if iraq was the philippines should iraq be wary?

If Iraq Is the Philippines, Iraqis Should Be Wary
By Stephen R. Shalom
Mr. Shalom teaches political science at William Paterson University and
is the author of Imperial Alibis (South End Press).

Addressing a joint session of the Philippine Congress President Bush
said to skeptical critics of his Iraq policy, "Some say the culture of
the Middle East will not sustain the institutions of democracy. The
same doubts were once expressed about the culture of Asia. These doubts
were proven wrong nearly six decades ago, when the Republic of the
Philippines became the first democratic nation in Asia."(1)

Much in Bush's speech was utter nonsense -- such as his claim that the
war in Iraq had resulted in the closing down of a terrorist sanctuary,
when in fact the U.S. "has taken a country that was not a terrorist
threat and turned it into one," in the words of terrorism expert
Jessica Stern.(2) But Bush was right when he suggested that looking at
the U.S. record in the Philippines can help to illuminate what is in
store for Iraq.

What does the historical record tell us about the U.S. commitment to
promoting democracy?

A hundred years ago, the United States defeated the Spanish colonizers
of the Philippines only to take over the islands for itself. (In Bush's
speech this was summarized as "Together our soldiers liberated the
Philippines from colonial rule." And in the words of presidential press
secretary Scott McClellan, national hero Jose Rizal's martyrdom in 1896
inspired the Philippines: "And later, revolution broke out and Asia
soon had its first independent republic."(3) Well, yes, but that
independent republic was promptly conquered by the United States.) When
critics of the U.S. annexation of the Philippines charged that
Washington had not obtained the consent of the inhabitants, Senator
Henry Cabot Lodge replied that if consent of the inhabitants were
necessary "then our whole past record of expansion is a crime."(4)



What did Filipinos want back in 1898? What was their democratic wish?
According to a U.S. general testifying before the U.S. Senate,
Filipinos had so little notion of what independence meant that they
probably thought it was something to eat. "They have no more idea of
what it means than a shepherd dog," he explained. But shortly
afterwards in his testimony, the general stated that the Filipinos
"want to get rid of the Americans." "They do?" asked a confused
Senator. "Yes, sir," replied the general. "They want us driven out, so
that they can have this independence, but they do not know what it
is."(5)

This U.S. inability to understand the real meaning of
self-determination was not just a turn-of-the-century myopia. Consider
the following scene from the 1945 motion picture Back to Bataan. In a
1941 Philippine schoolhouse, an American teacher asks the students what
the United States gave to the Philippines. "Soda pop!" "Hot dogs!"
"Movies!" "Radio!" "Baseball!" scream the pupils. But, the teacher and
the principal correct the erring youngsters by explaining that the real
American contribution was teaching the Filipinos freedom. At first,
however, says the teacher with a straight face, the Filipinos did not
appreciate freedom for they "resisted the American occupation."(6)

Indeed they did. And many thousands of Filipinos -- combatants and
non-combatants -- were slaughtered by U.S. military forces to teach
Filipinos the U.S. meaning of freedom.

In 1946, after nearly half a century, U.S. colonial rule in the
Philippines came to an end. But U.S. domination continued and
Philippine democracy remained thwarted. This was not the first instance
where a colony was given independence and colonialism was replaced with
neocolonialism. To take one example at random, Britain gave Iraq
independence in 1932, but not before it had signed a 25-year treaty
granting London access to Iraqi military bases and western oil
companies had attained a lock on Iraqi oil.(7)

The pattern in the Philippines was similar: Washington retained two
huge military bases and many smaller ones on a 99-year, rent-free
lease. The Philippine city of Olongapo became, in the words of a 1959
account in Time magazine, "the only foreign city run lock, stock and
barrel by the U.S. Navy." The terms of the bases agreement were revised
several times over the next few decades, but as U.S. officials
acknowledged even in the 1970s nowhere did the United States have more
extensive and more unhindered base rights than in the Philippines.
These bases served for years as the logistic hub for U.S. interventions
from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf. Washington, not Manila, decided how
these bases would be used and against whom, and the Philippine people
were not informed of the presence of nuclear weapons on their soil.(8)

