A Mistaken, Vindictive Policy : Philippine Cries of U.S. ‘Exploitation’ Ignore Nation’s Needs

Neither Americans nor Filipinos can remain indifferent to the relations between their two countries. Since 1986 the continuity of those relations has been manifestly altered. Until that time the association was conceived as mutually beneficial--predicated on shared interests. Today, relations are more and more frequently treated as adversarial.

Jovito R. Salonga, the president of the Philippine Senate, advocates increased domestic legislation to govern foreign investment and joint ventures in order to thwart what he understands to be “exploitation” by American multinationals. The Philippine Congress has proposed legislation that could deny America’s forward-deployed forces in Southeast Asia access to bases in the archipelago. Raul Manglapus, the Philippine secretary of foreign affairs, has characterized the historic relationship between the United States and the Philippines as “imperialistic” and “oppressive,” with American policies motivated by greed. He has spoken of American democracy as a “patchwork” arrangement, clearly unsuited to the needs of Asians. He finds merit in the “ideals” of the communist insurrectionists in the Philippine countryside and in the “Faustian energy” of Marxist-Leninists elsewhere. One of the immediate results of those convictions has been to lead the Republic of the Philippines into what Manglapus himself calls the “friendly embrace” of the Soviet Union.

Through some kind of obscure intellectual alchemy, many of those who came to power in Manila in 1986 have convinced themselves that the United States has exploited the Philippines since the turn of the century. Political activists like Salonga, Manglapus, Sen. Lorenzo Tanada or the late Sen. Jose Diokno--inspired by the views of neo-Marxist “dependency theorists”--succeeded in convincing the Philippine Senate that Manila should terminate the security relationship with the United States and move away from the non-socialist financial and trading community.

What is very clear is that all this is nothing less than fundamentally mistaken policy. If the Philippines is to provide minimally for the needs of a population that must accommodate 750,000 new entrants into the labor force each year, the economy must grow at an annual average rate of 6% to 7%. In order to accomplish this, Manila will require major assistance from the industrial democracies. Investment, technology transfers and access to Japanese and American markets constitute the necessary conditions for Philippine economic expansion and industrial growth. About 50% of all external Philippine economic activity is conducted with Japan and the United States, and there is little prospect that this can be changed in the foreseeable future. Neither the socialist nor the Third World countries can provide the investment capital nor the markets required by the Philippines. More than that, it is the American military presence in the region that ensures the peace and stability that has allowed the nations of volatile Southeast Asia to prosper.

At present, Japan and the United States are preparing a program of major economic assistance for the Philippines--a program that could be easily compromised by the ideologically motivated posturing of some of the most influential members of the present political elite in Manila.

This is very unfortunate for both our countries. In the course of the intimate relationship between our two nations, both Americans and Filipinos have made grievous errors in judgment, deportment and policy. Beyond that, however, Filipinos and Americans have stood together in defeat and victory, in war and in peace. Throughout our shared history both peoples have sought well-being and strength in collaboration and mutual regard.

To all those of good will and reasonable intelligence, the problems that afflict the Philippines are obvious. If the nation is to survive, it requires domestic political stability--and that necessitates both principled reconciliation of all factions and a suppression of the armed revolutionaries who would transform the community into another Cambodia. If the nation is to prosper, it requires self-sustained economic growth--and that necessitates the generous and protracted assistance of the United States and the industrialized democracies.

Vindictiveness characterizes far too much of Manila’s current policy--vindictiveness directed against real or fancied non-revolutionary opponents--and a contrived vindictiveness against what some of the present leadership identifies as American “imperialism.” At the same time, far too much solicitude is shown to domestic revolutionaries and foreign powers whose most fundamental interests are antithetical to Filipino national ideals, political aspirations and religious convictions. It is time for both Americans and Filipinos to recognize that little time remains if the future of the Philippines is to be secured. If that future is not secured, the costs will be borne not only by the people of the Philippines but by those of all Asia and the United States.