Quo vadis, Romulos?

Title

Quo vadis, Romulos?

Creator

Garcia, Carlos P.

Language

English

Source

Panorama Volume XXI (No. 2) February 1969

Year

1969

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

■ This paper by a former President of the Phil ippines questions the correctness sincerity, and practicality of the views on American-Philippine relations by Carlos Romulo, now Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippine Government. QUO VADIS, ROMULOS? By CARLOS P. GARCIA Former President of the Philippines (Continued from last month’s issue) ASIAN SUPERNA TIONALISTS? As far as I am concerned, our diplomacy for a “closer cooperation with Asian coun tries” should never be car ried to the outcome of di minishing our political, cul tural and commercial rela tion with the West. We must forever be connected with the world mainstreams of progress and abundant Jife and greater freedom, and most of these are in the West. Our supernationalistic Asianism should not qui xotically blind us to reality and realism. Let us live with the whole world freely and forget about building great walls of China, Boxeris tic movements, Arian superacialism and all that sort of isolationism or chauvinism. Trade alienation from the U.S. would hurt us fatally while it is a mere scratch to the U.S. taking into ac count the fact that our trade with her is 50% of our world foreign trade while America’s trade with us is only 1% of her total world trade. If Mr. Romulo’s “New Ideolo gy” is really for Philippines achieving “economic produc tivity, industrialization and modernizaton” common sense and not psychedellic vision will point the way — and that is to keep close with the Western countries ad vanced in the sciences, the arts and technology — things which they are using to plant their feet on the moon and thereafter explore other pla nets. 30 Panorama We are worried over the rapidly increasing popula tion. Only by advanced science and technology, which no Asian country ex cept Japan can supply, can we make it possible to co lonize the land under the seas and utilize the immense food and mining resources under the oceans. Only by hitting the highways of pro gress opened up by Western science and technology can we hope to make a head way economically. It is im perative, therefore, that we identify ourselves with coun tries that can supply us ad vanced science and technolo gy. The two greatest needs of our economic development program are capital and technology. We have to turn to our friends of the West to get these two essentials. At the present no Asian country except Japan can supply us capital and tech nology so badly needed to achieve economic productivi ty, industrialization and mo dernization. In quotation number 7 above Mr. Romulo advocates the brand of diplomacy which would identify us closely with our Asian neigh bors in order “to formulate with them a common stand on questions affecting peace and economic development.” With Communist China in disputably the giant in Asia promoting her own “master plan” to establish communist Chinese hegemony in Asia, and straining herself to be able to manufacture nuclear weapons to enforce her gi gantic ambition, the ques tions of peace and war in Asia as well as economic development assume tremen dous importance. SMALL BANTAMWEIGHT Is the Secretary batting for a “mutual stand” of the small bantamweight countries of Asia to face the Asian giant or subserve it? As suming that the former is what he has in mind (as it is unthinkable for Filipinos to submit to a godless ideo logy) is the unified stand of these Asian bantams suffi cient to stop Communist China from enforcing her plan to dominate absolutely in Asia? Frankly, all of these, developing small countries in Asia together, without out side help will not be able Febhuahy 1969 31 to stop Communist China from realizing her plan. It lakes another heavyweight to fight a heavyweight. There was the case of David van quishing a Goliath, but that was possible because of di vine intervention, and there has been only one David since Biblical times. Is it not, therefore, to our national interest to maintain and improve our relations with Western democracies, principally the U.S.A., which is admittedly the democratic giant capable willing and able to stand up in defense of democracy against any communist giant? I am informed, that one of our sister small countries in Southeast Asia, Thailand, stands foursquare on the pro position that America should continue her presence in Asia if only to enable the rising democratic forces here to develop sinews for na tional self-defense. Would it not be to the interest of this Republic to adopt this gallant stand? Probably, the communist countries will ri dicule this attitude as an act of puppetry. Our Secre tary himself has had the bitexnerience of being so ridiculed. But if it is done in the national interest, why should the slings of invec tive and the shafts of ridicule stop us from the pursuit of our national interest? In matter of national survival since when have we allow ed ourselves to be threaten ed, cajoled or ridiculed in to the criminal neglect of our national defense? NEW DIRECTION? In conclusion, let us take a little excursion into histo ry to reassess our relation with the U.S. in connection with Romulo’s new direction of foreign policy. The U.S., in 1946 volun tarily granted us our inde pendence for which we had sacrificed innumerable ' lives and fortune. Is there any instance in history wherein mighty powers victorious in war voluntarily renounced their sovereignty over a weak people like the Filipinos? When China was a mighty power in Asia in her former imperial times, did she ever renounce her sovereignty over a palm of territory vo luntarily? America did this! 32 Panorama And more transcendentally important than this, she star ted the giand cycle of libe ration, for all empires to re linquish their sovereignty over their colonies. As a re sult, England renounced her sovereignty over India, Cey lon, Malaya, Burma, etc. Because of this American example the cycle of libera tion rolled on irresistibly to other continents until France relinquished her sovereignty over her vast empire in Afri ca and Indo-China. England also continues liberating her vast colonies in Africa, and Oceania. If the U.S. has done nothing else, but set ting the example of a mighty nation renouncing volunta rily her sovereignty over her colonies after achieving vic tory in a