Speaker 1: We've spent more than a year on Drill's Real Free
Speaker 1: Speech Threat Season looking at all the ways environmental protests
Speaker 1: is being criminalized around the world. We've looked at who's
Speaker 1: driving that trend, too, from corporate operatives to right wing
Speaker 1: think tanks. There's another network that's been particularly influential where
Speaker 1: it comes to repressing environmental fights around the globe, the
Speaker 1: US military and its national security agencies. For a coverage
Speaker 1: of the Copcity protests, I examined how the post nine
Speaker 1: to eleven War on Terror incentivized a crackdown on environmental
Speaker 1: activists who have been labeled eco terrorists and environmental violent extremists.
Speaker 1: This is not just true in the US. America's approach
Speaker 1: to terrorism, and the way it's been used to crack
Speaker 1: down on peaceful protests has spread across the globe. There's
Speaker 1: one place that really stands out as a clear example,
Speaker 1: the Philippines. The country sits toward the top of lists
Speaker 1: of dangerous countries for land defenders. People are killed there
Speaker 1: every year for trying to protect the environment. That's because
Speaker 1: the Filipino government routinely labels political opponents as communist terrorists,
Speaker 1: which can lead to assassinations, disappearances, and abductions. Indigenous organizers
Speaker 1: and environmental activists are often the targets. As I started
Speaker 1: looking into it, a detail caught my eye. In the
Speaker 1: wake of nine to eleven, the UN Security Council essentially
Speaker 1: required that countries pass counter terror laws, and the Philippines
Speaker 1: did just that. At the same time, the US offered
Speaker 1: the Philippines military aid to crack down on terror. I
Speaker 1: began to realize that a version of what I documented
Speaker 1: in the US had also happened in the Philippines. Those
Speaker 1: policies I had been investigating from thousands of miles away
Speaker 1: were actually rooted right here at home in the US.
Speaker 1: To understand what was really going on, I decided to
Speaker 1: get to know one of these so called terrorists that's
Speaker 1: coming after the break. I'm Alan Brown, and this is Drilled.
Speaker 2: I am a Windo la boulnot the chairperson of the
Speaker 2: Cordelliera People's Alliance. I am an indigenous Igoru, the collective
Speaker 2: word referring to the indigenous peoples here in the Cordillera,
Speaker 2: part of Northern Philippines.
Speaker 1: The Cordeliera People's Alliance is one of the most important
Speaker 1: indigenous and environmental organizations in the Philippines. They're based in
Speaker 1: a part of the archipelago that is defined by lush,
Speaker 1: green mountains that have long been a target for extractive industries.
Speaker 1: It's also a region where indigenous people have long struggled
Speaker 1: for their rights. That makes his homeland a military hotspot too.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty three, Windel was labeled a terrorists under
Speaker 1: a new terrorism law. But his story began much earlier.
Speaker 2: Even during my younger days in my home Bayle Age,
Speaker 2: I was witnessed to the ongoing civil war and the
Speaker 2: armed conflict.
Speaker 1: At times, the military would take over his school's classrooms.
Speaker 2: We were just kids that time, and we don't know
Speaker 2: the serious implications of this, but what we saw the
Speaker 2: times that the classrooms that we are supposed to use
Speaker 2: are occupied by the Philippine military. So sometimes we heard
Speaker 2: that near the rights films or just outside the community,
Speaker 2: there are firefights and we really hear the shooting and
Speaker 2: the guns.
Speaker 1: It was a stark contrast to what Wendell was learning
Speaker 1: outside the classroom.
Speaker 3: I grew up in an indigenous village.
Speaker 2: It was a difficult life, a difficult life, but meaningful.
Speaker 2: I attended the activities that boys in our villages do
Speaker 2: help with my parents in our economic and home activities,
Speaker 2: join my parents in plowing the fields, planting and harvesting
Speaker 2: rice vegetables.
Speaker 3: Gathering firewood from the forest.
Speaker 2: During Saturdays and Sundays, when there's no classes, I attend.
Speaker 3: To the what do you call this? You know, we
Speaker 3: have this author or.
Speaker 2: Which is the political and socio cultural center of the village,
Speaker 2: and this is led and governed by the Council of elders.
Speaker 2: And as indigenous boys, we are there to listen to
Speaker 2: stories with the elders, slip there and there we learn
Speaker 2: the affairs of the communities. I really realized from those
Speaker 2: childhood the teachings that land is life for indigenous peoples.
