foreigners serving from the Philippines just on a private basis helping build, helping with reconstruction and transportation. And Iraqis also rely on foreign skills for the moment.

Beltran: That’s an issue that I’d like to address, but first I’d like to find out what has been the price in terms of U.S. lives as far as this is coalition effort is concerned? To date, how many combatants and non-combatants have been killed?

Ambassador: Sure. Well, sadly Cito, I heard from the news media myself that we’ve just crossed a tragic milestone of having lost over a thousand American service members. We’ve lost several civilian personnel as well who have not been counted, and some civilian contractors. There was a wonderful woman, in fact that I had met in Hillah when I went on to visit. A lady named Fern Holland who was with an NGO. I’m not sure which one -- she was working for women’s education and empowerment.

Beltran: The name is familiar.

Ambassador: She’s a lovely lady. We lost her.

Beltran: How did this come about?

Ambassador: She was in an ambush, and she was shot while she was moving from one place to another in her car along with some Iraqis. Let’s not forget that it’s not just Filipinos, Americans and others who are losing their lives there. It’s not just soldiers. It’s not just foreign civilians. Iraqis themselves have been caught up in the violence. Innocent victims of people who are spreading hate, trying to continue the rule of fear in that country, which is what the liberation is all about -- to try to free the Iraqis from their decades of dictatorship and fear, and oppression. That has happened. It is happening. Iraqis, I’m very confident, will have a much brighter future for the sacrifices the Filipinos have made, Americans have made.

Beltran: Okay. Having told us and our viewers that there have been over a thousand U.S. personnel -- well not personnel, I mean U.S. citizens because not all of them are soldiers. Over a thousand have been killed in this coalition effort, now, you’ve got your own problems, but is the United States doing anything because you’ve been perceived as the superpower, the military arm in Iraq? Are you guys involved in any way in the negotiation tracking down or finding out where the Bulgarians are being kept, where the Filipino Angelo de la Cruz is being kept? Or are you staying out of it and letting the locals handle the problem?

Ambassador: Well, of course the locals have the lead responsibility. This is the government of Iraq, remember, that is now running their country. The United States is not. And I would rather not go into any detail about the kinds of things that we’re doing to show -- to support in this crisis or in others, but we are supporting the Government of Iraq. We’re in close touch with the Government of the Philippines. We hope for a successful outcome to this. We dearly hope for the release of this poor Filipino, as also for the Bulgarians, and the others.

Beltran: President Arroyo is taking a beating because of all of these. She stands firm on her commitment, the Philippine commitment to the coalition. But there are claims, you know, “why are you being adamant in your support for the United States? They cut the $30 million in aid to the Philippines. The choppers have not arrived that they promised us, and what exactly are we getting it and when are we getting it -- because the talk in town is we’re only involved in Iraq because we don’t want to be left out when the development pie, you know, is handed out.” Mr. Ambassador, I give you the free room here, can you educate us on this?

Ambassador: Well, you’ve covered so much territory in that one little riff, Cito. I’m not sure where to…

Beltran: Well, I’m sorry but I’ve been hearing it for three days, you know, and I can’t get an answer.

Ambassador: First of all, as to President Arroyo, you know, you suggest she’s “taking a beating.” She’s a leader who’s shown both strength and compassion in a way that it is truly inspirational here. It’s a tough crisis and leaders are called upon in a crisis to do hard things. And she has stood up, and she’s shown deep care for this hostage, but also care for the country’s long-term interest. All I can is say that we salute her, and stand behind her. And anything that we can do to assist, we’ll certainly want to do. More broadly, she has also established with President Bush a new and much more healthy relationship, I think. It’s not a transactional relationship where you do something for us, we do something for you, and at the end of the day, you keep a score on who has won, and who has lost. This is not that kind of a marketplace, or a cheap relationship. It is one of genuine partners.

Beltran: Well, the fact that they sent you back speaks much of that.

