By Jovito R. Salonga
Former Senate President &
Former Liberal Party President
Today, we have finally summoned the political will to stand up and end 470 years of foreign military presence here in the Philippines. To be sure, this decision is not without its cost. There will be temporary dislocation and hardships all around, especially in Central Luzon. But we should learn the lesson we should have learned long ago—namely, no nation can become truly free without sacrifice. The trouble with some of us is we want freedom and independence without sweat and without tears. But there is no other way.
Salamat na lamang at hindi na tayo nagdaan ngayon sa isyung ito sa isang malupit at maduging digmaan. Ang sabi ng ating mga kaibigan—“Kayo po naman ay hindi nakadanas ng paghihirap. Maawa namankayo sa amin na nawalan ng trabaho.”(I am grateful that we did not have to tackle this issue in abitter and bloody manner. Our friends who work in the bases told me—“You have never known poverty. Please have pity on us who will lose our jobs.”)
Unemployment is a big problem, indeed, and we sympathize. It is because of our sensitivity to this problem that one of us, on his own initiative, proposed a 3-year phased withdrawal from Subic, so this problem as well as other problems in Central Luzon can be attended to during that period of adjustment, which will allow for a smooth transition. But before we could discuss it, some of our distinguished colleagues and the Palace shot down this pro-poor proposal, for political reasons.
Let me now be a little personal by way of answer to the argument that we have not experienced suffering. I recall that as a young man of 21, I joined the underground resistance in 1942, was eventually captured, then repeatedly tortured in Pasig in the presence of my father, transferred to Fort Santiago and to three other jails, then sentenced by a Japanese military tribunal to 15 years of hard labor in Muntinglupa.
When Marcos imposed martial law in September 1972, I was among the earliest to oppose it openly and publicly. I handled the cases of well-known as well as obscure political detainees. I was persecuted, arrested and thrown into the same isolation room where Ninoy Aquino had been imprisoned for more than 7 ½ years of his memorable life. I recall that in the early years of martial law, we were only a few fighting the Marcos dictatorship.
Ang pinuhunan naming ay buhay—hindi empleyo lamang. Hubad yata sa katwiran at katotohanan ang mga patama n gating mga kaibigan. (I put my life on the line, not just my job. I think our friends’ criticism of me is misplaced.)
Many friends to whom we owe debts of gratitude or bound by ties of pakikisama have called us, from here and abroad, or approached us so we would change our vote from No to Yes to this one-sided and unconscionable Treaty. To them I say—Malaki ang akingutang na loob sa inyo, at marahil ako’y makababayad din sa inyo balang panahon. Nguni’t hindi ko maaaring ipagpalit ang kapakanan at ang kalayaan ng ating Inang Bayan.Maaaring kayo’y pro-bases, ngun’t tingnan naman ninyo ang kasunduang ito—masyadong api naman at agrabyadong-agrabyado ang bansang Pilipino. (I owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude and perhaps someday I can repay this debt. But I cannot exchange the welfare and freedom of our Mother Country. You are pro-bases, but look at this treaty—it is entirely to the disadvantage of the Filipino nation.)
I realize that the nation is divided. We in this Senate are divided. Even the pro-Bases Senators are apparently divided among themselves about their adherence to this one-sided, anachronistic Treaty, and I wish it were possible we could follow Senator Pimentel’s proposal for us to give a unanimous “NO” to heal this divided nation.
I think all of us are engaged in a search—search for the soul of this nation, a quest for the best Filipino character, a search for the true Filipino spirit. We summon the memories of those we honor—from Jose Rizal to Andres Bonifacio, from Abad Santos to Ninoy Aquino. Their collective message, even on the eve of their death, was one of hope, not of fear; of faith, not of doubt; of confidence in the capacity of the Filipino to suffer and overcome, not of his unwillingness to stand the rigors of freedom and independence.
I look at this Treaty; it is entitled A Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security. But when we read the text closely and analyze its implications, it does not strike me as a Treaty of Friendship; it is a Treaty of Surrender. It is not a Treaty of Security; it is a Treaty of greater insecurity.
Ships and aircrafts in transit carrying nuclear weapons can come in, without knowledge or approval of the Philippine Government. And may I say now, sea-based nuclear missiles, according to the best scientific evidence, are more dangerous than land-based weapons. The release of land-based nuclear missiles is severely limited by a chain of command procedure, all the way up to the President of the United States.
In contrast, the firing of sea-borne missiles is at the discretion only of the commander of each naval vessel. But really, what is the pint of brining nuclear weapons here when the United States is only remaining superpower in the world today?
We have been told that if we reject this Treaty, no matter how unjust and one-sided it may be, the act of rejection will send a wrong signal to Washington. So we had better ratify it, otherwise, we will be punished by Uncle Sam. Once we ratify, even if there are no concrete, specific obligations imposed upon the United States by the Treaty, the generosity and altruism of the United States Government would descend upon our poor nation, as a result of our blind act of servility.
Fortunately, we can draw lessons from the words of wisdom of American policy-makers themselves. President Dwight Eisenhower, who once served under General MacArthur in the Philippines, declared in 1958:
Everything we do in the foreign field has for its basic purpose—our national security, our own national prosperity… we are not doing these things in the foreign filed as a matter of altruism and charity.
Ambassador Charles Bohlen, one of the ablest US ambassadors who served here in the late 50’s. Reminded his Filipino audience: “We in the US Embassy are her (in the Philippines) to protect American interests. We expect your officials to protect your own interests”.
