Are Filipinos anti-American

Media

Part of Panorama

Title: Are Filipinos anti-American
Creator: Tolentino, Arturo M.
Language: English
Source: Panorama Volume XVII (No. 5) May 1966
Year: 1966
Rights
Abstract: Speech delivered at the commencement exercises of the University of Nueva Caceres, Naga City on April 16, 1966
Fulltext: ■ Speech delivered at the commencement exercises of the University of Nueva Caceres, Naga City, on April 16, 1966. ARE FILIPINOS ANTI-AMERICAN? Perhaps the most contro versial issue now facing the Filipino people and our government is whether or not we should send troops to South Vietnam. Many countries have al ready sent aid to South Viet nam, but in none of them has there been as much de bate and* discussion as in the Philippines. Both in and out of Congress, in the news papers and over the radio and television the pros and cons of the matter are being ventilated. It is only here that it can be said that the sending of troops or any other form of aid to South Vietnam will be the result of democratic processes. Aid to US There has been a lot of opposition to the adminis tration’s recommendation to send an engineer-battalion with adequate security to South Vietnam. Much of this opposition is rooted in a belief that it is really the United States and not South Vietnam that is interested in our government sending this kind of aid. The influence of this thinking has gone to the ex tent of making some oppo nents of the proposal call those who favor it as “pup pets” of the United States. It is felt that we are being used by the United States to improve the image of the Johnson administration at home and abroad by making it appear that the Vietnam struggle is not an American adventure but an Asian-sup ported war. Deteriorating relations What is the basis of this subconscious resistance, amounting even to antipathy, towards the United States? The Philippines and the Filipinos have been the best friends of the United States in this part of the world. The relationship of the two countries has for a long time been characterized as ”spe May 1966 47 cial.” There can be no doubt, however, that in re cent years there has been a growing deterioration of this special relationship. On Jan. 12, 1959, over seven years ago, Mr. Albino Z. SyCip, one of our most respected Filipino civic lea ders and bankers, in the in troduction to an article en titled "US Aid and Philip pines Claims," stated: “The marked deterioration in Philippine-American re lations has become widely recognized this year. “Friends in both countries as well as elsewhere are rightly concerned that this ominous situation may have serious consequences in Asia and other regions. “It is tragic to see the si tuation worsen — apparently without the parties concern ed realizing the full implica tions of deteriorating rela tions between the two coun tries.” The New York Times, in an editorial on Jan. 11, 1959, sounded the following warn ing: "The mills of the Gods and of foreign aid may grind slowly, but there are times when it would be advanta geous to us and our friends to speed their process. "We cannot afford to sacri fice because of simple iner tia or even the suspicion of indifference, any part of the massive reservoir of goodwill that we have been able to build up.” That was in 1959, but the situation has not materially changed since then. As a matter of fact, the “massive reservoir of goodwill” to wards the United States seems to be drying up, not only in the Philippines but in many parts of the world as well. Worldwide decay As early as 1962 and even much earlier, Canada, the next-door neighbor of the United States, became suspi cious of American invest ments in that country. The nationalist fears of the Ca nadians had been aroused by the massiveness of such investment), and sanctions were sought to limit or con trol the further entry of Am erican capital. To this time, economic a n, t i-Americanism still exists in a thinly-dis guised form in Canada. In Europe, France has as sumed an anti-American eco nomic and political posture. 48 Panorama Among other things, she has dissociated herself from the American position in Viet nam and her stand in cur rent discussions on world monetary reform has caused repercussions that for a time tended to weaken the United States dollar. She has also decided to pull out of NA TO. In Central America, the Dominican Republic still smarts from American “inter vention.” In Africa, mem bers of the Organization of African Unity strongly re sent the treatment of Negroes in the United States. If we turn to Asia, we have Japan, a major bene ficiary of United States aid, which harbors large groups that are strongly and articu lately anti-American. Among theih are the Japanese So cialist Party, and the Soka Gakkai, a militant nationalis tic Buddhist sect which is rapidly increasing in num bers and in activity in poli tics. To cap it all, in South Vietnam where the United States is spending millions of dollars and shedding the blood of American fighting men for the Vietnamese, these same Vietnamese and not the Viet Cong are rioting against the United States today. US aid to RP In the Philippines, the growing resentment of some people against the United States must appear as ingra titude of the Filipinos to those who do not see the complete picture of FilipinoAmerican relations in recent years. They cannot under stand the antipathy of many Filipinos in the face of Am erican help that has been ex tended to them. This failure to understand, however, is due to miscon ceptions on the nature and extent of so-called American aid. The Philippines may have received some money from the United States, but not all of this is “aid.” Let me quote former US Ambassador Charles E. Boh len in his speech before the Manila Lions Club on Feb. 12. 