Political Science Professor Clarita Carlos says there won?t be any major change in US policy toward the Philippines whether Barack Obama or John McCain wins. But there will be a ?sea change? in the way the US deals with the world under an Obama presidency, which will affect us as well. ?He is more tolerant than McCain, who belongs to the old school and whose assumptions are still within the Cold War framework.? [Read story]

Ramon Casiple says there won?t be any dramatic change with either president. If there are any changes at all, they will be more in the nuances, such as how to deal with Muslim insurgents. Unless a major political crisis erupts here, or we or they change attitudes toward China, US policy toward the Philippines will be as before. In any case, it will remain in the hands of the State Department, not in presidential ones.

National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales says it will be business as usual for either president. ?The US policy was set a long time ago. It?s very stable. After the elections, there won?t be any major change. Essentially, it?s the same for us.?

I agree that if you look at it from the perspective of Policy (with a capital ?P?) or the larger, longer-term, perspective, the changes won?t be eye-popping. We?re just one very small blip in one very huge radar, and half the time we don?t even register in it. Neither Obama nor McCain mentioned the Philippines at any time during their campaign while talking of fighting terrorism.

But if you look at it from the perspective of policies (with a lowercase ?p?) or the finer, more day-to-day perspective, some of the changes could turn out to be dramatic, even starkly so. I personally expect, or hope for, some very dramatic changes in one respect.

That is human rights.

Our situation today gives me a sense of déjà vu. Then we had Ferdinand Marcos and the US had Jimmy Carter who fought Gerald Ford (and won) and Ronald Reagan (and lost). Now we have Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the US has Obama who is fighting McCain (and will probably win). Marcos then was openly rooting for the Republican candidate and was even rumored to have contributed to Reagan?s kitty. Arroyo is probably doing the same today, short of the contributions, which she and her husband would rather give to charity, which begins at home. The reason for it was/is simple: Carter was bad news for Marcos? human rights record. Obama is bad news for Arroyo?s human rights record.

Carter didn?t just promise to make life miserable for tyrants across the globe, including America?s favorite ones, he made good on it. Not least in the Philippines, sending Pat Derian, his assistant secretary of state for human rights, to us. Derian took her work deathly seriously and did make life miserable for Marcos. Among the first things she did was to intervene in the case of Trinidad Herrera. Herrera, a well-known (not least to the Americans; they had recognized her work for the poor in the past) urban-poor organizer, had been picked up by uniformed goons and tortured in the police camp in Bicutan. She was in a state of shock when American officials spoke with her. The US Embassy protested her detention, and she was promptly released.

This case became a symbol of sorts in a country where symbols take special resonance. Who knows how worse the martial law predilection for torture and mayhem might have been without it.

The same is true today. Obama has repeatedly said he would not abide dictators even as he would fight terrorism to the death. He has said it about Afghanistan, he has said it about Pakistan, he has said it about various American allies. The way to fight terrorism, he says, is to strengthen the foundations of democracy. How true he will be to his word, of course, remains to be seen. But he doesn?t strike one as a public official who likes to say one thing and do the exact opposite.

As in Marcos? time, murder and mayhem are running riot in this country again. Gonzales says nothing will change whether Obama or McCain becomes US president. He wishes. If Obama wins, the killings of journalists and political activists won?t be lost on the eyes of Washington. If Obama wins, the complaints of Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, and the UN Special Rapporteur about the Philippines? ?culture of impunity? won?t be lost on the ears of Washington. Certainly, Obama won?t dismiss Philip Alston as ?just a ?muchacho? [houseboy] of the UN.? While at this, I?d be very curious to hear what Raul Gonzalez has to say about a black US president.

With Gonzales and company now going for high-profile targets (the latest is James Balao, an outstanding alumnus of the University of the Philippines in Baguio City and founding member of the Cordillera People?s Alliance) in a bloody, archaic and senseless campaign to rid the world of communists, or people they presume to be so, an Obama presidency will be as welcome to them as an Arroyo impeachment. One case especially has the potential to become America?s symbolic gesture to restore human rights to the Philippines, and that is the case of Jonas Burgos. Jonas? father at least, if not Jonas himself, is well known to Americans. Joe Burgos was named one of the 100 most important journalists in the world by international news organizations at the end of the last century. That his son should become a ?desaparecido? [disappeared] for being just as vigilant as he is in the defense of freedom, only a George Bush or a John McCain can ignore.

All this may not seem much in the grand scheme of geopolitics. But it sure as hell means the world to those who have lost kin and friend to a murderous regime. It sure as hell means the world to those who believe in justice and freedom and democracy and continue to fight for them. In any case, who says geopolitics is a grand scheme?

Human life is the grandest scheme of all. Saving it is the most dramatic change there is.