Speaker 2: In our ancestral land, in our ancestral domain, that's where
Speaker 2: we stay, that's where we're born, that's where we live
Speaker 2: and die. And this has been defended and nurtured by
Speaker 2: our ancestors. Those teachings are very valuable and meaningful, and
Speaker 2: it has to be passed on also for future generations.
Speaker 1: Window's earliest involvement in protest was less about protecting the
Speaker 1: environment and more about fighting the militarization of his community.
Speaker 1: So he would soon find that the two went hand
Speaker 1: in hand.
Speaker 3: Inside and to us.
Speaker 2: One kid was killed when a soldiers fired and killed
Speaker 2: due civilian a child. When there was a protest, Lali
Speaker 2: organized I joined.
Speaker 1: Many people outside the Philippines are unaware that the country
Speaker 1: has been embroiled in a civil conflict for more than
Speaker 1: fifty years. It began during the Cold War under the
Speaker 1: brutal dictatorship of Ferdinand Marco's senior. To understand what happened,
Speaker 1: it's useful to look at how the Philippines came to
Speaker 1: have a special relationship with the USA. Jason Lambcheck, a
Speaker 1: Filipino research fellow at Deacon University in Melbourne who has
Speaker 1: researched human rights and counter terrorism in the Philippines, walked
Speaker 1: me through it.
Speaker 4: After becoming free from Spain and the Americans game through
Speaker 4: the Philippines and colonized the Philippines until World War Two,
Speaker 4: and after that we became him officially an independent country,
Speaker 4: but we maintained so called special relationship with the United States.
Speaker 4: For example, we hosted American basis in the Philippines for
Speaker 4: a long time. We were like Cold War allies in
Speaker 4: that region. All of our governments were like rabbid anti
Speaker 4: communist governments supporting the United States in the region.
Speaker 1: The most infamous of these rabbid anti communist governments was
Speaker 1: led by Marcos.
Speaker 4: As you know, you may know, we had like a
Speaker 4: twenty plus year period in which we only had one
Speaker 4: president who sort of was the law of the land.
Speaker 4: He was a dictator, so there was not much room
Speaker 4: for resisting the regime through open, you know, political contestations
Speaker 4: such as true elections, and so a lot of people,
Speaker 4: you know, I thought it was illogical to resist the
Speaker 4: Marcus regime true armed resistance, and that's why you have
Speaker 4: the NBA and the CPP. The CPP stands for Communist
Speaker 4: Party of the Philippines, and it has an armed wing
Speaker 4: called the New People's Army, and they arose in the
Speaker 4: nineteen sixties in resistance to the Marcus dictatorship.
Speaker 1: Years of martial law and human rights violations didn't stop
Speaker 1: the US government from providing hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: in aid to the Marcos government. The dictator was seen
Speaker 1: as a strategic ally and fighting communism in the region.
Speaker 1: It was during these same years that the Filipino environmental
Speaker 1: movement was born. So right from the beginning the easiest
Speaker 1: way to undermine it was to paint it communist red.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest environmental battles in the Philippines during
Speaker 1: those years was the fight the Cordeliera people put up
Speaker 1: again the Chico River dam project.
Speaker 2: The Cordelliera peoples were threatened with the building of big
Speaker 2: hydropower dams under the dictator Marcos, whose son now the
Speaker 2: junior is now the president. Unfortunately, that was to be
Speaker 2: funded by the World Bank. If the project was not
Speaker 2: a successfully stopped, then it would have displaced around the
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand people along the Chico River.
Speaker 1: The indigenous people of the Cordelier region organized the obstructed construction,
Speaker 1: participated in acts of sabotage, and were at times joined
Speaker 1: by armed members of the New People's Army. The dam
Speaker 1: project was never completed, however. One of the leaders of
Speaker 1: the resistance to the dams, machli In Dulag, was shot
Speaker 1: and killed in his home in nineteen eighty and remains
Speaker 1: a symbol of the indigenous and environmental movement in the Philippines.
Speaker 2: Historic and brave resistance of these communities in the face
Speaker 2: of Martialllow was really inspiring. I learned that it's really
Speaker 2: their right to defend and it was a just cause
Speaker 2: to resist.
Speaker 1: The Chico River Dam wouldn't be the last project the
Speaker 1: Cordeliera people would fight on their land.