1958: “In order to avoid any misconceptions, however, I wish to emphasize that with the exception of the ICA program and the Military Assistance Program, these dollar receipts I have listed do not properly come under May 1966 49 the heading of aid. For ex ample, payments to Philip pine veterans constitute an honorable fulfillment of an obligation which the United States assumed towards those Filipinos who fought in or with our Armed Forces dur ing World War II. The $50 million which enter the Philippine economy from the operation of the United States bases represent pay ment for value received in the form of services or goods.” In an AP report from New York dated March 23, 1966, which was published in the Manila Times of March 24. Mr. David T. Sternberg, an American who resided for 26 years in the Philippines, was quoted. The news item reads as follows: ’"He ‘(Sternberg) said in the early years of the Phil ippine-American relation ship there were few com plex problems. American assistance for Filipino needs and aspirations paid off in gratitude and friend ship, upon which Ameri cans draw to this day. “The problem is, Stern berg said that we continue to draw upon it with too little conscious effort to keep it replenished! “The Filipino who has reached maturity since World War II has person ally experienced little, if any of the benign Ameri can presence of early years, he noted.” It is unfortunate that Mr. Sternberg is just a private citizen who has seen Ameri can attitude change in the Philippines, and his sympa thetic and understanding voice may be lost in the wil derness. What is now heard are pronouncements of of ficials who may not have the sympathy and understanding. Facing problems During the PhilippineAmerican Assembly held in Davao, from Feb. 23 to 26 of this year, an assembly or ganized presumably because of fear for the future of Philippine-American r e 1 ations, and attended by some 75 Filipinos and American leaders in the government and private sectors, no less than William Bundy, assis tant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs, put the fol lowing on record: 50 Panorama “The United States be lieves that in our econo mic cooperation planning we should look into the future rather than remi nisce or fret about the past. We are not, accord ingly, disposed to reopen questions long since closed, and involving events of over twenty years ago, re garding which the United States — on both the exe cutive and legislative sides of the government — feels in good conscience that it has fulfilled its obligations. On the other hand, we are quite prepared to look in to the possibilities of a more equitable adminis tration of benefits to Fili pino veterans of the Second World War; and for this purpose a Joint Commis sion is ,soon to be created which will seek to make unified recommendations to the President of the United States for his en dorsement to the United States Congress.” If this statement of Mr. Bundy is an expression of irreversible American policy, then may I say that it can not contribute in any man ner to soothe the ruffled RP-US relations. We cannot just forget valid questions simply because the United States unilaterally declares them as closed. Financial claims In April, 1956, President Ramon Magsaysay presented an aide memoire to US Secre tary of State John Foster Dulles on Philippine finan cial claims against the Uni ted States of a military and non-military nature. Pres ident Magsaysay requested their early payment, stress ing the significance of such settlement on PhilippineAmerican relations at the same time pointing out how it would materially assist the Philippines in implementing its economic development program. In 1950, the Economic Sur vey Mission to the Philip pines, appointed by the Pres ident of the United States, known as the Bell mission, after completing its survey, made an extensive report which, contained, among others, the following recom mendation: “Any further financial aid from the United States to the Philippines should be preceded by a settle, ment of outstanding finan Mav 1966 51 cial claims and the funding of maturing obligations. Such a definite settlement is necessary to place the financial relations between the government of the United States and the gov ernment of the Philippines on a basis in which it is recognized that obligations must be met promptly and and in full.” X XX “There are a number of financial claims between the two governments, some antedating the war, others growing out of the war. It is not desirable to have these unsettled claims ham pering close financial col laboration between the two countries. A joint com mission should be set up promptly to negotiate an agreement to cover the claims of each government against the other and to provide for a final settle in e n t. The agreement should specifically state that no further financial claims will be made by either government against the other for any alleged obligations incurred prior to the date of the agree ment.” This recommendation of an official US government mission is now more than 15 years old, and our claims have not yet been settled. Fifteen years ago, the crea tion of a joint commission was recommended to nego tiate and agree on the final settlement of these claims. But the United States has dilly-dallied in the formation of this joint commission. Instead, in 1959 some of our claims were unilaterally turned down by the United States, amounting to almost one billion pesos. It was only in 1964 that the US Pres ident, in a joint communique with the Philippine Pres ident, agreed to establish the joint commission, which the Bell Mission had recom mended in 1950 (or 14 years back) to negotiate and settle our claims. But until now, no such joint commission