Ambassador: Well, thank you. We do things together, and together we add A and B, and we come up with more than the total of A and B, where both countries are farther ahead. Whether it’s in improving our economic relations, improving the trade and investment in both directions so that there are more jobs in the Philippines, and more jobs in the United States. Whether it’s in our mutual security…

Beltran: Is it impolite and forgive me for butting in, Mr. Ambassador but is it impolite for people to say, “Can we just talk pesos and dollars here? Jobs for jobs?” I mean, first of all, the $30 million aid cut, I don’t even know what they’re talking about but it’s been bandied about in all the papers and radio, you guys cut a $30 million aid support. What are they talking about?

Ambassador: It’s not impolite. It’s missing the point, and it’s ill-informed. There has been no $30 million cut. You know, the newspapers tend to go a little crazy sometimes -- not to criticize a competing medium.

Beltran: Fine …(laughter) … go ahead.

Ambassador: But here, when we speak, people can hear and see what you and I say. Sometimes, in print, things get spun a little bit…they’ll drop some text, or they’ll put it an interpretation…

Beltran: Because what I read was there was supposed to be like a $30 million aid for Mindanao, but because we couldn’t iron out our peace treaty and certain things were not being achieved, the United States said, “Well forget it guys, we’ll just throw away our money in a war zone.”

Ambassador: No. That’s just not quite accurate, and I can understand why some people might reach that conclusion. This year has been a high watermark in U.S. economic assistance for the Philippines through the United States Agency for International Development. It’s approaching a hundred million dollars in programming. That’s not cash that’s infused either to the national Government or to the local governments. It’s a series of programs of different sorts. Now, within that, the Congress had set aside $30 million to support a peace process, the peace process in Muslim Mindanao. We still have that $97 million program. The $30 million we would have put toward working in all these various areas in the localities and with the organizations that are close to the MILF, we simply have not been able to do.

Why? We can do our programs through the U.S. Agency for International Development where there is peace and security, where there are community groups and leaders that wish to cooperate with us, where we can support NGOs as well as local government units. A perfect example was the 1996 peace made between the MNLF and the government. Part of the problem had been there was that there had been no strong international development support behind that. We came in some years later and we’ve been able to support it. We keep supporting it in child and family health projects, in…

Beltran: So, there’s no fixed package that you’re actually taking away?

Ambassador: We’re not taking something off the table. What we have not been able to do in the past year since, say, since Hashim Salamat died, is move that development assistance into the MILF areas because there has not been peace and security.

Beltran: But we’re -- we’re about to go for a break, Mr. Ambassador. And forgive me if I’m being impolite here, but isn’t it like offering food or money to people who can’t even use it because they’re engaged in a war. I mean, I don’t know how to translate this but you’ve got $30 million, and you want to bring it to a war zone, it’s like offering something that no one will take anyway.

Ambassador: I don’t see it that way, nor as some people suggested, that we’re trying to “buy peoples’ allegiance” or “buy a peace.” We know people cannot be “bought” in that sort of sense.. We want to do development assistance work because we believe that is how you help bring peace and stability. That’s one important tool in the war against terrorism. Your President has made that clear, and we agree. We want to support that approach.

Beltran: So, it’s like an incentive?

Ambassador: It’s more than an incentive. It’s following up. It’s just not dangling a carrot. Once the conditions permit peace and stability, you can go in behind and reinforce it. Let people experience the fruits of peace and stability early on. That’s still available. We want to see the MILF break its links with the Jemaah Islamiya, get those people out of the country. We can’t do peace and development work where there are training camps for bombers.

Beltran: Okay. We’ll go for a break, Mr. Ambassador, and I want to touch on that. Is the Philippines is becoming an export-processing zone for terrorists? Here on Straight Talk.

(Break)

Beltran: Ok, before Ambassador Ricciardone thinks I’m creating stuff here, this is The Philippine Star and it basically says “JI Terror Camps and RP Exporting Terror.” Were you misquoted, is this accurate, Mr. Ambassador?

Ambassador: That’s a headline, as I suggested before. The print media tends to take certain liberties. I never said those words exactly. So, it’s rather an exaggeration or an extrapolation.

Beltran: OK. What is the fact?

