What America now means to usHINDSIGHT By F. Sionil JoseThe Philippine STAR

The rape charge in Subic against four American Marines is yet another wrinkle in Philippine-American relations. In spite of noises to the contrary, we continue to be dependent on the United States. This patron-client relation is accepted by most Filipinos – if the movement which will make the Philippines the 51st state of the American union is legitimized, it will surely be approved by most Filipinos. How then will the rape charge be resolved? In all probability, it will be relegated to the dust bin – one more price we have to pay for this lopsided relationship. The Americans know all this – for which reason they take us for granted.
It is also said that the best thing that has happened to the United States and us is the Pacific Ocean. But even with this vast chasm, for most of us, America is our second country. More than four million Filipinos live there as immigrants or illegals. Our emotional ties with America have not deteriorated. This in spite of the shrill anti-Americanism of a small minority influenced by the communists and an unrealistic inward-looking nationalism. A re-elected American president and an insecure Malacañang occupant now share some common problems.
How do we explain the tenacity of this attachment to an America far away, so often insensitive to our aspirations? How else but with history that starts with America’s first exercise in globalization, the manifest destiny ambition of American imperialists for a foothold in Asia and the huge Chinese market. There was the decaying Spanish empire and its last colony, the Philippines, up for grabs, and so Dewey sailed into Manila Bay in 1898 "to assist" the Philippine revolution. The "little brown brothers" swallowed the bait.
It didn’t happen that way, but the Americans sweetened their perfidy with a public school system, universal suffrage, public works and public health, and the open door to the "land of milk and honey" to pensionados, the stoop laborers in the cane fields in Hawaii, the orange orchards and vegetable farms in California. And so we were soon shaped in the American image with large dream doses from Hollywood. Our own intellectuals imbibed American accents and education. The cultural conquest was complete – a conquest which we must now emerge from if we are to shape a nation defined only by us and survive a world dominated by Coca Cola.
This is easier said than done, for aside from having to shake off America’s cultural chains, we must strengthen ourselves economically so that our women need not go abroad to work as housemaids and prostitutes.
But now American investments may diminish as the climate becomes less favorable; they will probably relocate to Vietnam or China.
Our exports in services may continue to rise as more and more Filipinos are determined to flee from government-induced difficulties. US visa requirements, however, have stiffened, making it more difficult, particularly for our nurses and other professionals to enter the United States.
Our sugar exports in the past were favored by the United States sugar quota. Sugar and coconut have been replaced in value by garments and electronic products, but the value added to these exports is not as high as our agricultural exports. The opening of the mining industry to foreigners as decided by the recent Supreme Court decision has bright possibilities.
American economic interests in the Philippines all through the colonial period were primarily in mining and agriculture. We were supposed to benefit from free trade and shortly after World War II, when we were granted independence in 1946, we also gave them equal rights (parity) in the exploitation of our natural resources, a condition that we opposed stringently.
But our nationalism avoided the agrarian problem which the United States was willing to help resolve. It also blinded the eyes of our elites to the opportunities offered by the American market, opportunities which the Koreans, the Taiwanese and the Japanese exploited so well; within a generation after World War II, they achieved miraculous economic recovery.
And we were left behind.
In the brutal world of realpolitik where might is right, we matter little to the United States now. In fact, we have disappeared from the American screen, except when there is some disaster in our country, or when a Filipino in the United States commits a front page crime.
The Americans are not as sentimental as we when we process decisions through the sieve of our own psychological makeup. So the new American ambassador has a relative who survived the Death March; except for a few like her, forgotten is the Filipino American partnership in World War II – those who have actual memories of this are too old to have any influence in American policy making. If Americans have such grateful memories, all those Filipino veterans in the United States who were promised pensions would not be destitute today.
In the strategic American overview, we may be considered now an unreliable ally after Gloria withdrew the minuscule Filipino contingent in Iraq.
The real flashpoints in Asia are the following:
North Korean recalcitrance, its nuclear program that is a direct threat to Japan, a major American ally.
