One of the most amazing things about these atrocities, which took place in many countries, was that they were not at all effective in fighting communism. In many cases they actually contributed to the spread of communism.
To cite the example I know best: Marcos was Our Man in the Philippines because he was Tough On Communism. When Marcos took over, the NPA was 200-300 fighters with a mass base of maybe 50,000 at the outside, limited to 4 provinces of Central Luzon. When he was driven out, they had 40,000 under arms, another 20,000 in training, a mass base well into the millions, and were operating in every province in the country, in some areas with effective control and military parity. Repression in this case was sort of like fighting fire by pouring gasoline on it.
After 6 years of Aquino, who we didn't like because she was said to be "soft on communism", they were down to 15,000, and fading fast. Those familiar with the rebels, including myself, always said that the vast majority of those fighting were there not because they believed the ideology, but because of personal injustices and anger at Marcos' destruction of a tradition that was at least nominally democratic. We were right. When democracy returned - not that it works brilliantly - they quit; the ideologues stayed, but they are marginal and fast getting more marginal.
I once asked a man who was once an NPA commander, now a small businessman and local politician, why he stopped fighting. His answer was that if there is any chance at all for peaceful change, violence is immoral. Before there was no chance, so he fought, now there is a chance, so he stopped.
He is more articulate than many others, but I do not doubt that these sentiments were and are widespread, and not only in this country. |