Ambassador: The fact is there are foreign terrorists who exploit their abilities to sneak into the Philippines very much against the wishes and efforts of the Government, while they are protected by people like the MILF. They train, they hide from global law enforcement, and they sometimes carry out their own operations here against the Filipino people.

Beltran: So these are foreigners?

Ambassador: Jemaah Islamiya is principally foreigners.

Beltran: We have actually raised issues with the Bureau of Immigration regarding this matter. What working relationships or efforts have been exerted to help our Bureau of Immigration to clamp down on this because there are two fronts, one is the illegal influx of Chinese from the mainland and the other one is this form of tourist -- if you’d like to call it -- where they come in here to train and to become warriors or soldiers in Afghanistan or in the Middle East.

Ambassador: Well, as in my country, which has vast borders that we can’t control, you have even longer borders than we have, and it is a common problem. Your immigration service, like ours, is doing heroic work to try to protect the country. We do things together, we train together, we put into place systems, and we share technology. Nothing I said in that interview or in this one should be taken as the least criticism for either the Bureau of Immigration, or any other law enforcement agency of the Philippines. They are doing heroic work. As in my country, law enforcement people are under-funded, under-appreciated, and under-equipped, compared to the criminals and terrorists who tend to get larger amounts of funding from their illicit dealings.

Beltran: What are the weak areas that you feel should be addressed concerning this entry of foreign terrorists or potential terrorists using the Philippines as a nest?

Ambassador: Some of the weaknesses in the United States after 9/11 are lessons we’ve learned. We try to offer the benefit of those lessons to our allies and friends around the world. One of them is coordination among law enforcement agencies. We’ve learned to our benefit, ultimately, but we’ve learned the hard way -- that we’ve got to have better sharing of databases, better intelligence brought to bear …

Beltran: Which is why President Bush appointed that guy to be in charge of that …

Ambassador: Right. Exchange of Information.

Beltran: I can’t remember his name.

Ambassador: We started a whole new Department of Homeland Security -- bringing together different elements of different cabinet agencies. But even beyond that we have to improve in the United States our coordination among agencies. You’ve done the same within your government in the Philippines. We’re working with each of the different agencies, whether it’s the Bureau of Immigration, the new Transportation Security Authority that was set up by executive order in the past several months, or the new Philippine DEA that President Arroyo set up in her tenure.

Beltran: Are you guys happy about that because you’ve been an adopted father in raising that section or that unit, the Drug Enforcement Agency?

Ambassador: We very much support the initiative of President Arroyo in setting up the Drug Enforcement Agency. We collaborate with it through several means: training programs, intelligence sharing, and we support various kinds of operations back and forth.

Beltran: Which is our bigger problem and more of a headache for the United States, our drug problem here or our terrorist situation?

Ambassador: Well...

Beltran: Because there was a time when even the Embassy would make mention of the problem of drugs in the country.

Ambassador: It’s hard to compare apples and oranges. But Cito, you’ve put your finger on something. You can no longer say that crime within a country is strictly a national problem. All countries are affected by crime that goes on across borders and within borders. And when two countries are as close as the Philippines and the United States -- I don’t mean just geographically -- but knitted as we are with our human relationships, a couple million or maybe three million Fil-Ams, maybe a million visitors in this direction or both directions every year between the two countries; the electronic contact where crime flows across the ether, financial flows; you’re the 20th largest trading partner for the United States, and we’re your first largest; we’re knitted, we’re joined at the hip. So when we have a problem with trafficking in persons, something like 15,000 people are estimated to be trafficked into the United States every year.

Beltran: From the Philippines?

Ambassador: No, worldwide. And when the Philippines has a major trafficking in persons problem, it’s a joint problem. The United States can’t say that’s your problem, we don’t care about it. When drugs flow across borders, when money is laundered…

Beltran: It’s still a problem, right now? Because the major problems are terrorists, money laundering, and drugs? Three or four years ago there was a lot of uproar, hey, we’ve got to clamp down on this. Has it improved?

