Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume XII, Part 2

411.9631/3–2254: Telegram

No. 355
The Ambassador in the Philippines (Spruance) to the Department of State

secret
niact

Manila, March 22, 1954—11 p.m.

2081. For Robertson. Reference DCM, Robertson, telephone conversation 8 p.m. March 22 re revision trade agreement.

Magsaysay sent for DCM March 19 for general conversation during course of which DCM reiterated previous assurance that US prepared to issue press release according text provided by Department telegram 2284¹ and previously furnished Magsaysay if he would address letter to Ambassador requesting postponement. Magsaysay asked DCM to provide draft of letter which was done indirectly a.m. March 21. Embassy delayed reporting this development pending receipt Magsaysay’s letter which so long delayed since Ambassador’s first presentation.

President called DCM 7 p.m. March 22 to say that:

(a) He had dispatched letter early a.m. March 22 as suggested by DCM March 19. (Letter not yet received by Embassy.)

(b) Garcia to deliver March 27 Far Eastern University speech demanding abrogation trade agreement.

(c) He, Magsaysay, realized Garcia stealing march on him.

(d) Urgently requested concurrence his making public at once (p.m. March 22) request postponement duty-free period for 18 months and asked that Embassy issue press release.²

DCM informed Ambassador, who concurred former’s recommendation that Ambassador give Magsaysay green light. Magsaysay given same 7:30 p.m. March 22.

Embassy considers only practical course action strengthen Magsaysay position in midst concerted effort place US and Magsaysay in unfavorable light. Accordingly Embassy is making press release as approved by Department for p.m. papers March 23 Manila. Suggest Washington release analogous time. Magsaysay asked no changes in text release.³

As Department understands, Garcia–Recto axis determined place Magsaysay, by public pronouncement foreign policy without Magsaysay’s imprimatur, in position which US must deny or repudiate. Garcia–Recto combination obsessed, for cosmetic-political reasons, with desire to capitalize upon Philippine Nationalist sensibilities, which evidenced in bases issue, Clark Field press incident, Bowers’ case, and other matters [which?] have been deliberately inflamed.

Spruance

1. Telegram 2284, Mar. 10, contained the draft text of the press release cited in footnote 3, below. (411.9631/3–454)
2. The request from the Philippines was actually for postponement of termination of the free trade period for 18 months after July 3, 1954, at which time the free trade period was scheduled to end under the existing Agreement.

3. The joint U.S.-Philippine statement released on Mar. 22 is printed in Department of State Bulletin, Apr. 12, 1954, p. 566. In addition to U.S. acquiescence to the Philippine request for extension of the reciprocal free trade period, which would require action by the Congresses of both countries, the statement indicated that the United States was willing to discuss modification of the existing Agreement as well as matters not covered by the Agreement. The United States did not feel, however, that the selective free trade proposal advanced by the Philippines on May 5, 1953 (see ibid., Sept. 7, 1953, p. 316), offered a satisfactory basis for future trade relations.

   The mutual extension of the reciprocal free trade period for 18 months, through Dec. 31, 1955, was effected by the passage of legislation in both countries and an exchange of notes on July 7, 1954; see ibid., July 19, 1954, p. 89 and Aug. 16, 1954, p. 254.