The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Aquino Assassination

[Tease]

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: The airport assassination of a key Philippines opposition leader creates problems for President Marcos and questions for the United States.

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. President Marcos of the Philippines today denied any involvement in the assassination yesterday of his chief political rival, Benigno Aquino. In a nationally televised news conference, Marcos described the murder as "a Communist rubout job." But opposition forces and others said a lot of questions remain to be answered by the Marcos regime. The Reagan White House and the State Department simultaneously issued an admonition to the Marcos government saying the United States expected an objective and thorough investigation. But the administration said President Reagan still intended to make his scheduled visit to the Philippines in November. Meanwhile, thousands of Aquino's admirers and followers filed past the open coffin on view in his Manila home. Tonight, the nature of the political opposition to Marcos and its future. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the assassin is still unidentified either by name or politics. The government said he was dressed in the clothes of an airport maintenance worker when he stepped forward and shot Aquino in the head from only 18 or so inches away. Aquino was in the custody of Filipino security police at the time, having been led off the China Airlines plane ahead of the rest of the passengers. The police immediately opened fire on the gunman. His dead body, for some still unexplained reason, then lay on the airport tarmac for another five-plus hours before being removed. Aquino's body was taken to a hospital immediately and then to his home. He had been an implacable foe of the Marcos regime for nearly 10 years. After leaving the country three years ago for surgery here in the U.S., he continued his criticism. Last September, in fact, he was on this program as part of a story we did on President Marcos' visit to the United States. Here is part of that interview.

BENIGNO AQUINO, MIT Center for International Studies [September 16, 1982]: -- more repressive than ever, except that now, because he allegedly lifted martial law, he does not want to go through the process of law; they just shoot the people down, especially if they are far from Manila and where the press is not there.

MacNEIL: What vestiges of democracy are there, in your view?

Mr. AQUINO: Hardly. We don't have freedom of the press in our country anymore. We have freedom of the praise. If you praise Marcos, it's okay; if you attack him, you either get fired if you are a journalist, or you get blacklisted.

MacNEIL: Is his regime threatened? I mean, there is a thriving guerrilla movement in the Philippines, and then there is political opposition. Is his regime threatened?

Mr. AQUINO: No, I don't believe so. I do believe that there is a -- I accept there's a guerrilla movement in our country, about 8,000 armed men. There are Moslem secessionists. There are some moderates also taking -- who have taken to the hills. But the armed forces of the Philippines, with about 14 or 15 percent of our budget, is strong enough to contain all of this. And therefore there is really no internal threat to his government. And we feel that this is one reason why he should ease up and bring back our old democratic processes, which America bequeathed to my country, in one of the greatest legacies of America.

MacNEIL: Many people believe that Mr. Marcos is aging and feels ill and is grooming his wife Imelda to succeed him. Do you believe that?

Mr. AQUINO: Yes, I do believe that because the tragedy is, after 17 years of Marcos' rule, nobody grew under the banyon tree, and only Mrs. Marcos, so to speak, now can take over because everybody else has been shunted. And I have no doubt that Mrs. Marcos was brought into the executive committee so that, should anything happen to Marcos, she will be the one to keep that party of Marcos together, and will be the connection to the transition government.

MacNEIL: And what kind of government would it be if she was the leader of it?

Mr. AQUINO: I think we are looking into a Peron of Argentina type.

MacNEIL: What is the economic situation after all these years of Marcos' rule in the Philippines?

Mr. AQUINO: That's the tragedy. In my country, if you reduced political rights and you bring up economic prosperity, you might be able to stabilize the government. And for awhile Marcos did that. But today the economic situation is so bad, all of the Filipine external products are suffering from world recession -- cocoa, sugar, copper -- and the standard of living of the Filipino has gone down; the wages of the laborers has really suffered so that now you have tremendous unrest in the labor sector, and strikes are all over. The debt of the Philippines was only $600 million when Mr. Marcos took over in 1966. Today it's $18 billion, and we are one of the highest per capita debtor in Asia. And the economic mismanagement, compounded by tremendous corruption of the cronies of Mr. Marcos' family has caused this economic crisis.

MacNEIL: That was the man who was gunned down yesterday in Manila. First, we talk about his death with a close associate of his, like him, a former senator living in exile in the United States. He is Jovito Salonga, acting president of the liberal opposition party that Aquino belonged to. He was Aquino's attorney, and he was also jailed by the Marcos government. Senator Salonga joins us tonight from public station KCET, Los Angeles. Senator Salonga, do you believe President Marcos' denial that his government was involved?