has been established, Mr. Bundy of the US state department promised in the Davao con ference last February that such commission “is soon to be created”. When will it be constituted? I understand our government is ready, but no concrete move towards 52 Panorama this direction has been taken in the United States. But what is irritating to the Filipinos, is that the United States has unilateral ly and by its own act alone rejected almost a billion pe sos of our claims and now considers claims as forever closed. We have other claims, for veterans benefits amounting to some three billion dollars and for other legal liabilities of the United States amount ing to about half a billion pesos. Prompt settlement If these claims had been settled promptly as recom mended by the Bell Mission, the funds proceeding from them could have been utiliz ed to promote our economic development. But instead of immediately settling these claims and paying to us what is legally due us, the United States has preferred to make us look like beggars solicitiing loans or aid from Am erica. And yet, this aid to a friend who stood by her dur ing the war, is but a drop in the bucket compared to what has been given to Tapan, who was an enemy in the war. Is it any wonder then that many Filipinos resent this “aid” that we get from the United States? Why does not the United States prompt-, ly settle our claims so that we can get what is really due us? Prompt Settlement If there is good faith, to settle those claims promptly, the United States could come to a compromise settlement with the Philippines doing away with technicalities of evidence. Whatever the va riance between the amount we claim and the amount the United States would ac knowledge as due in our fa vor why can’t we finish this long-pending problem by fixing a compromise amount that could be ’paid to us in full nal settlement of all these claims? A careful study of this agreement, entered into be tween the Philippines and the United States in 1947, will reveal the fact that it is more onerous than similar agreements of the United States with other countries. Under this treaty, there is a May 1966 53 greater surrender of sove reignty and freedom of action by the Philippines than by other countries with which the United States has similar agreements. As a consequence, it was agreed in July, 1956, to hold formal negotiations for the revision of certain aspects of the agreement, among them hieing the exercise of Philip pine sovereignty in the bases, the correlation of mutual de fense arrangements, the mo dernization of the - military base system, and the opera tion of the bases. The nego tiations were commenced on Aug. 13, 1956, but were sud denly terminated on Dec. 5. of the same year, when the chairman- of the American panel unilaterally announced his decision to declare an in finite recess, without even consulting the Philippine panel. Informal talks were subse quently held, and these talks led to, among other things, the flying of the Philippine flag beginning in the morn ing of May 4, 1957 in place of honor alongside the Am erican flag on bases operated by the United States in the Philippines. They also led to the relinquishment to the Philippines of the Port of Manila Reservation, also known as Manila Air Station, including all permanent im provements thereon, and its deactivation as a United States air force installation. Sub sequent negotiations led to the relinquishment to the agreement from 1958 to 1960. Among them was one which provided that the United States relinquish to the Philippines any and all rights to the use of 17 bases comprising 117,075 hectares which the United States did not need anymore. Anothe? memorandum of agreement provided for consultation be fore bases operated by the United States in the Philip pines could be used for com bat operations other than those conducted in accord ance with the Mutual De fense Treaty and the South east Asia Collective Defense Treaty, and before longrange missile sites could be established on said bases. Unfortunately, this agree ment has all but been ignor ed by the United States. This same Memorandum of Agreement reduced the duration of the 1947 Bases 54 Panorama Agreement from 99 to 25 years, subject to renewal. This period of 25 years will commence from "the date of signature of the formal do cuments giving effect to the agreement reached.” A pe riod of almost seven years has already elapsed without any formal agreement being signed! Criminal jurisdiction As a result of serious in cidents at Clark air force base and at Subic naval base where American armed forces personnel had shot and kill ed Filipino citizens who had allegedly committed certain offenses, the question of ju risdiction over those offenses came into the limelight. An ti-American demonstrations erupted at this time in pro test at the loss of Filipino lives. Negotiations were there fore held to review and to revise not only the article on criminal jurisdiction but such other provisions as are sources of irritants in the relations between the two countries. After a series of confer ences the article on criminal jurisdiction was finally revis ed by an exchange of notes on Aug. 10, 1965. This new arrangement was patterned after the NATO Status of Forces Formula. It provides for United States primary ju risdiction over American ser vicemen present in the Phil ippines in connection with the United States bases in the following cases: 1. 