Ambassador: Those are all important issues. Globally the criminals seem always to be quicker.

Beltran: No, I mean between the Philippines and the United States. We were called a transit point for drugs?

Ambassador: It is still a problem in the Philippines. The transit of drugs for the Philippines is a problem. Trafficking in persons is a problem, terrorism is a problem, money laundering is a problem, and those are all problems in the United States as well -- they are all global problems. Just as we Americans cannot solve those problems working unilaterally within our borders, probably no single country in the world, especially one with such vast borders as the Philippines, can solve the problems on their own. So we work them together more and more.

Beltran: I’m sorry if I’m nagging you on this one but I just want to see if there’s been an improvement in terms of the drug situation between the United States and the Philippines regardless of who’s the source. Has there been an improvement?

Ambassador: Where there has been an improvement is on the level of our cooperation and collaboration, no question. 9/11 was a wake up call for us. We looked around the world and saw that we really have to collaborate with our allies and friends in countering terrorism. And as we looked at the question of terrorism, we saw terrorism is tied into other things. Terrorism is tied into weakness of the rule of law throughout the world, globally. We looked at ways we could strengthen American law. So we passed anti-terrorism legislation in the form of the Patriot Act. We’re offering to other governments the benefit of what we’ve learned thorough our Patriot Act, the pros, the cons, and the debate we had within our own country.

Beltran: In fact, you were quoted as saying that one of the primary concerns, I don’t know if I’m quoting the news properly, but you were quoted as saying that President Arroyo should give priority to the enforcement of the law.

Ambassador: Well, there again it’s a newspaper kind of exaggeration. I never say what President Arroyo should or shouldn’t do, not in our private conversations and certainly not in public. It’s not for a foreign Ambassador to tell a host country what it should do or shouldn’t do. I can say what we do. I can point to the good things your Government is doing and show where we are cooperating and supporting it. Let me take one example: trafficking in persons. It’s something that President Bush personally cares about and has spoken about a lot, and so has President Arroyo. She showed real leadership, her government did, the Congress did, the opposition members did, Senator Estrada herself was one of the leaders in the opposition in passing an anti-trafficking in persons law a year ago. That was a major step forward. We supported that and we continue to support not only passing this legislation but also others. The question, to me, was what are the problems we are addressing together? I pointed out that the rule of law is something the United States sees globally as a major way of combating terrorism, and the problems that beset our country as well as yours. If in the Philippines you can strengthen the rule of law, the Philippines will be stronger and we will be stronger.

Beltran: In what sense? I’m sorry, strengthening the rule of law sounds a bit vague, a bit general for Filipinos, can you just tell me so I don’t have to think about it?

Ambassador: Let me just walk you through a process. The rule of law is made stronger or weaker through a multi-step process. You start with the process of legislating -- creating law. You need to have a functioning democratic system that produces good law. How do you do that? You look around the world and you see what works. Whether it’s in money laundering, trafficking in persons, combating drugs, having a strong national economy, having a strong banking system, or protecting human rights, you name it -- countries now compare what other democracies are doing. One of the things we can do within the Embassy is offer the benefit of research and expertise on how the United States sets up strong energy regulatory commissions, for example; or how they do it in Switzerland, how they do it in the Arab world. What works here, what works there, and what doesn’t seem to work out.

Beltran: So you actually give that kind of assistance?

Ambassador: We offer it as technical assistance, and legislators are free to take it or leave it. We’re not telling people what they should do. We’re saying, “here’s a broad range of options that different countries have tried around the world, and here’s the history of how they got that way. You decide what will work in the Philippines.” So start with legislation. The thing you go through, once the laws are passed, you need to have really good law enforcement. So you need a well-trained, well-motivated, well-supported police force, and in fact different forces. Whether it’s a specialized anti-drug police force, a specialized immigration bureau to do the enforcement there, specialized maritime and airport security, you need a strong …

Beltran: Where in the United States, through the Embassy, come in these areas?