Speaker 2: The Cordillera is targeted again of several big mining projects
Speaker 2: by local and foreign corporations, big hydro power dump projectstermal
Speaker 2: geothermal power projects with milk or with farm projects again
Speaker 2: to provide energy, when in fact the ordeal is already
Speaker 2: host to several big dumb projects. So we are not
Speaker 2: taking this sitting down. It is our collective obligation to
Speaker 2: defend and nurtured the environment for the future nations. It
Speaker 2: is in indigenous communities where you can find biodiversity, the
Speaker 2: remaining rich forests and the environment, because we have always
Speaker 2: believed that land is life and the land should not
Speaker 2: be endangered for the sake of profit, because that's not
Speaker 2: how indigenous peoples look at land in resources.
Speaker 1: When he left college in nineteen ninety six, Windows started
Speaker 1: working for the Cordelier People's Alliance, which grew out of
Speaker 1: the fight against the Chico River Dam.
Speaker 2: We do barricades to prevent the equipments of these companies
Speaker 2: to come inside. We bardicade to prevent them from operations.
Speaker 2: We organize mass mobilizations and protest actions. We engage international
Speaker 2: governmental bodies as the United Nations. But most important is
Speaker 2: community organizing, and not just the organizing of affected communities,
Speaker 2: but also so the different sectors of youth, women, farmers,
Speaker 2: and even the elders.
Speaker 1: Unlike some of the Chico River Dam activists, the land
Speaker 1: defenders with the Cordelier People's Alliance are not armed, but
Speaker 1: those opposing their work are. Wendell couldn't have known when
Speaker 1: he began this work what he would face in the
Speaker 1: years ahead. The Filipino government branded Windel an armed communist.
Speaker 1: They charged him with murder, They put him on a
Speaker 1: hit list. Most recently, they officially labeled him a terrorist.
Speaker 2: Several of my colleagues in CPA have been killed by
Speaker 2: state forces, abducted, and several of them are not yet
Speaker 2: surfaced until now illegally detained because of what we do.
Speaker 1: About two hundred and ten landed environmental defenders were killed
Speaker 1: in the Philippines between twenty fourteen and twenty twenty four alone.
Speaker 1: There's evidence of state involvement in one hundred and nine
Speaker 1: of those cases. According to a recent investigation by in
Speaker 1: These Times magazine. Wendell joined the CPA at a turning
Speaker 1: point for Filipino environmental defenders. A few years after he
Speaker 1: was hired, Global events would provide the Filipino government with
Speaker 1: a cover to pursue him as a terrorist.
Speaker 5: Every nation in every region now has a decision to
Speaker 5: make either you are with us or you are with
Speaker 5: the terrorists.
Speaker 1: A little over a week after nine to eleven, US
Speaker 1: President George Bush gave a speech to Congress launching what
Speaker 1: would become known as the Global War on Terror.
Speaker 5: From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor
Speaker 5: or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States
Speaker 5: is a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice.
Speaker 5: We're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures
Speaker 5: against terrorism to protect Americans today, dozens of federal departments
Speaker 5: and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have
Speaker 5: responsibilities affecting home land security. These efforts must be coordinated
Speaker 5: at the highest level, So tonight I announced the creation
Speaker 5: of a cabinet level position reporting directly to me the
Speaker 5: Office of Homeland Security, and tonight I also announced that
Speaker 5: distinguished American to lead this effort.
Speaker 1: It's difficult to overstate the role of the US led
Speaker 1: a global war on terror in the global criminalization of
Speaker 1: land defenders. In the US, corporations had spent the nineteen
Speaker 1: nineties trying to get police to pursue eco saboteurs as terrorists.
Speaker 1: After nine to eleven, their wishes were granted. Across the US.
Speaker 1: Facilities called fusion centers popped up in state after state,
Speaker 1: Operating under the newly created Department of Homeland Security. They
Speaker 1: brought together national security officials and local and federal law
Speaker 1: enforcement to surveil environmental activists. The agency developed a whole
Speaker 1: language for classifying activists that damaged property as domestic terrorists
Speaker 1: or environmental violent extremists. At the same time, new law
Speaker 1: enforcement resources and incentives encouraged policing of those activities, and
Speaker 1: new penalties like the Terrorism Sentencing Enhancement meant they faced
Speaker 1: even more severe punishments then. Soldiers trained in counterinsurgency during
Speaker 1: the US anti terror wars in Afghanistan and Iraq brought
Speaker 1: wartime tactics into private security companies hired by corporations to
Speaker 1: protect everything from factory farms to pipelines. Nearly twenty five
Speaker 1: year years after nine to eleven, the US government's aggressive
Speaker 1: push for a crackdown on terrorism continues to play an
Speaker 1: indelible role in US struggles for land and water. In
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. A similar pattern played out,
Speaker 1: driven by US foreign policy as.