great world war, that alone would entitle her to the eternal gratitude of freedom-loving peoples. AGAINST PARITY It is true that, in granting independence to our war-ra vaged country, America exac ted from us the Bases Trea ty, the Parity Amendment and the Bell Trade Agree ment. In the matter of the Parity Amendment, the true majority of Filipinos were against it, and in the Senate, it would have been defeated if it had not been for the vote of one renegade Nacionalista senator who was won over by President Roxas to vote for Parity with the Liberals. It would have been lost in the House of Represen tatives if the eight Socialist congressmen led by then Con gressman Taruc and defi nitely against Parity, had not been expelled from the House before the voting on Parity, on charges that they had committed terrorism to get themselves elected. Let it be remembered that the Nacionalista Party stood against Parity, and were it not for those incidents me itioned above, there would have been no Parity Amend ment. The Bases Agreement ne gotiated with then Vice Pres ident and Secretary of Fo reign Affairs Elpidio Quirino and ratified by the Sen ate, was accepted by the Filipinos at that time be cause, after the war, we were down and out and we were worried about our national Febhuaby 1969 33 defense, but, above all, be cause Soviet Russia, at that time under the ruthless lea dership of Stalin, was getting ready to invade all countries, at least with their atheistic ideology of communism. Ac early as 1945, Mr. Romulo and I were members of the Philippine delegation to rhe first UN conference in San Francisco and it was already apparent that Russia was get ting ready for an "Interna tional Revolution" to impose communism all over the world. For the same reason we agreed to the Mutual Defense Pact. It is also true that the Bell Trade Agreement though later softened by the Laurel-Langley Trade Agree ment, was much too one sided in favor of the U.S.A. It is equally true that the one half billion dollars ?iven us for rehabilitation was conditioned on our approving the Parity Amendment, But then without justifying this American opportunism, I say that the Filipinos then were tender-hearted and profound ly grateful towards America after (1) she liberated us from the cruel Japanese oc cupation of four years, and after doing so, (2) she voluntarily relin quished her sovereign ty over the Philip pines and (3) after granting us in dependence she voted one half billion dol lars to rehabilitate our destroyed coun try. GRATITUDE TO AMERICA For all these noble deeds, we Filipinos were melted in gratitude to America. I am not trying to defend Ame rica for her acts of unfair ness now complained of by Secretary Romulo among so many. I am reminding you of the circumstances sur rounding these events. During the American re gime in the Philippines of half a century, we enjoyed the most liberal treatment among all the colonies of the world at that time. She did not suppress the move ment for independence that immediately followed the ap 84 Panorama proval of the Cooper Bill which became the first Or ganic Act of the Philippine civil government. So many of the best Americans among them, Cooper, Hoar, Jones, Harrison, Tydings, McDuffy, and a constellation of many others fought and worked with us to achieve our goal of independence. When the big American trusts at the time wanted to exploit the Philippine natural resources for themselves, an American Governor-General in the per son of Howard Taft, nipped the idea in the bud by pro claiming the famous Taft doctrine of the “Philippines for the Filipinos.” During her regime, she es tablished a public system of education based on the in struction of the English lan guage, and the Western cul ture of English has become the unifying language of the Philippines that has reduced a great deal the tribalistic divisions of the Filipinos at that time and inducted an awareness of the oneness and solidarity of the Filipino peo ple. Up to now, this cul tural force, introduced by the Americans, continues to be the richest part of our cultural heritage, and re mains as our medium of rap port with the progressive na tions of the world. That is America’s record in the Philippines in a nut shell. Is there any nation in Asia, from the biggest to the small est that can boast of simi lar altruistic record? Why, then, should we part ways with America where hun dreds of thousands of Filipi nos have embraced Ameri can citizenship, mostly in Hawaii and the Pacific Coast and are enjoying the pri vileges of .American citizen ship? I do not absolve the U.S. from the mistakes and the high-handed arts she has per petrated against Filipinos. I do not condone some of the acts complained of by Mr. Romulo in his speech. In fact, I do maintain she must rectify without delay these unfair acts to improve her image in the eyes of small democratic countries. But of one thing I am pro foundly convinced and it is; that if we strike a balance February 1969 35 between the good and the bad things she has done for or against us, I can say without fear of successful contradiction even by ultra nationalists that, by and large, she has done well by us, and it is to the inf erest of this country to maintain and constantly improve the relations and ties of friend ship between the U.S. and the Philippines based on equality and mutual respect. PRINCIPLES IN ACTION On no occasion call yourself a philosopher, nor talk at large of your principles among the multi tude, but act on your principles. For instance, at a banquet do not say how one ought to eat, but eat as you ought. Remember that Socrates had so completely got rid of the thought of display that when men came and wanted an introduction to philosophers, he took them to be introduced; so patient of neglect was he. And if a discussion arise among the multitude on some principle, keep silent for the most part; for you are in great danger of blurting out some undigested thought. And when some one says to you, “You know nothing,” and you do not let it provoke you, then know that you are really on the right road. For sheep do not bring grass to their shepherds and show them how much they have eaten, but they digest their fodder and then pro duce it in the form of wool and milk: Do the same yourself; instead of displaying your princi ples to the multitude, show them the results of the principles you have digested. — From the Ma nual of Epictetus. 36 Panorama

pages

30+

Media