Ambassador: We have about seven or eight different specialized law enforcement agencies in my Embassy that work with Filipino counterparts. We try to work together, so we don’t have either overlap or gaps. And then we work in training programs and equipment programs with the different Philippine agencies. So that’s how we help with the enforcement end.

Then you need to have not only arrests, or enforcement, in that sense; but you also need to have investigation, competent investigation that protects human rights, that has to work in accordance with law. After investigation comes prosecution. You have to have very strong prosecutors who are well-trained and have good research tools at their disposal. You go from prosecution to the courts. Chief Justice Davide is leading a multi-year effort, drawing on a lot of foreign support, not just from us but also from other countries, to strengthen the court system. For example, by keeping needless cases out of the courts so they don’t become clogged, by using alternative dispute resolutions.

Beltran: So you actually have participation in this process?

Ambassador: Absolutely, all the way though. From legislation to law enforcement, to investigation and prosecution, to the courts and finally out the other end comes the criminal who needs to go to prison and do time. So you need to have a strong prison system. We’re not, to my knowledge, involved in that end of things. But it’s a continuum to strengthen the rule of law.

Beltran: I’m going do a left field here, swing away -- we were talking earlier about cooperation and stuff like this, going back again to what comes out in the papers, you were quoted as saying you, how will I put it, that we have terrorists in the Philippines, etc. What’s the situation as far as the terrorists are concerned?

Ambassador: The situation is that you have a Government that is making great strides, that has built up international cooperation not only with the United States, but also with other countries, and results are being produced.

Beltran: Is this exporting terror a reality or just a misquote?

Ambassador: “Exporting terror” was the gloss put on what I said by one or another editor. The Philippines is not exporting terror. It’s almost a silly way of putting it.

Beltran: OK. We’re not exporting terror or terrorists. Are we classified as a dangerous area, because one of the sore points in our relationship is the fact that the United Sates continually comes out with travel advisories against the Philippines or, I mean, not against it, but doesn’t speak well of the Philippine situation. If my wife had her way to come on this show, she would give you a mouthful because it’s not just tourism, it’s American buyers and investors who don’t want to come because of the travel advisory. So, the ordinary citizen will say “hey, we’re sticking out necks out for you in this global coalition in the fight against terrorism -- why are we classified as a dangerous place?”

Ambassador: I’d be glad to comment on that. First of all, when people around the world think of traveling to a country what do they do? Do they look at our web site for travel advisories? I hope so because that’s good. We try to put out flat factual information. But what they also look at is Google, Yahoo, or other search engines. When they punch in “Philippines,” they’ll get this (holds up newspaper), they’ll get headlines from your newspapers. Things I never said will pop up in the headlines, making the Philippines look like a more dangerous place than it is. The U.S. Government puts out travel advisories and I urge your viewers to check them out. They are flat, factual, balanced statements. And in the case of the Philippines, there’s an American Ambassador who was eager to come back to this country. I go every time I can to your beaches and your mountains. And I bring my family here for …

Beltran: So you have no control over that decision -- that travel advisory?

Ambassador: We do have control and influence over travel advisories, but the travel advisories are not like the headlines in your media. Your newspapers love showing page one above the fold beheading victims, when that’s not typical of the Philippines. What’s typical is people living their daily lives in a beautiful place, with a lovely climate, with cheerful wonderful welcoming people. But none of that sells newspapers. We put in the travel advisories the flat sort of facts of what has occurred, and what hasn’t occurred. We encourage trade, we encourage investment, we encourage business people to come, we encourage tourists to come, and we have a lively education….

Beltran: That’s what is not seen, or perhaps not doubted, is that you are actually encouraging business people to come here. How much effort and results has the Embassy achieved in bringing in investors and tourists?

Ambassador: Pretty good results, but you know it’s not an Embassy’s job alone. There’s a larger market there.

Beltran: But is that part of your effort, it may not be your job, but efforts?