Sen. JOVITO SALONGA: This denial is a standard denial in the various incidents that have occurred in the Philippines. For example, in the bombing of our Plaza Miranda rally in August, 1971, ironically on the same day that Aquino was gunned down, August 21, President Marcos said he had nothing to do with it and that our -- the bombing of our rally would be solved in a matter of a few days. August 21, 1971, up to now there has been no solution to the problem, and he denied being implicated in that bombing.

MacNEIL: Do you believe that his government was implicated in the murder of Aquino yesterday?

Sen. SALONGA: It's very difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that the regime had something to do with the assassination of President Marcos [sic]. Consider the circumstances. Number one, the whole airport was guarded by the military. There was strict security in the airport. Number two, if you look at the TV programs, the TV shows, Mr. Aquino was escorted by three military security men. In the trials of Mr. Aquino before the military tribunals, ordinarily from 20 to 30 people would escort Mr. Aquino, and I was present, during the hearings of the military tribunal. Number three, how is it possible that this working man, supposedly a maintenance man, was able to get through the tight security that was installed by the military at the airport? And, number four, why did they gun him down? I mean, the assailant, the assassin. You will recall that all the witnesses or most of the witnesses that they called against Mr. Aquino in the military tribunal hearings were similarly liquidated, presumably on the theory that dead men tell no tales.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. We'll come back, Senator. Jim?

LEHRER: Next, the views of another Marcos political opponent now living in exile here. She is Charito Planas, who ran on the same ticket with Aquino in congressional elections five years ago in the Philippines. She was jailed for 14 months during the '73-'74 martial law period, and is currently under indictment in her country for subversion. Do you have any theory on who may be behind this assassination, or do you agree with the Senator?

CHARITO PLANAS: I agree completely with Senator Salonga that Marcos has a hand in the assassination of Aquino.

LEHRER: What would he have to gain by it?

Ms PLANAS: Well, I think what will be the one who will gain most is the successor of Marcos, and this is his wife in collusion with General Ver. They were clearing the way because --

LEHRER: In collusion with whom?

Ms. PLANAS: In collusion with General Ver, the chief of staff.

LEHRER: I see.

Ms PLANAS: Aquino was a threat to the successor of Marcos.

LEHRER: A big enough threat to kill the man as he got off an airplane in full public view? You believe that the president really would take that risk because of Aquino's threat to him?

Ms. PLANAS: Well, you see, Marcos knows that even if he did this it will not affect his relationship with the U.S. government, that the U.S. will continue to give him aid, and the fact that President Reagan has announced that he is going to visit the Philippines in spite of all this. So that he is very sure that even by doing this, there is no change in the relationship. He will still get the same aid and the same support because of his strategic interest.

LEHRER: In other words, you believe that the president ordered the death of Aquino?

Ms PLANAS: Together with who would be his successor, because the successors -- because they have to look ahead now, because they know that Marcos is not going to live long. So those who will succeed him will have to clear the way. And Aquino, as the head of the moderate opposition, is -- will definitely have the support of the United States, because the United States will not want to have another Iran.

LEHRER: So when the president today -- President Marcos today pledges a full investigation and various people, including the United States government says there must be a complete and impartial investigation, you just don't believe it, right?

Ms. PLANAS: Well, just like in El Salvador and just like Senator Salonga mentioned that incident in 1971, and up to now there has been no result.

LEHRER: What is going to be the political result in the Philippines as a result of Aquino's death? In other words, what's the reaction going to be?

Ms. PLANAS: Well, the struggle continues, but you will note that the moderate opposition has been asking Marcos to return democracy through peaceful means, and this assassination of Aquino is a loud bang of closing the door for peaceful means. And so the end result will be the radicalization even of the moderate opposition.

LEHRER: And Aquino you considered to be one of those moderate leaders who was for peaceful rather than radical means?

Ms. PLANAS: That's right. That's precisely why he went back. He wanted to go back to increase -- to gain more support for his alternative.

LEHRER: And that's, in your opinion, why he was killed?

Ms. PLANAS: Umhum.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The Philippines government was asked, but declined, to send a representative tonight. With us is James Gregor, a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley. He is finishing a study of the Philippines, and has met President Marcos a number of times. Professor Gregor, you heard what both Senator Salonga and Ms. Planas just said. They strongly believe that Mr. Marcos was in some way implicated in this assassination.Do you think that is likely?