Speaker 6: The ash was smoldering, as the Twin Towers had fallen.
Speaker 6: Security Council meets and in that first month they create
Speaker 6: a new resolution UN Security Council Resolution thirteen seventy three.
Speaker 7: We have adopted a very ambitious, comprehensive strategy to find
Speaker 7: theorism in all its form throughout the world.
Speaker 6: The meeting is a job, but there's no agreed definition
Speaker 6: of terrorism. So each state essentially has got to define
Speaker 6: what terrorism is on its own terms. And the absence
Speaker 6: of a common definition has meant that there's been this
Speaker 6: real ripeness for abuse.
Speaker 1: That was Finula Nieline, the recently departed UN Special Rapperture
Speaker 1: on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights, speaking in a short
Speaker 1: UN documentary.
Speaker 6: States get to define whomever they like as a terrorist
Speaker 6: with almost no consequence at the domestic level. And so
Speaker 6: what we're seeing around the globe is the imprisonment of
Speaker 6: civil society. Actor we're seeing direct targeting. In some cases,
Speaker 6: they're killing by the permissive framework of counter terrorism.
Speaker 1: The documentary was made to go with a damning report
Speaker 1: that was released in twenty twenty three on the impact
Speaker 1: for human rights defenders of over twenty years of counter
Speaker 1: terror efforts. The report underlined that in every region of
Speaker 1: the world, defenders are targeted with legislation and other measures
Speaker 1: purportedly designed to counter terrorism. The United States drafted that
Speaker 1: United Nations resolution that she mentioned. The US also pushed
Speaker 1: another international body, called the Financial Action Task Force, to
Speaker 1: create new standards meant to prevent terrorism funding. The Task
Speaker 1: Force explicitly called on governments to ensure that nonprofit organizations
Speaker 1: cannot be misused to finance terrorism. It encouraged countries to
Speaker 1: pass laws freezing accounts linked to terrorism. A complex architecture
Speaker 1: of international anti terrorism institutions and policies was being constructed,
Speaker 1: and it continues to justify repressive measures today. Here's Jason
Speaker 1: from Deacon University again.
Speaker 4: The legacy of the warrant there in the Philippines, you know,
Speaker 4: is really profound. When the war error started at the
Speaker 4: Philippine government was one of the first to sign up
Speaker 4: to the so called Coalition of the Willing President Arroya.
Speaker 4: Then I saw that as an opportunity to reignite military
Speaker 4: relations with the United States. The Communists were in peacetocks
Speaker 4: with the Philippine government, but that broke down because eventually
Speaker 4: the nits the States tagged the cpp NPA as therorists.
Speaker 4: The Philippine government recast not the way it saw these
Speaker 4: centers first armed the centers armed groups who were you know,
Speaker 4: locked in arms struggled with the Philippine government as terrorists.
Speaker 4: So at first it was just the Abusa group which
Speaker 4: was which was sort of like this kidnapper ransom group,
Speaker 4: which was also engaged in bombings, and then eventually the
Speaker 4: leftist the communists, so the National Democratic Front, the new
Speaker 4: People's arm in the Communist Party if the Philippines were
Speaker 4: branded as therorists. And then besides these groups who are
Speaker 4: engaged in armed conflict with the government, people who were
Speaker 4: engaged in peacepool dissent, such as the above ground leftist
Speaker 4: organizations who were ideologically aligned in the Communist Party but
Speaker 4: not organizationally aligned, were also considered part of this so
Speaker 4: called communist terrorist movement, just.
Speaker 1: As it had in the US, in the Philippines, this
Speaker 1: new approach to terrorism meant a massive expansion of who
Speaker 1: was considered a terrorist.
Speaker 4: Above ground activists have always been sort of like fair game,
Speaker 4: but with the War on Terror, you also had an
Speaker 4: added dimension that this was all sort of like legitimate
Speaker 4: from an international point of view, because, as you know,
Speaker 4: the United States also engaged in a diplomatic slash legal campaign.
Speaker 4: The notion of countering terrorism became sort of like an
Speaker 4: international obligation on everyone.
Speaker 1: Right in the midst of the Filipino government newly revamped
Speaker 1: counterinsurgency crackdown, Windle got his first serious taste of repression.