Closer to us is Taiwan and its desire to reject its "province" of Mainland China status as advanced by China and, ironically, by the Chiang Kai-shek regime which fled to Taiwan in 1949. This desire rankles China and every so often, it makes all those threatening noises that are soon quieted down by either the presence of the United States 7th Fleet in the Taiwan Straits or appeasing gestures by the Taiwanese government with tacit American approval.
In Japan, however, looms a growing apprehension of the military threat which an economically powerful China has become. The latest rot in Japan-China relations came about last year when a Chinese nuclear submarine was spotted in Japanese territorial waters.
From the Chinese, no apology; rather, a continuous rise of anti-Japanese sentiment, obviously fanned by government and fueled by bitter memories of Japanese atrocities during the Sino-Japanese war. This has prompted Japanese Premier Koizumi to increase military spending.
America is well aware of China’s rise now equaling Japan’s No. 2 economic position, as well its scientific advance and its resolve to build a strong military in the fashion of Meiji Japan. Don’t forget: China has the atom bomb and has already sent a man to space.
America is also well aware of China’s hegemonic aspirations in southeast Asia, in the Spratleys about which the Philippines can do nothing. Note how America was excluded in the recent Asian summit in Kuala Lumpur, this at China’s behest.
The American military bases in Clark and Subic, once the biggest military bases outside the continental United States, were granted by the Philippines in 1946. When parity rights ended and the bases were thrown out, we lost a bargaining leverage. Without the US bases, our claim to the Spratleys is in jeopardy.
9/11 had a profound impact not only on the Americans but on us. There are parallels between what is happening in the Middle East and our ongoing communist and Moro rebellions. The communist uprising is rooted in our agrarian disparities since the Spanish regime on to our revolution in 1896, through the Hukbalahap peasant uprising in 1949-53. The Moro rebellion has a slightly different origin. But both could have been avoided by an oligarchic Filipino elite which controls government all through the American regime to this very day.
As our history has amply illustrated, American leaders are used to "waltzing" with dictators, with Ferdinand Marcos in particular in pursuit of America’s "national interest" – oil in the Middle East, and until they were closed in 1991, military bases here. These American "interests" do not always coincide with ours. From where did Ferdinand Marcos get his largest support but from Ronald Reagan? All those years that Senator Ninoy Aquino was in exile in America, the White House considered him a pariah; he was seen as a destabilizer of the cozy relationship between Reagan and Marcos.
The withdrawal of the tiny Filipino military contingent in Iraq two years ago, forced by the kidnapping of a Filipino truck driver, illustrated how our "national interest" differs from that of the United States. About a million Filipinos work in the Middle East. They send to an inefficient and bankrupt government about $10 billion every year. President Arroyo may have acted for her political survival by acceding to the demands of the kidnappers but many Filipinos approved her action.
The Moro rebellion which erupted in the late Sixties during the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos has its roots in the negligence of government to our Moro minority, poverty, and the flood of land hungry settlers in the under populated areas of Mindanao. It was not a military problem then but failure to recognize it early enough has now militarized it. Is it the same with Iraq? And Al Queda?
The Middle East ConnectionMany of the Moro rebel leaders were educated in the Middle East; some were trained by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Al Queda’s ties with the terrorist Moro group, the Abu Sayyaf, are well established; such ties date back to the Eighties, perhaps even earlier, when many Arab teachers came ostensibly to open Islamic schools. 9/11 was plotted in the Philippines where the terrorists learned how to fly – how to take off but never how to land. Philippine intelligence services forwarded such information to Washington but, perhaps the information was not given credence.
Many similarities exist between our Moro datus and sultans with the Saudi princes and Middle Eastern sheiks. The datus inhibit the mobility of young, able Moros in the same way that the Saudi princes amassed wealth and power without spreading much to the Saudi populace.