The independent Philippines was also subordinated to the United States
economically. The Philippine government was prohibited from changing
the value of its currency without the approval of the U.S. president
and U.S. investors were given special investment rights in the
Philippines. U.S. officials insisted that Filipinos democratically
accepted the special investment rights, but in fact, the enabling
legislation passed the Philippine Congress only after dissenting
legislators were improperly suspended, and Filipinos ratified the
investment rights in a referendum only because Washington made
rehabilitation aid to the war-ravaged Philippines dependent upon
Filipinos voting yes.(9)

From 1946 to 1972, the Philippines was a formal democracy in the sense
of having contested elections. But it was a political system in which
two coalitions of the wealthy elite, indistinguishable by ideology or
program, competed for power, with a major determinant of success being
the overt or covert backing of the U.S. government. It is true that
there was an issue separating the candidates in 1965 when Ferdinand
Marcos ran on a pledge not to send Philippine civic action troops to
Vietnam, but since Marcos violated his campaign promise as soon as he
won the election, this is hardly a meaningful exception. This may have
been another instance of U.S. political tutelage of the Filipinos --
recall that during the 1964 U.S. presidential campaign Lyndon Johnson
had pledged "No Wider War" and then promptly escalated U.S. military
involvement -- but more likely Marcos's reversal was swayed by the U.S.
funds secretly sent his way.(10)

By 1972, despite the best efforts of the Philippine elite and their
U.S. allies, Philippine democracy was finally beginning to express
itself. Politicians were finding that their usual vote-buying no longer
worked. ("They take money but vote for the man they think is
qualified," complained one politician.)(11) Peasants, students, and
workers were increasingly challenging the status quo. Reacting to the
popular pressures, the Congress and even the Supreme Court were moving
in a more and more nationalistic direction, threatening U.S. interests.
And so when Marcos, approaching the end of his second and final term as
president, declared martial law, there were no denunciations emanating
from Washington. On the contrary, as Marcos closed down Congress and
the press and arrested his political opponents, Washington stepped up
its military and economic aid. As a U.S. Senate staff report summarized
the U.S. reaction, "military bases and a familiar government in the
Philippines are more important than the preservation of democratic
institutions which were imperfect at best."(12)

For the more than decade-long dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos, he
was backed by the United States government. When he cosmetically lifted
martial law in 1981, but retained all his martial law powers intact,
U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush visited Manila and raised a toast
to Marcos: "We love your adherence to democratic principle and to the
democratic processes."(13)

In 1986, the Philippine people, showing that they, unlike their leaders
or those in Washington, really understood democracy, ousted Marcos,
while the Reagan administration hung on to him until the last possible
moment.

Corazon Aquino replaced Marcos and initially she had several
progressives in her government and announced a program of social reform
as the way to deal with the country's long-running insurgency problem.
But under pressure from the United States and the Philippine armed
forces, the progressives were removed and Aquino's agenda became one of
military action instead of social reform.

Despite Aquino's best efforts, the new post-Marcos constitution stated
that "foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be
allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by
the Senate." Nationalist sentiment was strong enough in the country
that in 1991 the Philippine Senate voted against extending the
U.S.-Philippines Military Bases Agreement. But almost as soon as the
vote was taken, the U.S. tried with the help of cooperative Philippine
officials to get around the constitution.

In 1999, an agreement was concluded giving the U.S. "access" to
Philippine bases and in 2002 hundreds of U.S. troops were sent to the
Philippines to help fight the Abu Sayyef guerrillas. Today, according
to an Agence France Presse report, "the Pentagon is working to maintain
on the islands what U.S. Pacific Command head Admiral Thomas Fargo
called 'critical tactical mobility platforms,' including UH-1H
helicopters, C-130 transport aircraft, heavy trucks and patrol boats
that could be used in case of major U.S. military operations in the
region."(14)

Of course, these U.S. troops and equipment need not violate the
Philippine constitution if only President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would
submit the appropriate treaty to the Senate. But suspecting that such a
treaty would be voted down, the Arroyo administration and its U.S.
counterpart have chosen to simply ignore the constitution. This is the
hallmark not of democracy but of neocolonialism.