Speaker 2: In two thousand and six, my name appeared in a
Speaker 2: military hit list. This military hit list was a list
Speaker 2: of some leaders of CPA and the Cordella People's Movement
Speaker 2: targeted for assassination, and some of my colleagues who were
Speaker 2: in that list were killed. For example, Marcus Bangitt, one
Speaker 2: of my colleagues in CIPA, was killed in June two
Speaker 2: thousand and six in front of his son when they
Speaker 2: were bound from Tabuk to Baggio and accompany his son
Speaker 2: supposedly to enroll in tali Age, but.
Speaker 3: When the bus stopped for the passengers.
Speaker 2: To rest and eat, a military assasin fired several shots
Speaker 2: against Marcus Bangit.
Speaker 3: I was afraid.
Speaker 2: The normal and expected reaction was we fear for our security,
Speaker 2: and not just us individually, but also our family and
Speaker 2: colleagues in the organization as a whole.
Speaker 1: We knows of the killings and threats. Made him seriously
Speaker 1: consider stepping away from his activism.
Speaker 3: Of course, to.
Speaker 2: Be honest about it, because I have four children, I
Speaker 2: have a wife, I have siblings and parents, and my
Speaker 2: parents advised me, why don't you just stop before being
Speaker 2: killed like your colleagues, because the killings and abjuccess are
Speaker 2: really high opining. It's not just a public statement of
Speaker 2: the state. The reign of peror is really there. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but I resolved to myself that this is precisely why
Speaker 2: they are doing this, to stop us from what we
Speaker 2: are doing, to silence us from the cause we are advancing,
Speaker 2: and we should not allow what they want.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: A difficult process that I really have to process within myself,
Speaker 2: my family and convince my siblings and of course my parents.
Speaker 1: Amid growing anxiety among environmental and human rights defenders, and
Speaker 1: with encouragement from the US government, the Philippines passed a
Speaker 1: new anti terrorism law, the Human Security Act of two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven. It would soon be followed by a
Speaker 1: terrorism financing law in twenty twelve. The legal foundations were
Speaker 1: being laid to formalize repression against government dissenters like Windel.
Speaker 2: The role of the US in this so called counter
Speaker 2: terror legislations is clear.
Speaker 3: So the US is also to.
Speaker 2: Be blamed about the impacts of this so called terror
Speaker 2: laws in committing serious and widespread violations of human rights
Speaker 2: and international humanitarian law in the Philippines. And that is
Speaker 2: happening now, and that is even happening to me.
Speaker 1: You'd think being put on a military hit list would
Speaker 1: be about as bad as government repression gets. But more
Speaker 1: than a decade later, under the authoritarian leadership of President
Speaker 1: Rodrigo Duterte, things not even worse for Filipino land defenders.
Speaker 1: In twenty eighteen, du Tert's Department of Justice filed a
Speaker 1: petition declaring over six hundred people terrorists under the Human
Speaker 1: Security Act. The list included not only Wendel, but also
Speaker 1: the UN Special Rappertoire on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Speaker 1: Victoria Taui Corpus, as well as several former Catholic priests
Speaker 1: and a former lawmaker. The court was unconvinced, and several names,
Speaker 1: including Windells, were dropped, But the Duterte administration didn't give up.
Speaker 1: They started passing more severe laws and policies. First, there
Speaker 1: was Executive Order seventy in twenty eighteen, which introduced a
Speaker 1: so called whole of nation approach to crushing the perceived
Speaker 1: communist resistance movement in the country. The order established the
Speaker 1: National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, a
Speaker 1: body that now routinely labels Induvadi jewels and groups as communists.
Speaker 1: This is the practice I mentioned before. It's called red tagging,
Speaker 1: and the country's environmental movement is often the target. Then
Speaker 1: the pandemic hit. The new crisis provided to Terairt's government
Speaker 1: an opportunity to hit land defenders harder than Windell had
Speaker 1: seen in his lifetime.
Speaker 2: We mobilized distributing medicines, medical equipment against COVID, distributing rice
Speaker 2: supplies and groceries because during that time, the economic impact
Speaker 2: of pandemic was really hard, especially to the poor people
Speaker 2: and indigenous peoples.
Speaker 1: At the same time, Wendell and his family began experiencing
Speaker 1: escalating attacks. In April twenty twenty, photos of his children
Speaker 1: in indigenous attire began circulating on Facebook.
Speaker 2: Then made a layout like a collad then posted it
Speaker 2: stating that these are the children of an in pay
Speaker 2: of a terrorist like that, and that time my youngest
Speaker 2: was still a minor sixteen years. All that time, he
Speaker 2: received some bad messages in his messenger, of course, being
Speaker 2: tagged or branded a son of an m pay, son
Speaker 2: of a terrorist, and being.