JAMES GREGOR: Well, obviously, we have to show some circumspection in any rush to judgment in a case like this. We have very little evidence to support any theories at this juncture. They are sheer speculation. What I would suggest is an assessment in terms of cost accounting. For President Marcos to have involved himself directly in an assassination would have created very special problems for the Philippines -- not in terms, necessarily, of relationships with the United States. But if one considers the relationship between the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank -- international financial institutions, with the Philippines, one recognizes that an incident of this sort, which deepens the crisis, which creates an atmosphere of collapse, can only be assessed as a grievous risk to further investment in the Philippines. Only recently the Philippines has negotiated further loans in order to service the debt, which has been referred to, and it becomes necessary for the Philippines to maintain at least an air of stability --

MacNEIL: So you think --

Prof. GREGOR: -- for Marcos to --

MacNEIL: You think it's unlikely because -- just on grounds of self-interest?

Prof. GREGOR: On grounds of self-interest I would dismiss it. Whatever else President Marcos is, he's not a fool, and it seems to me the most elementary cost accounting would create a judgment on his part that Aquino was far less of a threat alive than assassinated on the tarmac at Manila airport.

MacNEIL: Well, who did have an interest?

Prof. GREGOR: Well, there are a variety of groups, and we're speculating again. For example, it has already been suggested by the opposition that Aquino was a moderate, as he was, and would have provided an alternative to Marcos.Clearly, any group in the Philippines that advocates a radical solution, that is, a massive revolutionary surge in the Philippines, would want to eliminate Aquino. And it becomes fairly obvious that they have more to gain by having Aquino shot down in public in Manila airport. It discredits the Marcos regime. It points the finger of guily at Marcos. It makes it extremely difficult for him to maintain a public image of equanimity, wisdom and safe leadership.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. We'll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: Finally, the perspective of Guy Pauker, a consultant to the Rand Corporation on the Philippines and Southeast Asia. He was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and at Harvard before going to Rand, and he was a friend for more than 20 years of Senator Aquino. He is also with us tonight from Los Angeles. Dr. Pauker, what is your thought about the possibility of President Marcos being involved in the death of Senator Aquino?

GUY PAUKER: I don't feel that an individual can establish himself as a [unintelligible] jury. I only can ask the question, who would have benefited from the death at this time of Senator Aquino? And I agree with Professor Gregor that the radicals would have benefited from it because, in their thinking, worse is better, and because things are bad in the Philippines at present, the polarization between the present regime and the extreme left benefits the extreme left. On the other hand, I have also to admit that whereas, probably Senator Aquino was not a threat to President Marcos as long as President Marcos was in full control of the situation, he was certainly a formidable competitor to anybody who would have claimed the succession of President Marcos. And therefore, if at this time those in the inner circle knew more than we know about the likely shape of things to come in the near future, then one can certainly also consider it plausible that people who were interested in eliminating Aquino as a competitor would have been behind this dastardly act.

LEHRER: Doctor, let me ask you this. You knew Senator Aquino very well. Why was he so determined to ge back right now?

Dr. PAUKER: I spoke with Ninoy Aquino frequently on the phone, visited each other whenever we could on the east coast and the west coast, showing first three days after his surgery in Dallas, Texas, in May, 1980. And from the first moment he told me that it was his life's work from now on to see to it that the peaceful transition would be possible in the Philippines. And I think that he went back at this time, against the plea of his friends -- I begged him personally not to return at this time.

LEHRER: Why? What did you tell him? Why did you tell him he shouldn't go?

Dr. PAUKER: Because I thought that at this time, when the succession problem in the Philippines begins to be considered a serious issue, and when the Communists are preparing on their side a long-range takeover plan, he was the most likely target for a variety of groups. At the same time, I did not feel that at this moment he could achieve anything substantial for the future of his nation of 50 million. So I was pleading with him to wait until such time as it would become obvious to reasonable men and women that he can play a constructive role. I had been in Manila in the second half of June. I called on Cardinal Sin, and when His Eminence heard that I was a friend of Senator Aquino, he said, "Please tell him not to come back at this time. It is suicide." I do not presume to know what the Cardinal knew, but certainly these were his explicit words.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Ms. Planas, in Washington, do you believe that Aquino should have gone back now, when he did?

Ms. PLANAS: Well, just like Senator Salonga and we who are on exile would like to go back to the Philippines if we could. And I understand his desire to go back and to -- to lead --

MacNEIL: But I mean, did you warn him not to?

Ms. PLANAS: Well, I -- when he decided to ge back it was -- but, you know, the -- some group of the opposition that's in the Philippines has only been reacting to Marcos. And when Ninoy Aquino decided to return, I considered it this time he gave the ball to Marcos for Marcos to react. And on that point I said I think it was a good decision.