What a stinging rebuke to many Filipinos whoa re inclined to believe that they also serve our own interests when they first promote US interests! The truth of the matter is that for as long as the Bases are here, our relations with the US will not be healthy and normal. If we ask for a higher compensation, they tell us we are mercenaries and our brand of diplomacy a cash-register diplomacy. Iyon pala pagkatapos ng Pinatubo, babaratin tayo nang husto! (After the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, they decide to shortchange us!).
When we told them before Pinatubo that their bases here were the biggest US overseas bases in the world and we should get the compensation we justly deserve, their retort was that we should not view this as a real estate transaction but a mutual security arrangement. But after Pinatubo, the whole thing from their perspective became nothing but a real estate transaction!
Why our relations with the US will never be normal while they have their bases here is truthfully explained by former Ambassador Francis Underhill (who used to be political counselor in Manila from 1986 to 1971), who advocated their closure long ago. He said: “Our relations with the Philippines can never be normal while our bases remain; on the one hand, the bases symbolize their special relationship with us. On the other hand, the bases are also regarded as an affront to Philippine national pride and a symbol of imperfect independence and continuing dependency. In Third World circles, they yearn to join.
The Filipinos are condemned and ostracized because of these bases and the solatium they now seek they see as modest compensation for the obloquy they suffer on our account. The Base relationship also helps to perpetuate in the Philippines a neurotic, manipulative, psychically crippling form of dependency. As a consequence, the Philippines is a country that is difficult to take seriously.”
The world has changed since 1947 when we ratified the first Military Bases Agreement. The Soviet Union has agreed to the withdrawal of its forces from former Communist satellites in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself today is hardly recognizable. Both Yeltsin and Gorbachev have pledged to abolish nuclear weapons. Yet this Treaty takes a different tack—it is as if the Cold War was not yet over. China, rent by restiveness, is now collaborator of the United States. The logic of events, therefore, should point to a diminution of warlike postures in Southeast Asia, especially Philippines.
Long before the eruption of Pinatubo, responsible American officials, ware of the contradictions and strains that wrap Philippine-American relations, have recommended the withdrawal of American bases in the Philippines. George Kennan, the principal architect of American foreign policy after World War II had advocated in 1948 that the United States must without any sentimentality, control a theoretically independent Philippines in order to contain Soviet expansion.
But in 1977, at the height of the Marcos dictatorship, Kennan reversed himself and urged “immediate, complete, resolute and wordless” withdrawal of US bases in the Philippines. He said that “paying huge annual bribes as a form of hush money to keep Filipino leaders quiet and to cause them to accommodate themselves reluctantly…is not a position in which the United States should ever choose to appear.” And after his election as US president, Jimmy Cater declared that human rights would be the centerpiece of American foreign policy. But in his testimony before the US Congress, his own Secretary of State Cyrus Vance candidly admitted that “human rights of Filipinos will have to yield to overriding US security considerations” for as long as the US bases are in the Philippines.
I have stayed long enough in exile in the US—more than three years in fact after my release from prison—to know that ordinary Americans do not even know where Subic is. They will not even understand why we are voting on this one-sided Treaty even as they could not understand in 1983 why a corrupt, ruthless dictatorship that in their opinion had something to do with the barbaric assassination of Ninoy Aquino should be aided and supported by their Government.
I have no doubt that average American, known for their generosity of spirit, decency and sense of fair play, would condemn this Treaty as unconscionable, if they only had the chance to read it. From well-informed Americans in colleges and universities, churches and organizations devoted to peace, disarmament and international understanding and from many American who once served as missionaries and teachers here, I have not yet received any letter or message asking us to ratify this Treaty—all of them manifested their objection to this unjust agreement. The reason is simple. The acts of the Pentagon and the State Department have not always come up to the basic decency and the sense of fairness of the American people.
One last word. I have been warned by well-meaning friends that my stand on this Treaty will hurt my chances of becoming president. No matter. That is an insignificant consequence. In times of great crisis, our martyrs and heroes offered their lives that our people might become truly free. Anong kuwento ng puwesto kung ito’y ihahambing natin sa halaga ng buhay? I said it before but I will say it again. After walking through the valley of the shadow of death, twice in my life, title and positions do not mean much to me anymore. What is more important is to be of real service to our people, with or without any position in Government.
In our history as a nation, our best years were when we took our destiny in our hands and faced the uncertain future with boldness, hope and faith. Those were the items when we experienced a sense of national renewal and self-respect. The Revolutions of 1896. The battle for the liberation of the Philippines from 1942 to 1945. The struggle for freedom during the darkest years of martial law and dictatorship, culminating in the mountain-peak experience of EDSA in February 1986. How can we ever forget these high moments in the life of this nation?
September 16, 1991 may well be the day when we mustered the courage and the will to declare the end of foreign military presence in the Philippines and helped pave the way to lasting peace here and in the world.
Therefore, I vote “NO” to this Treaty, and if it were only possible, I would vote 203 million times “NO.”
Highlights of the September 16, 1991 Speech
Of Former Senate President and LP Chair
Emeritus Jovito R. Salonga, during the Senate
Vote on the U.S.-R.P. Military Bases Agreement
(This is to express our gratitude to all Senators who voted 'No' on the U.S. - R.P. Military Bases Treaty)