In Iraq today, there is plainly no democracy: the U.S. runs the show.
As an adviser to one of the members of the U.S. appointed Iraq
Governing Council put it, "The population of Iraq perceives correctly
that it is the occupiers who are running things. Everybody else is
there in some secondary or subservient role."(15) But even if and when
elections are held, and an Iraqi government formally takes over, one
can expect a neocolonial relationship, one where the U.S. helps make
sure that the Iraqis in charge support U.S. interests.

Already we see indications of U.S. goals. The New York Times reported
on April 29, 2003, "The United States is planning a long-term military
relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant
the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence
into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration
officials say." One senior administration official stated that "There
will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq,
similar to Afghanistan. The scope of that has yet to be defined --
whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating
bases or just plain access."(16) Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld denied
the story (17), but five months later (9/21/03) another Times story
indicated that Bush administration officials "say the future Iraqi
government will decide . . . whether to allow the United States to
establish permanent bases here, should the Pentagon seek them."(18)

In terms of economic policy, the Independent commented (9/22/03), "Iraq
was in effect put up for sale yesterday when the American-appointed
administration announced it was opening up all sectors of the economy
to foreign investors. . . . The initiative bore all the hallmarks of
Washington's ascendant neoconservative lobby, complete with tax cuts
and trade tariff rollbacks. It will apply to everything from industry
to health and water, although not oil."(19) And as for oil, the
U.S.-appointed chair of the U.S.-established "advisory" committee for
the Iraqi oil industry, Philip J. Carroll, former head of Shell Oil,
has said that the one near-certainty is that the future expansion of
Iraq's oil industry will be driven in part by foreign capital.(20)

In his speech to the Philippine Congress, George W. Bush thanked "the
citizens of Manila who lined the streets today for their warm and
gracious welcome." He may not have seen the thousands of Filipinos
protesting his visit. Bush's motorcade was delayed for an hour while
the Secret Service worried about his security and U.S. and Philippine
authorities (there's that democratic tutelage again) kept the
demonstrators -- and real democracy -- penned behind traffic barriers
and blockades of military vehicles.(21)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Article: The price of remittances
    ... Perhaps the major accomplishment of the current Philippine government ... Filipinos who told him they were bound for Dubai to work in hotels ... The second report on Filipinos came on August 8 when Dateline NBC ... The call came from Ravina's niece, Lannie, whom they had financed ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • ngek sa akin pala nagnaling ang orig nito
    ... Filipinos that we can brag about. ... Magazines' latest list of 497 world billionaires. ... Filipinos in the billionaires' list are Lucio Tan, ... Philippine National Bank while the 77-year-old Sy manages the SM ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • pinas govt pleads to other rich countries that pinoys trapped in lebanon be given a ride out
    ... Please allow Filipinos to hitch ride ... Published on Page A1 of the July 20, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily ... hitch a ride in their evacuation vessels out of war-battered Lebanon. ... the United Philippine Manpower Agencies to Israel ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • Re: many complaints from Philippine businessmen who said these Chinese did their business unfairly,
    ... The Philippine Embassy in Washington, D.C. was asked to include in its watchlist the names of 10 Filipinos who failed to return home after the staging of the Senior League World Series in the United States from 2003 to 2005. ... The verification from the New York and San Francisco consulates was relayed to the Bacolod Sangguniang Panlungsod on December 21, 2005 by Pedro Chan, executive director of the Office of Undersecretary for Migrant Workers Affairs at the Department of Foreign Affairs. ... Palermo said she will call on the committees of education, finance, women, and law to hold a joint committee hearing, similar to last year, on the complaint of the Little League softball team from the Paglaum Village National High School. ...
    (soc.culture.china)