Seeking Common Ground on Bases in the Philippines : Negotiations: U.S. facilities are not the crux. What must be preserved is the historic relationship; what must go are elements that promote ill will.

In the coming months the United States and the Philippines will discuss, debate and attempt to define their future relationship. That this issue arises now, nearly a century after Adm. George Dewey steamed into Manila Bay, is very much the function of an expiring Military Bases Agreement. Yet military bases--or, more precisely, U.S. facilities on Philippine military bases--are really not the heart of the matter.

What counts is that this historic relationship, with or without the facilities, be rooted in friendship, equality and mutual respect. Yes, the functions carried out by our naval and air assets operating on and from Philippine bases are important in terms of our nation’s bedrock interest in the stability of Asia. Yes, these facilities proved to be important to the success of our reflagging operations in the Persian Gulf. Regardless of what happens to these facilities, however, we and our Filipino allies should validate and perpetuate those aspects of our shared history in which we can both take pride, and jettison those elements of our common legacy that only promote ill will and misunderstanding.

During my recent visit to Manila, where exploratory talks on the future of the bases were successfully concluded, I said the following publicly: “Regardless of the choices the Filipino people make, I can assure you of one immutable and central fact: The United States will remain, for the balance of its national existence, a Pacific power. Nothing we say or do here will in any way affect this proposition.”

Even were there no other Asian states--such as Japan, Australia, Korea, Thailand and Singapore--willing to pursue security arrangements with the United States, I would still insist that Manila’s desires are what really matter in the upcoming negotiations. The ties that bind Filipinos and Americans as people are strong. We should aim to keep them strong no matter how the base negotiations turn out. Some Filipinos believe that the U.S. military presence on Philippine bases is a vestige of the colonial past and an instrument of neocolonial dependency. This school of thought holds that the Philippines can never be fully free until the Americans are out, once and for all.

This point of view stems from an appreciation for certain aspects of Philippine-U.S. shared history about which we Americans are not terribly conversant. As Americans we tend to stress the positive facets of our colonial stewardship in the Philippines: education, infrastructure, democracy, defense, the return of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and, eventually, independence. Fair-minded Filipinos see these things as well, but they see more; things we often overlook. Perhaps our high school history texts do a better job now than they did in the past of describing our suppression of the Filipino independence movement at the turn of the century, a “dirty little war” that produced staggering noncombatant casualties; an atrocity-ridden encounter fully investigated by the U.S. Senate nearly 90 years ago.

There is no doubt that we wrung from the Filipinos some rather onerous economic concessions when we granted the Philippines its independence in 1946. Indeed, in the security area, the basic text of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement conveyed to the U.S massive tracts of land for 99 years, on which the Philippine flag was not to be found.

This agreement has been modified many times over the years to make it consistent with Philippine sovereignty, but amendments have not quelled “anti-bases” sentiment in the Philippines. The time has come to determine whether or not a new agreement can be so constructed as to serve more adequately the interests of both the Philippines and the United States as together we face the challenges of the 21st Century.

Under President Corazon Aquino’s leadership, and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate, the people of the Philippines will determine how, if at all, U.S. forces will make use of Philippine military bases in the future. It is the very fact of making this choice that confirms independence and sovereignty, not just what is chosen. If the Philippines chooses to enter into a new agreement providing for some form of continued U.S. use of facilities on Philippine military bases, such a choice would, given the restoration of democracy in 1986, clearly reflect the desire of the Philippines to remain engaged as an equal partner with the United States and with other Asian democracies in the collective defense of the region.

The question “in defense of what?” occurs just as readily in the Philippine body politic these days as it does in our own. Perhaps one aspect of our shared history is a mutual proclivity toward introspection and isolation when threats from abroad seem to subside and even disappear. Just as some Filipinos manifest a “what’s in it for us?” attitude toward the U.S. presence on Philippine bases, some Americans beat the “bring the boys home” drum every time the enemies of the Republic seem to go into eclipse.

I wish I could predict with confidence what the political-military landscape in Asia will look like five, 10, 20 or 50 years from now. I doubt that those of my fellow citizens who counsel “forward deployment” no farther west than Oahu or San Diego have it all figured out.

Although I am not good at predicting the future, I would suggest two realities for the present. First, the booming economies of democratic Asia are of enormous importance to our own economic well-being. Second, the presence of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region is essential to the psychological health of those economies and the free--and in many cases--new political institutions underlying them. The American role in Asia, however, like our role in Europe, is neither mercantilistic nor mercenary. In both regions we must attend to our own national-security requirements and help our friends attend to theirs. In Europe, a monumental transformation is occurring with full American participation, a fact for which succeeding generations of Americans will be grateful. Asia too is changing, in ways most significant to the United States.

The Philippines can, if it chooses to do so, contribute greatly to the stability of its own Southeast Asia neighborhood by continuing to facilitate the forward deployment and training of U.S. forces on Philippine territory. This assessment is shared by all our mutual friends in Asia. I would welcome a decision by the government of the Philippines to enhance its strategic partnership with the United States and the other democracies of Asia so that, as I said in Manila, “we can explore together opportunities and responsibilities presented by the Asia of the 21st Century.” Indeed, all of democratic Asia would welcome such a decision.

There are, however, alternatives to Philippine military bases. Although neither Subic nor Clark can be replicated elsewhere as naval and air facilities, we will, in concert with our other regional partners, find ways to continue advancing our mutual interests by being a force for peace and stability in Asia.

The availability of alternatives must not be regarded by the Philippines as a negotiating ploy or a threat. On the contrary, the fact that we can, in the end, withdraw our forces from Philippine bases without causing war or inducing a regional economic depression should only reassure Filipinos that we are sincere when we say that the choice is in their hands. We would like very much to perpetuate our security relationship with the Philippines, but not at the cost of Filipino-American friendship. If, in the view of Filipinos, the continued presence of U.S. sailors and airmen on Philippine soil threatens this friendship, we will pull them out.

I hope, however, that such an extreme view will not find much resonance in the Philippine public at large. Indeed, were anti-Americanism on the rise in the Philippines, I doubt that President Aquino would have permitted the exploratory talks to end successfully, with agreement to proceed to substantial negotiations in the near future. I believe that credit for the exploratory talks--the professional and cordial manner in which they were conducted and the positive manner in which they were concluded--rests in large measure with President Aquino and the Philippines panel headed by Foreign Secretary Raul Manglapus.

Friendship, mutual respect, empathy and equality are those aspects of Filipino-American history worth keeping and cultivating. So is devotion to democracy, which our Congress has supported with generous aid levels since 1986. Any residual colonial mentality, which victimizes all concerned, must be banished completely and forever from this relationship. We can take a giant step toward this end by accepting and respecting whatever decision the Filipino people make about their military bases.