Ambassador: Part of our job is to provide timely, accurate and relevant information to the American public when they want to know about American business opportunities in the Philippines. We have a strong commercial section here that works mainly to promote U.S. exports to the Philippines of course, but it’s also to promote business contacts in both directions. The oldest United States Chamber of Commerce in the Asia Pacific region is the U.S. - Philippines Chamber of Commerce. I meet frequently with those American business people. I listen to their concerns, I advocate for them to advocate a level playing field with issues that concern the Philippine Government or U.S. regulations and law. So we do promote trade and investment in an active way.

Beltran: Let’s go for a break Mr. Ambassador. When we come back, how real are these business investments? Are they just paper investments or do they give jobs? Back here on Straight Talk.

(Break)

Beltran: Okay. You’re back here on Straight Talk and our guest is Ambassador Ricciardone of the United States.

(Reading a question from a viewer:) “The Chief Legal Adviser of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is of the opinion that pre-emptive war doctrine places it above and beyond international law and Geneva Convention. Is this any different from Nazi ideology -- The Philippine Larouche Society?…ah, duh.”

Ambassador: I think that’s an editorial, not a question.

Beltran: Okay. But is that really the position...

Ambassador: Clearly, as I’ve mentioned earlier in the show, strengthening international law is what the United States is about. That’s the best way to ensure not only our prosperity and security but that of everyone in the world.

Beltran: Okay. From Richard of Parañaque: “What does Mr. Ambassador think about the award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9-11 showing the illegality of the Iraq war?” I think there’s a documentary that’s really making a lot of waves in the States.

Ambassador: It is. I think from what I read about it, it doesn’t pretend to be so much of a documentary as a polemical film and I think, you know, people should react to it as such. Let them enjoy or get angry about it.

Beltran: Just to the neck of that, Mr. Ambassador -- I don’t even know if I should ask you this question. They never found weapons of mass destruction. You guys arrested Saddam Hussein already, but still there’s a coalition effort. Is this beyond Saddam already, is this about oil, what’s it about?

Ambassador: I think the war in Iraq, really, at the end of the day turns out to be about the liberation of Iraq. That which will endure. That which will have the most impact on history. It’s not merely the removal of Iraq as a threat -- in terms of weapons of mass destruction. It has done that. And that’s important. But the opening of a country, that had been a hermit state for three and a half decades under dictatorship. That’s what’s exciting in a historical context, and I think that’s what we will prove to be the meaning of this war.

Beltran: (Reading a question from a viewer:) “The recent U.S. Senate investigation report shared by Senator Pat Roberts confirmed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was unjustifiable. How do you think our country should view the situation? Why should we continue to join the coalition led by the U.S. in this unjustifiable and immoral war?”

Ambassador: That, too, sounds more like an editorial than a question. As to the Senate hearing under Senator Roberts, they did a detailed exegesis of the failing of intelligence in Iraq up to the war. The silver lining about all of this, is that it shows that we have a system that can renew itself. When something has failed, when something hasn’t worked out well, we investigate. We get to the bottom of it and try to fix it. I choose to take courage from the fact that we are able to investigate when things go wrong.

Beltran: Nelson Bernardo: “It is rewarding for the Iraqis to be liberated because of decades of suffering in not being with the rest of the free world? I hope they take care of that democracy. Chief Legal Adviser…” Oh, wait a minute, I think this is a repeat -- repeat question.

Cheryl Lo Laurel: “Why do Iraqis hate Americans although Americans helped to get out Saddam?”

Ambassador: I think if you go to Iraq you will find that there’s a wide range of opinions. I don’t blame Iraqis for hating occupation. I would hate it. You would hate it. And Iraqis, on the one hand, hate the occupation; and on the other hand, they worry that the foreign forces would leave too soon. The same Iraqis can hold this opposed thought in mind. By and large, Iraqis do believe that things are getting better -- that they will be better next year. That the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Gratitude is a human emotion and it’s hard to say whether Iraqis are grateful or how they feel about it. But they are all glad -- almost all glad -- that Saddam is gone.

Beltran: Joey: “I agree with the Ambassador that the print media should enhance their listening skill. They have become good stenographers not listeners.”

Joan of Naga: “What will be the fate of the Philippines from the U.S. if we withdraw the contingency of the Philippines from Iraq?”