Speaker 3: Just a kid.
Speaker 2: He does not know how to respond to that, or
Speaker 2: he does not know anything about that, but he knows
Speaker 2: that he's being bullied or being persecuted, and sometimes he
Speaker 2: will just cry, and it was really traumatic for him.
Speaker 2: This all happened at a time that our movements are restricted.
Speaker 2: The state forces are are the ones free rooming around,
Speaker 2: and they are more in control because they have weaponized
Speaker 2: the pandemic for state prosecution against activists like us.
Speaker 1: Then, in December twenty twenty, someone who worked with the
Speaker 1: government leaked some disturbing news to Windle.
Speaker 2: I was surprised and shocked to learn that I was
Speaker 2: charged with murder along with several people in a regional
Speaker 2: trial court in Tagum City in Dabou del Norti, which
Speaker 2: I have never been to in my entire life, so
Speaker 2: I have to go for a sanctuary away from my family.
Speaker 2: So during the Christmas break and the new year of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one, I was away from my colleagues's family.
Speaker 1: With Window and hiding. The chief of the Philippines National
Speaker 1: Police publicly issued a shoot kill order against Windle. They
Speaker 1: hung a wanted poster near Window's home featuring his photo
Speaker 1: and a bounty, so it.
Speaker 2: Was really deleted to bareify me and even to terrorize
Speaker 2: my neighbors.
Speaker 3: That I am a terrorist. I am a one ped
Speaker 3: you know that.
Speaker 1: July, the charges were simply dismissed, but de Terte's onslaught continued.
Speaker 1: His administration pushed through yet another terrorism law, the Anti
Speaker 1: Terrorism Act, which would allow yet another panel of government officials,
Speaker 1: known as the Anti Terrorism Council, to designate people as terrorists.
Speaker 1: This time, Australia provided technical assistance in drafting the revamped
Speaker 1: anti terrorism law. They knew full well that it would
Speaker 1: be administered by a government that was internationally infamous for
Speaker 1: its human rights violations. The international pressure to crack down
Speaker 1: on so called terrorism continued to In twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: the Financial Action Task Force put the Philippines on its
Speaker 1: so called gray list and encourage the country to prosecute
Speaker 1: more terrorism financing cases. Here's Jason from taking university again.
Speaker 4: So these legal developments in the Philippines attest to the
Speaker 4: fact that the pressure from outside from the US, the
Speaker 4: UN Security Council, and all the other countries have been
Speaker 4: supporting this conti terrorism agenda has been persistent, and so
Speaker 4: I characterize this pressure as like ritualistic. The international actors
Speaker 4: who are pushing the conter terrorism agenda in the Philippines,
Speaker 4: they're so obsessed with trying to update our counter terrorism
Speaker 4: laws to tend to be consistent with the latest US
Speaker 4: security standards, without considering now the politics of terrorism in
Speaker 4: the Philippines. So people sometimes think that the Anti Terrorism
Speaker 4: Law is a good thing because you have a legal
Speaker 4: framework which limits how government exercises its power when conducting
Speaker 4: county terrorism. Right, But that's not how it works in
Speaker 4: the Philippines.
Speaker 1: Windows organizations fought the Anti Terrorism Law all the way
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court, but the court upheld most
Speaker 1: of the laws provisions. The Chairite left office in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, so it was up to a new president
Speaker 1: to roll out the Anti Terrorism Act. The new president
Speaker 1: had a familiar name, Ferdinand Marcos Junior, the son of
Speaker 1: the former dictator.
Speaker 2: We campaigned against him, but unfortunately he became the president
Speaker 2: and the policies of the previous thirty administration, especially the
Speaker 2: bladish human rights record, remains to be the same. Under
Speaker 2: Marcus Junior administration, the militarization and red bagging against activists
Speaker 2: continued the same, and it's a non stuck, which is
Speaker 2: why we see that Marcos Juniors administration is practically the
Speaker 2: same as his father's administration.
Speaker 1: In the summer of twenty twenty three, as Windell was
Speaker 1: getting ready to go into the office, he got a
Speaker 1: message from one of his colleagues. They had just read
Speaker 1: in the newspaper that a month earlier, the Anti Terrorism
Speaker 1: Council had officially labeled Windele and four of his colleagues terrorists.
Speaker 1: Just as he had predicted, the new terror law was
Speaker 1: now being aimed directly at land defenders. It was deja vu,
Speaker 1: the same old tactics being used by a new administration
Speaker 1: using the new law.
