ENDEAVOR
Sonny Coloma
In January 1991, President Corazon Aquino convened a multisectoral workshop that would craft a contingency plan for coping with the effects of the Iraq-Kuwait War.
Recall that in August 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait and declared its annexation as an Iraqi province — in an apparent bid to expand his country’s influence as a major producer of crude oil. By the beginning of 1991, the US and allied countries were poised to attack Iraq and liberate Kuwait. A full-blown war could affect the stability of oil prices and supply.
As there were thousands of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) employed in the Middle East, their safety and livelihood were priority concerns of the Philippine government.
One of the memorable scenes from that era was that the grounds of Malacañang Palace were “occupied” by the people. The Presidential Action Center (PACE) organized by then Executive Secretary Oscar Orbos had established a Libreng Tawag sa Telepono (free telephone call) service for parents, spouses, children and siblings of OFWs who wanted to speak with them to ascertain their safety and wellbeing.
At that time, there were no smartphones; only rotary telephones that could be dialed and used with receivers pressed on one’s ears were used. PACE had several trunk lines available, but these were augmented by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company on orders of their President Antonio ‘Tonyboy’ Cojuangco. When word spread about the free long-distance call service to the Middle East, this brought people by the hundreds to Malacañang.
As I was then working in the Office of the President, I was an eyewitness to this extraordinary scenario. I asked Col. Voltaire Gazmin, head of the Presidential Security Group, if this did not raise concerns about the President’s safety. He said that when the people are happily entering and staying on the grounds of Malacañang, there is little scope for enemies of the state to sow the seeds of destabilization. When people are happy about the leadership shown by their government, threats to national security are minimized.
Participating in the multisectoral workshop that was held at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) were representatives of the following sectors: agrarian, labor, transportation and communications, oil and energy, food producers and manufacturers, academe, business and industry — who met with concerned government policy makers.
They mapped how their sectors could be affected by war in the Middle East and outlined measures for coping with possible contingencies. The oil price and supply situation was reviewed; possible movements of oil prices were plotted. At that time, there was an Oil Price Stabilization Fund and an Energy Regulatory Board that regulated oil prices. In sharp contrast, we are presently in a deregulated environment where oil prices are affected immediately by price movements in global oil markets.
The objective was to ensure that there would be no abrupt spike in oil prices that would be detrimental to public transport operators and to ordinary citizens taking buses and jeepneys for their daily commute. At that time, only the MRT 1 along Taft Avenue was operational.
Stability of prices and supply of rice, fish, meat, poultry and other prime commodities was also ascertained. One of the worst-case scenarios that never materialized, of course, was the possibility of a rice shortage that would cause people to form long queues to obtain rations of the staple food.
Peace and order was another important priority concern. High fuel prices could trigger transport strikes that were potentially unruly and disruptive. Alternative services were identified and primed for possible deployment — but there was no actual need for these.
The entire exercise brought to the fore the importance of people-centered, participative crisis management. When the affected sectors of the public are called to give their inputs — and when their expertise and know-how in addressing potential and actual problems is recognized — problems are minimized and crises are preempted.
When in mid-January 1991, Operation Desert Storm, the American-led military action that liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation during the Persian Gulf War commenced, the Philippines was not in crisis mode. This was because appropriate preparations had been made, contingency plans had been laid out, and the people had been assured that their government was firmly steering the ship of state.
The current Ukraine-Russia conflict may not be directly comparable to the intervention by the United States and its allies in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq through Operation Desert Storm, but there are many similarities.
Of course, today’s situation is also different. The country is just slowly emerging from the paralyzing effects of a nearly two-year lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic. It is also in the midst of an intense political campaign in preparation for national and local elections.
Candidates are given the opportunity to take shots at the issues that have emerged from a conflict thousands of miles away. While its impact may still seem to be far-fetched, it illustrates the need to elect leaders who are prepared to sift through the complex interface of global issues and local realities. They are expected to respond with the same agility and resilience demonstrated by those who were steering the ship of state more than three decades ago.