Ambassador: This is not a Philippines - U.S. issue, I believe. The Philippines needs to make its decision on issues of national importance. The contingent is making a real contribution to the security and well-being of Iraq, and it’s something that ought to be resolved, it seems to me, in conversations with the Iraqi Government and the Philippines. We’ve been pleased and honored that the Philippines has been part of the coalition. They’ve made an invaluable contribution. The Government of the Philippines will make its own decisions on where this fits within the national priorities.

Beltran: John Paul Valencia: “Withdraw the Philippine humanitarian forces in Iraq for the sake of Angelo de la Cruz -- we don’t blame our President. We will pray and let our government negotiate.”

Binggoy: “Are the captors of Angelo de la Cruz and the first Philippine captive the same people? Bakit pinakawalan yung isa and what was the demand back then?” Oh! Because we had a previous hostage before but he was released. I think, Binggoy, it was a matter of negotiations, and believe me, if Filipinos get a chance we are going to get Angelo de la Cruz back, God willing.

Okay, Mr. Ambassador, going back to the print media, I don’t think I clipped exactly what paper this came from. “Ricciardone, Cool to Cha-cha.” It’s been a big thing. Change of government or form of government -- changing the Constitution. What are your thoughts on those two things -- the Constitution and the form of government?

Ambassador: Again the headline should have been: “Ricciardone refuses to be trapped into telling us what to do.” (Laughter) Because I really did avoid prescribing what Filipinos ought to do.

Beltran: We were talking about business earlier. I’ve heard some American businessmen say, “Cito, we can’t do business here. We can’t buy land. We can’t put up our own companies. We have to have a 60-40 arrangement.” What are your thoughts?

Ambassador: This ties back to the earlier question you made about promoting trade and investment here. Each country has to decide how open -- what will its strategy be with respect to global challenges and global opportunities. Do we want our economy to deal with the global challenges and opportunities of being an open economy? And embrace competition, and our advantages in the world market? Or do we want to shield ourselves entirely and try to take the Albanian model, North Korean model, and be a hermit state? Or do we want to get the balance somewhere between Singapore and Thailand -- totally open -- and North Korea? Or something in-between? Each country chooses for itself where it wants to be in that continuum, from hermit state to fully engaged in a global economy.

Come back to your Constitution. You had a Constitution that was written in 1989 for what the people at the time thought was the right ideal. Constitutions are made to be hard to change -- they’re made to withstand momentary passions. That’s typically how they are. But at a certain point people decide that they need to change their Constitution. We’ve done it 28 times in our history.

Beltran: 28 times?

Ambassador: At least 28 amendments. I’ll have to check.

Beltran: I’m surprised because you know it’s been bandied that the U.S. Constitution is irrevocable -- it cannot be changed blah-blah-blah. But it’s actually been upgraded.

Ambassador: It’s been amended all those times and indeed I heard President Bush the other day propose another constitutional amendment on defining marriage. So even our Constitution can be amended.

Beltran: Oh, because you have the problem with same sex marriages?

Ambassador: People may wish to go to the Constitution to address that.

Beltran: Maybe we should get some of them to come here. Maybe that’s the fastest way to open up the constitution to change.

Ambassador: You never know. You’ll decide through your democratic processes, what needs to be changed in the Constitution: Unicameral government versus bicameral, ministerial versus presidential.

Beltran: But what is the general feedback to you of businessmen and businesswomen coming to the Philippines?

Ambassador: The main preoccupation not only of business people but of my Government and other governments around the world is: we want to see the Philippines succeed. The Philippines is one of those happy countries that really don’t have state enemies. You have good relations with everyone. The Philippines’ success, economically and in security terms, is good for just about everybody in the world. What all of us who care about the Philippines worry about most, is not how you’ll amend your constitution or such things. But at this point, we are all very anxious about the economy, about the fiscal situation. And it’s not us preaching to you, that you need to do something about it. It’s your own leadership. Whether it’s in the --

Beltran: If something goes bad, we’re all going to feel it.