MacNEIL: Senator Salonga, what do you think of the arguments you've heard from Professor Gregor and Dr. Pauker that it was unlikely that President Marcos would have planned this for the reasons that they said: in Professor Gregor's case, that it was not in his interest to do this?

Sen. SALONGA: You will recall that I was a little careful in my phraseology. I said it would be difficult for the regime not to -- it would be difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that the regime had nothing to do, or had anything to do with this incident. I wasn't saying Mr. Marcos personally, because there are many people within the Marcos group who can take the initiative for this purpose. I did not implicate Mr. Marcos personally. And as far as the argument that Marcos will not do this because of the difficulties that are going on, that was no argument. In the case of the 1971 bombing of Plaza Miranda, in which I was a victim, and that was no argument in the case of the attempted assassination of Vice President Pelaez in July 20 or 21 of 1982. And in both cases, up to this day, these two cases have not been solved by the Marcos regime.

MacNEIL: Are you suggesting that, as Dr. Pauker said, that Senator Aquino represented a formidable competitor for Marcos' successor; that perhaps it is Mrs. Marcos, Imelda, whom you are pointing the finger at, or someone else in the regime around her?

Sen. SALONGA: No. I happen to teach evidence. I would not point to anyone in the absence of hard evidence that would implicate him. But I say it would be difficult for the regime to absolve itself from liability on a ground of the reasons, in view of the reasons that I set forth in my earlier answer.

MacNEIL: Dr. Pauker, what do you think this is going to do now to the moderate, democratic opposition in the Philippines? Is it going to, as we heard from Ms. Planas, radicalize it, drive it to join those few who have already gone into the hills?

Dr. PAUKER: The leaders of the legal opposition, including the late Senator Aquino and others, were very worried in the last few years that they are losing especially the younger generation to the radicals -- that young men and women from the universities are going to the hills, joining the young peasant boys who would like to be guerrillas. There are probably more able-bodied men and women willing to be guerrillas than weapons available to them today in the Philippines. And Senator Aquino told me again and again and again that one of his major tasks was to keep the younger generation and those who are dissatisfied with the regime within the confines of the moderate opposition. I therefore am very pessimistic about the future of the Philippines. I think that a polarization process will continue, and that it will face us with very serious problems. And I would like to add one thing.I think that if the United States government would treat opposition leaders in countries such as our old friend and former colony the Philippines the way we treat opposition leaders in Western countries -- France, England, Germany -- perhaps a leader like Aquino would not have felt that he has prematurely to rush back to his country and see what he can do.He would have been able to wait it out and let the political process take a normal course. But we are not treating the leaders of opposition parties or groups in developing countries as if they were in the same class with the leaders of our Western friends, and this is one of --

MacNEIL: I'm sorry. Professor Gregor, do you agree with that?

Prof. GREGOR: Oh, I think it's substantially correct. The difficulty I have with it is not necessarily in terms of substance, but rather in terms of the analysis of what constitutes a moderate opposition in the Philippines and a moderate opposition in any third-world country. Very often what is considered moderate is relative to what is radical in that environment. But the moderate opposition in the Philippines, for example, very recently announced that it as a group, as an entity, is prepared to abrogate our bases agreement with the Philippines before its normal termination in 1991. That's considered relatively radical rather than moderate, it would seem to me. A great many of the opposition leaders have adopted the policy of what used to be called Filipino nationalism.That is, that the United States and multinational corporations are exploiting the Philippines and they have made scarcely veiled threats about confiscation, or the termination of trade relations or investment opportunities. So moderate is relative. I do believe a great deal of this is rhetoric, of course, but it does make it very difficult for the American government to operate with freedom with respect to people who have preannounced that they will in fact terminate our bases agreement, which are very critical to our future strategic policies, and also a termination of trade and investment opportunities.

MacNEIL: Senator Salonga, briefly, do you think Mr. Reagan should persist with his visit to the Philippines?

Sen. SALONGA: It is not for me, a Filipino, to say whether an American president should continue with his plan to come to the Philippines. But I should think it's time now for the United States government, particularly its high American officials, to begin thinking of the Philippines not in terms of its biggest overseas bases in the world outside, that is, of the United States, to stop thinking of the Philippines in terms of its huge investments, and begin thinking of the Philippines in human terms -- in terms of 50 million people is stripped of their basic human rights.

MacNEIL: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Senator, but we must end it there. Thank you and Professor Gregor and Dr. Pauker for joining us in Los Angeles and Ms. Planas, in Washington. Good night, Jim.