Speaker 2: I am a civilian, I am an activist, not armed,
Speaker 2: and I am not a fist.
Speaker 1: When a member of the Cordeliera People's a Line went
Speaker 1: to the bank. They were handed a letter from the
Speaker 1: Anti Money Laundering Council. It noted Wendell's terrorism designation. His
Speaker 1: organization's bank account was now frozen.
Speaker 2: It was me who was designated. Say it was not
Speaker 2: SPA or the organization who was designated. But why is
Speaker 2: it that the account of the organization of cp was frozen.
Speaker 3: It was not CPA.
Speaker 2: Just because I am the chair person does not mean
Speaker 2: that I control and own CPAY and own these accounts.
Speaker 1: The appeal to the Anti Terrorism Council to delist Windell
Speaker 1: and his colleagues, but they were denied and since then
Speaker 1: Wendell has been forced to live with this latest attempt
Speaker 1: to silence him. The Philippines Department of Justice did not
Speaker 1: respond to questions from Drilled about the designation.
Speaker 2: Me as an individual needs to survive on a daily basis,
Speaker 2: the modest the allowance I from CPA has been stopped
Speaker 2: when the CPE account was frozen. That other three colleagues,
Speaker 2: they also have their own family, They have needs of
Speaker 2: their children. These are greatly affected. So practically killing me softly?
Speaker 2: You know, how should our family survive? How an organization survive?
Speaker 2: And the communities who are dependent on the services being
Speaker 2: supported by these projects.
Speaker 1: In addition to the freezing of the bank accounts, the
Speaker 1: designation also means Windle could be arrested at any time
Speaker 1: and detained for up to twenty four days with no warrant.
Speaker 1: Another effect of the designation legal surveillance.
Speaker 3: Of course we knew that even before we were designated,
Speaker 3: we have been under surveillance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but this time it is legal, and so perhaps
Speaker 2: when we are doing this interview they can be listening legally.
Speaker 1: Of even greater concern is the looming threat to windles
Speaker 1: family safety.
Speaker 2: To be declared or designated as a therorist. It's already
Speaker 2: practically towards a dead sentence. Oh your children are Oh
Speaker 2: that's a children of a terrorist. Or your wife, Oh
Speaker 2: that's a husband of a terrorist. Or your communities, those
Speaker 2: are terrorists.
Speaker 1: His experience isn't isolated. Around the world, anti terrorism laws
Speaker 1: and counter terrorism efforts have had serious consequences for land defenders.
Speaker 1: For example, the Financial Action Task Force pressured India to
Speaker 1: comply with its Post nine to eleven standard on monitoring nonprofits.
Speaker 1: So India introduced or updated multiple laws, such as the
Speaker 1: Foreign Contribution Regulation Act or VICRA that it now routinely
Speaker 1: uses to attack nonprofits and freeze their accounts. In Algeria,
Speaker 1: an anti fracking protester was sentenced to prison time for
Speaker 1: glorification of terrorism over a Facebook post. Chile has repeatedly
Speaker 1: used its anti terrorism law to go after indigenous Mapuch people.
Speaker 1: In twenty fifteen, France was home to the climate conference
Speaker 1: that generated the foundational, if flawed, Paris Agreement. In the
Speaker 1: middle of it all, the French government declared an anti
Speaker 1: terrorism state of emergency, curtailing climate protests and placing two
Speaker 1: dozen activists under house arrest. Outside the legal system, environmental
Speaker 1: defenders are routinely slandered as terrorists by industry groups, right
Speaker 1: wing news outlets, and government officials too. It would be
Speaker 1: an oversimplification to claim that all of this was because
Speaker 1: of US War on Terror pressure, but Bush's addressed to
Speaker 1: Congress and everything that came after it sent a clear
Speaker 1: message anything called terrorism must be crushed.
Speaker 4: Warrant there in the Philippines may have had a life
Speaker 4: of its own, may have merged with the phenomena, but
Speaker 4: the United States and other countries have ignored how the
Speaker 4: counter terrorism agenda has played out in the Philippines, and
Speaker 4: they have been pushing, pushing, and pushing the Philippines to
Speaker 4: enact this and that revision to the counter terrorism law,
Speaker 4: as if counterterrorism is something that you can do without
Speaker 4: any nasty political consequences.