Ambassador: We’re all on in one boat here. No man is an island. President Arroyo, the Senate leadership, the House leadership – have all spoken out, innumerable pundits have all spoken out, on the fiscal crisis that is facing the Philippines if you don’t do very difficult things. Steps that no government, no democracy would find easy. These are the challenges that face you, before you pass through a period of challenge and test to a period of opportunity, of even greater opportunity. What I am here to say, what I said last week that engendered those peculiar headlines, is that you can count on us as a strong friend as you face these challenges. You take these tough decisions. You decide what you must do, and know that we will be there for you.

Beltran: Okay, we are down to our last 3 minutes, Mr. Ambassador. The issue of debt payment. It has been a hot issue during the election, during the campaign. We can’t afford it. We’re paying 30% or 40% of our national budget to debt payment. Will the United States be willing or is it a possibility to say ‘hey guys can we just cool our heels, can we just pay maybe 15 % instead of 30 % -- because now we’re really hurting and we need to channel some of the money back to the store? What’s the outlook on that?

Ambassador: You’re talking about debt forgiveness. There are lots of ways of dealing with debt. One is outright walking away from them -- either from the creditor’s side or the borrower’s side. That turns out to be a pretty disastrous course, most of the time. There are other ways of dealing with debt. And we’re trying to help primarily in those other ways. We have done some debt forgiveness. And some transfer of debt for example through the Tropical Forest Conservation Act -- turning debt to the U.S. into funds, so that instead of paying back the dollars to us, you can pay yourselves through conservation measures here. That’s through special legislation. That’s comparatively trivial, compared to the national debt. We work through a certain amount of economic assistance. What we mainly try to do, is help with a lot of advice on how to re-structure, or stretch out debt. We support the multilateral lenders like the ADB….

Beltran: Just to get straight to the point. Some people are saying, if we’re now paying about 40% of the annual budget, can we cut it down to like 20%? Would the United States …

Ambassador: Sure you can.

Beltran: …back the Philippines in terms of the national market…

Ambassador: What we will back … we will continue to back the Philippines, to support the Philippines in becoming fiscally healthy again. But it’s like a doctor with a patient. The doctor can’t make the patient get well. He can’t say I will forgive your cancer. You can say, “Here are the hard things you must do to overcome the cancer -- we will help you by providing the medicines and seeing you through, giving you care.” Cancer’s probably not a good choice, because that’s not something that a patient can control…

Beltran:… you can’t cure…

Ambassador: …but economic behavior is something that’s a matter of individual or national responsibility. A country can make choices -- has to make choices. You can make choices to keep on borrowing, or you can do things that will promote savings, investment that will be fiscally responsible. You can raise revenues through a lot of different ways. None of them are pleasant. None of them are politically easy. They all involve taking money away from people. But at the end of the day, if people expect services from a government, those services have to be paid for somehow. And either you borrow to pay for them, or you expect foreigners to pay for your national defense, or your national prosperity; or you find a way of doing it yourself. And there are a lot of ways of doing it. We’re in conversation with your financial leaders, and we’re going to stand there for you.

Beltran: Okay. Just a one-word answer. Is it a no-choice situation -- we’ve got to take the medicine?

Ambassador: I think so. But it’s not my opinion. Your leaders are saying that. And what I would say is, we agree with President Arroyo, and we agree with your Senate and House leadership: yes.

Beltran: Okay. Well, that’s an outsider telling us what our problem is and we’d better listen if we don’t want to choke up on the problem.

Ambassador: No, that’s an outsider agreeing with you! I’m not telling you any ---

(Laughter)

Beltran: The reason I said that is not to put you in place, but sometimes we’re willing to listen to an outsider instead of to our leaders. And you are a respected member of the community.

Okay. We’ve run out of time. I’m sorry but the other questions -- maybe if the Ambassador will come back again we can ask him.

I’m Cito Beltran.

Thank you Mr. Ambassador, have a good day.

And may all of you have a great day ahead of you.

Let’s pray for Angelo de la Cruz and let’s pray for the country. Let’s take the pill -- we have no choice.

###