The Filipino’s perception of national security is often inchoate, all too often the so-called national interest is defined by the power holders, the upper classes. The rest of the population outside their golden ghettoes have little recourse to justice. The corruption of the justice system, of the bureaucracy in general, has imbued many Filipinos with a sense of futility if not desperation. It is so easy for us as it is for many in the Arab world to embrace radicalism and seek salvation in organizations like Al Queda and/or in jihad.
And finally, for the Arabs, there is Israel.
For all its many shortcomings, we need America. It has provided security for us the southeast Asian region; in fact, America provides stability for the world.
But for us, this security should not be the security of the grave. If only to enhance this security, we need to do the following:
1. Renegotiate the Visiting Forces Agreement to satisfy our craving for sovereignty and to make the American military presence in the Philippines more meaningful in the light of heightened security requirements in the region.
Our defense capability is minimal compared to the capabilities of our neighbors. We depend so much on American military assistance. This military presence should be bolstered not only by visiting American forces, but by the positioning of a base in the South, preferably in the island of Basilan or in Sulu. Note that Japan pays for the American bases in Japan.
2. Negotiate for better trade access to the United States.
3. Assist the Filipinos in the United States in their organization for lobbying in America for our interest and theirs. The Filipino communities in the United States are strong in terms of numbers, but the communities are riven. Organized Filipino communities can also be helpful in channeling assistance to the Philippine communities where they come from. Filipinos coming home to do good often do on their own. Such assistance can be focused and also be better organized. It must be remembered that when the Chinese revolutionary leader Sun Yat Sen mounted his revolution in the Twenties, it was the Chinese in the United States which gave him the most assistance.
As a young nation, America should be forgiven for having little memory. In the first place, who created the Taliban? Who built up Saddam Hussein?
Americans will do well to remember that in 1898, in fulfillment of manifest destiny, many veterans of their Indian wars fought the Filipinos. They suffered thousands of casualties and more than 250 thousand Filipinos – mostly civilians – were killed. That bitter conflict should have been embedded deep in the American psyche; if it was, then they would never have gone to Vietnam, and now Iraq. As in Vietnam, the Americans confronted for the second time that indomitable force, Asian nationalism. Now it is Arab nationalism.
Meanwhile, religion was never really the motive behind our Moro rebellion and is also not the basic impulse of the Iraqi insurgency. In Iraq, the two major factions, the Sunnis and the Shiites, are at odds with one another. When President Bush claims that God is on the American side, he is precisely exacerbating the religious issue and fanning even stronger the religious nature of the conflict. For the Arabs, the equal righteousness of jihad is invoked.
The roots of the conflict transcend religion, although religion now gives the conflict an indelible color. Arab anger – like that of the Moro’s – is also directed at their own sense of hopelessness, their being unable to resist exploitation by a "heathen America" coveting their oil, the loss of their ethnicity more than nationality. And it is with their leaders that a rapacious America is often allied. Whoever the Americans place in power (as in Iraq) is therefore perceived as an American toady.
The stringent security measures set up by the United States already cost billions. Such drastic measures have engendered a fortress psychology that is now strangling the United States as well. By creating such, Al Queda has already achieved its destabilization of the United States. America’s moral high ground is also diminished.
Tyrants are washed away by time or by an empowered people, like we did in 1986 when we drove Marcos out.
Liberty – and justice which goes with liberty – is humanity’s inalienable destiny. This liberty taken for granted in America is not an abstraction to us. Filipinos, like peoples everywhere, defined it according to their deepest aspirations. They suffered and died for it. The conflicts then and now are not between civilizations, between East and West, between tradition and modernity, least of all between the old and the new.
The conflicts have always been between the oppressor and the oppressed, between the rich and powerful colonialists, global and domestic who covet liberty for themselves alone, and the poor to whom this liberty is denied.
America’s role as the world’s richest and most powerful nation should be to help the many who are poor, who want to be free, without having to shed the blood of its youth. And this role is perhaps best summed up by one of America’s founding fathers, Thomas Paine, when he said, "Where there is oppression and injustice, that is my country."