'Offenses arising from acts and commissions done in performance of official duty; 2. Offenses solely against the property or security of the United States; and 3. Offenses solely against the person or property of the United States. The Philippines has pri mary jurisdiction in all other cases, including offenses com mitted in United States bases. Each country has ex clusive jurisdiction regarding offenses punish under its own laws but not able under its own laws of the other coun try. Other problems There are still some prolems in connection with the military bases which provide irritants. Among them are tax-exemp tions on personally-owned motor vehicles and other per May 1966 55 sonal effects enjoyed by Am erican contractors and their employes who are American citizens, the continued dis posal in the local market by the United States authorities of surplus property which are tax-free, hence competing with local traders and pack aging industries; and the lack of agreement between the two countries governing the recruitment of Filipino labor for employment at United States military bases. As a matter of fact, Fili pino workers labor under handicaps in wage rates, re tirement fringe benefits, over time pay, job security and other related matters, not only in the Philippines but also in - Okinawa, Guam, Wake, and the Marianas. Negotiations for this purpose hav£ bogged down. This pro blem is potentially explosive considering that nationals of former efaemy countries seem to be favored over Fili pino workers. Finally, the Philippines had to take the stand that nuclear-powered vessels are not covered by the Military Bases Agreement and that they may not be allowed en try into Philippine waters except upon prior clearance by the Philippine Govern ment. The United States, however, has continued to bring these vessels without prior clearance. Major irritant From all the different cir cumstances, events and situa tions that I have mentioned, it is clear that the major irri tant that must subconscious ly cause resentment in the mind of the average Filipino is the manner in which the United States has treated the Philippines. The United States does not seem to re gard and to treat the Philip pines as an equal sovereign nation. Not only have we been dis criminated against in rela tion to Americans themselves but even in comparison with other countries, including those who fought the United States during the war while we stood by her. But worse than this, is that in her behavior towards us, she tends to create the image of a vassal for the Philip pines and gives justification to others to call us an Am erican puppet when we take a position identical to that 56 Panorama of the United States, even when that position has been taken on the basis of our own independent judgment. For instance, why are those supporting of our engineer construction battalion to South Vietnam often labelled as “American puppets”? I submit this was caused by the visits to the Philippines of US Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, with the impression that they came to “convince” our President to send troops to South Viet nam. The picture created was that we were being sub jected to pressure by the United States. We had re ceived the request for assis tance directly from the gov ernment of South Vietnam. Why coujd not the United States have left us alone, without making it appear that she was influencing our decision? Is it any wonder that many Filipinos react sharply and consider that the approval of the administration’s Viet nam bill would be a surren der of our own independence and subservience to the Uni ted States? Reorientation We are not anti-Americans. On the whole, our rela tions with the United States have produced beneficial ef fects for us, politically, eco nomically, culturally, and even militarily. This is why there is still a vast reservoir of goodwill in the hearts of Filipinos towards the Am ericans. But this reservoir of good will may dry up if not re plenished, because the Fili pino mind can see behind material benefits and know when he is being treated as a mere dependent. And this affront to Philippine sove reignty and dignity, if not stopped, could really make us anti-American. If this happens, it would be by the fault of Americans them selves. A reorientation in Philippine-Americans relations is called for. American pres tige and influence among de veloping countries and in the society of free nations could rise or fall according to the improvement or deterioration of these relations. In many respects, the Phil ippines and the United States still need each other. But May 1966 57 the only stable foundation of their relationship must be equal sovereignty and mutual respect. Only on this basis can mutual goodwill and friendship subsist and en dure. — By Senate President Arturo M. Tolentino. ANTIQUITY OF VILLAGE LIFE Man lived in permanent settlements in the Middle East 5,000 years before Abra ham, said an archeologist. He said recent excavations indicate man resided in per manent settlements even while still existing by hunt ing and gathering wild crops. The archeologist, Maurits van Loon of the University of Chicago, dug at Tell Mureyb'at, a 'large mount on the Euphrates river in Syria 200 miles from Damascus. He began his National Science Foundation — supported pro ject in 1964 to salvage some of the ancient remains threat ened by the Syrian govern ment’s plans for a 4 million dollar irrigation dam. “The archaeological evi dence examined to date in dicates that the village’s in habitants subsisted entirely on hunting and the harvest ing on wild crops,’’ Van Loon said. “The remains indicate the ancient Euphrateans’ first shelters were huts with clay floors and walls built over a frame of wood or reeds on stone foundations,’’ he said. “The rooms had no door ways, but between two pairs of rooms there were tiny peep-holes,” he said. "The houses were entered through the roof.” Van Loon dated the vil lage at about 9,500 years, or 4,500 years before the start of the bronze age and 6,300 before the iron age. 58 Panorama
pages: 47+