American help and the Philippine future

Title

Language

English

Source

The American Chamber of Commerce Journal Volume XXVI (No. 3) March 1950

Year

1950

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

Two prominent and able friends of the Philippines have recently spoken up in the United States for the Philip pines in its present situation, both American Help of them emphatically bringing out and the Philippine the fact that the Philippines is Future worthy of continued American in terest and assistance. Former Ambasador Emmet O 'Neal made a statement which was introduced into the Congressional Record. It read in part. “There is no spot on earth more potentially important to the cause of future world peace and human freedom thsfti the Philippines. A successful Philippines can affect the thinking of the Eastern.world more than propaganda from any source. . . The Philippines are on the doorstep of China, Malaya, Indonesia, Japan, Si’-n, and other populous countries. “The leadership of all those awakening nearby countries are watch ing with extreme interest the progress of democracy in the Philippines. To them it is a demonstration of the democratic way of life in the Orient, and it carries with it implications as to the value of American friend ship and cooperation. They are watching to see if democracy can suc ceed in Asia. . . “If the Philippines succeeds in demonstrating that its democracy is bringing all the freedoms to all its people, and a better life to its citizens than any Asiatic country ever saw, it could lead countless millions to demand a true democratic government. In this way the chances of peace in the decades to come would be enhanced greatly. . . “America .should give the greatest consideration to the Philip pines as a matter of duty and enlightened self-interest. . . “What will it mean to America in the future and to world peace, to have the Philippines a powerful, successful, happy, and free dem ocracy, showing the way in Asia to a better life through a democratic process! “ If our foreign policy is to bring results, we must think in terms of decades rather than years. In our Asiatic foreign policy, if we recog nize the importance of the Philippines and think in terms of five and ten years, we will advance the cause of democracy beyond our present power to evaluate. . .” Dr. Frank A. Waring, Chairman of the Philippine War Damage Commission, made the other statement, urging, according to a press report, “ ‘continued interest and sympathetic consideration’ of Philippine problems during the crucial last half of its ten-year reconstruction program”. He said, in part: “The United States, in my opinion, can not afford a failure in the Philippines because of the new Republic’s importance to United States foreign trade, its relation to the cause of democracy in the Far East, its strategic militaryjlocation, and the valiant aid which countless Fili pinos. . . rendered to the allied cause. “With adequate capital, efficient management, and technical skill, the Philippines could well become one of the world’s favored lands,—a garden spot in the Far East...” The reader will note that both the statements made as to the future of the Philippines are conditional,—“if” so and so, the Philippines “could become”, etc. In that connection, the recent words of Secretary of State Dean Acheson have the most solemn bearing: ”... That leads me to the other thing I wanted to point out and that is the limitation of effective American assistance. American as sistance can be effective when it is the missing component in a situa tion which might otherwise be solved. The United States can not fur nish all these components to solve the question. It can not furnish the determination, it can not furnish the will, and it can not furnish the loyalty of a people to its government. But if the will and if the deter mination exist, then, and not always then, is there a very good chance. In that situation American help can be effective and it can lead to an accomplishment which could not otherwise be achieved.’’ Secretary Acheson, in the foregoing paragraph, spoke of American assistance in general, rendered anywhere in the world. But he spoke of the Philippines in particular when he said, in the same speech: “. . . Here again we come up against the matter of responsibility. It is the Philippine Government which is responsible. It is the Philip pine Government which must make its own mistakes. What we can do is advise and urge . .. We can not direct, we should not direct, we have not the slightest desire to direct. I believe that there are indica tions that the Philippines may be facing serious economic difficulties. With energetic, determined action, they can perhaps be avoided or certainly minimized. Whether that will be true or not, I can not say, but it does not rest within the power of the American Government to determine that. We are always ready to help and to advise. That is all we can and all we should do.” Important as the Philippines is to the United States in various ways, to world peace and the cause of democracy, and whether or not the United States could “afford a failure in the Philippines”, the issue must finally depend, irrespective of any help the Philippines may receive, upon the people of the Philippines themselves. For that matter, a strong people would not want it otherwise. They accept the responsibility and stand up under it. As the historian Toynbee has shown in his monu mental study of the rise and fall of nations and civiliza tions, a rise has always resulted from a vigorous and effec tive response to some dangerous challenge, under creative leadership and not under some merely “dominant” mi nority which must sok^T later lose power. Hidden in that still to appear in time, lies the fate of the Phi’»' * «s and all it may mean to other peoples of the '/orlu. Point Four: What it is and What it isn’t. Point Four, in the four-point “Program for peace and freedom” which President Truman laid down in his inau gural address delivered on January 20 of last year, was worded by him as follows: “Fourth, we must embark on a bold new pro gram for making the benefits of our scientific ad vances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of under-developed areas”. To provide the frame for this statement, we may recall here that the President gave, as Point One, that America would continue to search for ways to streng then the authority and increase the strength of other part ner countries,—the old and the new nations being formed; as Point Two, that America would continue its programs for world recovery, which include “keeping our full weight behind the European Recovery Program” and additionally providing “military advice and equipment to free nations which will cooperate with us in the maintenance of peace and security”. Then came Point Four. Enlarging on Point Four, the President said in part (italics ours): “The United States is pre-eminent among nations in the develop ment of industrial and scientific techniques. The material resources which we can afford to use for the assistance of other peoples are limited. But our imponderable resources in technical knowledge are constantly growing and are inexhaustible. “ I believe that we should make available to peace-loving peo ples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life. And, in coopera tion with other nations, we should foster capital investment in areas needing development. “Our aim should be to help the free peoples of the world, through their own efforts, to produce more food, more clothing, more materials for housing, and more mechanical power to lighten their burdens. “We invite other countries to pool their technological resources in this undertaking. Their contributions will be warmly welcomed. This should be a cooperative enterprise in which all nations work together through the United Nations and its specialized agencies wherever practicable. * It must be a world-wide effort for the achieve ment of peace, plenty, and freedom. “With the cooperation of business, private capital, agricul ture, and labor in this country, this program can greatly increase the industrial ability in other nations and can raise substantially their standards of living. “Such new economic developments must be devised and controlled to benefit the peoples of the areas in which they are established. Guar antees to the investor must be balanced in the interest of the people whose resources and whose labor go into these develop ments. “The old imperialism—exploitation for foreign profit—has no place in our plans. What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair-dealing. “All countries, including our own, will greatly benefit from a constructive program for the better use of the world's human and natural resources. Experience shows that our commerce with other countries expands as they progress industrially and econo mically. by the technical aid woa approved 92

Media