Speaker 1: There are mechanisms the US government could use to prevent
Speaker 1: abuses of environmental activists in the Philippines. According to the
Speaker 1: Lakey Law, it's illegal for the US to provide funds
Speaker 1: to a foreign security force if there's evidence that they've
Speaker 1: been involved in gross violations of human rights. However, the
Speaker 1: law hasn't slowed the flow of you arms and training
Speaker 1: into the Philippines. Marcos happens to be a major national
Speaker 1: security ally of the United States. With the Philippines increasingly
Speaker 1: viewed as a bulwark against China, the US has poured
Speaker 1: military aid into the country. In July twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: for example, US officials announced half a billion dollars in
Speaker 1: new military funding for the Philippines. For its part, the
Speaker 1: Philippines is allowing the US new access to military bases.
Speaker 2: The role of the US is very clear, not just
Speaker 2: its support to the Israeli genocide in Palestine, but also
Speaker 2: supporting the Philippine government and the armed forces of the
Speaker 2: Philippines and the so called anti terrorism encounter insurgency, but
Speaker 2: it is resulting in bloody human rights violations against the people.
Speaker 1: Marcos and the US have made it to give all
Speaker 1: this a green veneer. The Filipino president has claimed that
Speaker 1: his decision to give the US access to more military
Speaker 1: bases was not actually because of China.
Speaker 8: It was really because of the effects of climate change
Speaker 8: and the increasing instances of disasters in the Philippines.
Speaker 1: Marcos claimed that the bases would make it easier for
Speaker 1: the US to provide disaster relief in the wake of
Speaker 1: increasingly severe typhoons. The US, on the other hand, has
Speaker 1: promised to support the Filipino government in its exploitation of
Speaker 1: so called critical minerals like nickel that are needed to
Speaker 1: build renewable energy infrastructure and manufacture batteries. Filipino environmental defenders
Speaker 1: are concerned that the transition away from the fossil fuel
Speaker 1: industry will be made at their expense. Wendel and the
Speaker 1: CPA are fighting back against his terrorism charges. They file
Speaker 1: the lo lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the anti terrorism law,
Speaker 1: but the relentless cycle of attacks has continued.
Speaker 2: Just three days ago or four days ago, my name
Speaker 2: again and my photo, my picture with some of my
Speaker 2: colleagues in CPA was again included in a big tarpaulin
Speaker 2: which contaigns alleged leaders and members of the cppn PA
Speaker 2: in the Locals Cordellera region.
Speaker 1: The poster, which was also presented at a local village assembly,
Speaker 1: included windows home address and instructed community members to contact
Speaker 1: the military with any information about his whereabouts.
Speaker 2: I'm not hiding otherwise I otherwise I will not behaving
Speaker 2: this online interview with you. They know my address, they
Speaker 2: know my home address, they know our office address, then
Speaker 2: they can just cut right. Their aim is really to
Speaker 2: demonize us and set the political terrain for our neutralization.
Speaker 2: This is not really about terrorism. It is about killing democracy,
Speaker 2: killing civilians.
Speaker 3: It's really to protect.
Speaker 2: The power and the businesses by criminalizing, and the terror
Speaker 2: is stagging indigenous people's struggles like what we do here
Speaker 2: in the cordell Era. The impact is so devastating, but
Speaker 2: that's part of the struggle.
Speaker 3: I continue to convince myself about that.
Speaker 1: Drilled is an original Critical Frequency production. This episode was
Speaker 1: reported and written by me Allen Brown. I was also
Speaker 1: the senior editor for Our Real free Speech threat series.
Speaker 3: Our senior producer is montez Altz.
Speaker 2: Last week, Martin also did the sound design, scoring and
Speaker 2: composed much of our music.
Speaker 1: Editing is Sarah Ventry, Mixing and mastering by Peter.
Speaker 3: Duff, fact checking by Wooden Jan.
Speaker 1: Our artwork was created by Matt Fleming. Our First Amendment
Speaker 1: attorney is James Sweeton. Our theme song is Bird in
Speaker 1: the Hand by a Forenown. The show was created and
Speaker 1: executive produced by Amy Westervelt. You can find more episodes
Speaker 1: from this season, as well as several print stories on
Speaker 1: our website at Drill dot media. To support our work
Speaker 1: or sign up for our weekly newsletter, visit patreon dot
Speaker 1: com slash drilled. Thanks for listening. Make sure you're subscribed
Speaker 1: so you don't miss our next season. About yet another
Speaker 1: chapter in the repression of environmental protest, the year's long
Speaker 1: reaction to the Standing Rock protests, chan
Speaker 6: And change