711.56396/3–2554
No. 357
Memorandum by the Officer in Charge of
Philippine Affairs (Bell) to the
Director of the Office of Philippine and Southeast Asian Affairs
(Bonsal)
Subject:
- Philippine Reaction to Attorney General’s Opinion and Forthcoming Bases Negotiations.1
The reaction of the Manila press and Philippine public figures to the Attorney General’s Opinion has bordered on the hysterical. With the exception of one member of Congress (who does not enjoy an admirable reputation) every public figure in the Philippines who has addressed himself to our claims as set forth in the Attorney General’s Opinion is in agreement that our position is completely unacceptable.
Two leading Senators are reported to have publicly advocated abrogation of the Bases Agreement although one later denied having taken such a position. Concurrently we have been attacked by members of the Senate for alleged abuse of our jurisdiction within the bases and for failure to provide adequate military aid to the Philippine Armed Forces.
Newspaper editorials and news writers and columnists have been even more violent in their reactions.
The Philippines Herald stated that the deliberations of the Philippine panel studying the bases problem might lead to a “thorough reexamination of Philippine-American relations”.
According to the Herald our claim to title “could thus create an unnecessary irritant to Philippine-American relations.”
The Manila Chronicle (owned by a brother of the former Vice President and present Senator Lopez) stated on March 15 that approval of the U.S. position would “justify the oft-repeated charge that Philippine independence is nominal”.
I. P. Soliongco, a caustic but not unfriendly columnist for the Chronicle, wrote on March 15:
“If true, this report should shock the Filipinos into thinking more seriously of their patrimony. The layman that we are, we know of no law which strengthens the reported claim. It has been suggested that possibly the basis of the opinion is some secret agreement by which the Philippine government has sold the people [Page 587] down the river. Such an agreement, if it really exists, is nothing but a betrayal, and no time should be lost in abrogating it.”
“The last of the reports has it that, for bargaining purposes, the United States has tied up the base discussions with the negotiations for the revision of the Bell Trade Act. We sincerely hope this is not true, for if it is, the Philippines will be justified in accusing America of unfairness, and the accusation will stick.”
“In 1946, Manuel Roxas rode to victory as the favorite of Washington. There was no question at all that the United States favored him and helped him. He paid for that aid and support by handing over to the Americans, on a silver platter as it were, the approval of the Bell Act and the ratification of the Parity amendment. In two years, his stock was down, and at the time of his death, he was already the target of attacks, some bitter, all justified.”
“Now, what price is demanded of President Magsaysay in exchange for the support of the Americans during the campaign?”
Subsequently, Soliongco wrote:
“But if the policy-makers in Washington are wise, they ought to realize by now that, the more independent the Philippines is, the more useful she will be to the free world. They should rejoice over the fact that the Philippines has a Senator Recto whose independence of mind they can cite in their almost daily tiffs with the Soviets.”
“But obviously, the United States has not learned anything at all. Her policy-makers are apparently convinced that the subservience of the Philippines to Washington is necessary to save democracy here and in other parts of Asia.”
A Chronicle editorial of March 16 entitled “Territorial Hijacking” reads “The United States government is now hard at work forcing down the throats of the Filipinos the idea that its bases in the Philippines are American-owned and are, therefore, subject to the sovereignty of the United States.
“If the Philippines allows this piece of territorial hijacking, she will have attained the distinction of being the only nation which alienated parcels of her patrimony in exchange for the economic aid and good opinion of a wealthy and powerful ‘friend’.”
The Daily Mirror of March 15, held:
“The Administration cannot grant the U.S. claim without giving credence to the allegations of its critics that it is subservient to Washington. The US for the same reason should not press its opinion.”
“Care should be taken that a favorable attitude on this proposal (Trade Agreement) is not conditioned in any way on the outcome of the negotiations on bases. We still remember how war damage payments were used as a bargaining lever in getting acceptance of the Bell Trade Act. The fear of many people today is that extension or revision of the same act may depend on whether we agree or not to give the US permanent rights to slices of our territory.”
The Evening News of March 16 said:
“In the case of the United States claiming ownership of Philippine territory, we also question the motivation and the reasoning involved. There is absolutely nothing in the history of these negotiations to lead us to the belief that the American Government would even entertain such a far fetched and impossible notion. It would not only be opposed here with great vigor and determination, but it would be opposed elsewhere in the world as well. Nothing could possibly do more damage to the cause of America’s struggle against communist tyranny than insistence that it owns part of the Philippines.”
There follows comment by Philippine Congressmen as reported in the Manila press:
Senate President Rodriguez: “The Philippines will not relinquish sovereignty over any portion of Philippine territory”.
Senator Delgado, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee: “The ownership of American and Philippine bases in the Philippines is with the Philippine Government. Under the agreement the U.S. Government will hold the bases for 99 years, only. It did not surrender an inch of Philippine territory to the U.S.”
Senator Fernando Lopez, Acting President of the Democratic Party, was against transfer of ownership of any portion of Philippine territory.
Senate Majority Leader Cipriano P. Primicias said that the policy of Philippine senators is: “Not to yield an inch of ground of Philippine territory”.
Senator Gil Puyat said that the sovereignty of a country should not be used as bargaining point in negotiations on military bases.
Senator Lorenzo M. Tanada, President of the Citizens Party, voiced opposition to American ownership of military bases and said question of Philippine sovereignty over any portion of its territory should not be brought into the bases discussions.
Senator M. Jesus Cuenco, Foreign Affairs Committee, said: “We must not allow slightest encroachment on our territorial sovereignty”.
Senator Kangleon (Magsaysay’s predecessor as Secretary of Defense) stated that the bases agreement grants the Philippines nothing, and there is no guarantee that the U.S. will not pull out from the bases “when the going gets tough,” and deprecated the military assistance given the Philippines. He further pointed out that in return for military bases in Spain the U.S. promised in writing economic assistance of $500 million, that the Spanish agreement was for only ten years and that the terms of the agreement were much less onerous.
Representative Miguel Cuenco, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Representative Diodado Macapagal, foreign policy spokesman of the minority House, both urged resistance to the U.S. proposal.
An un-named Congressman is quoted as saying: “We may need America and all that—we may be their Oriental brothers—we may [Page 589] be ready to die to the last Filipino in defense of U.S. ideals of democracy. But to ask us to yield an inch of our territory to the Americans would be tantamount to abusing our generosity. Let them occupy their present bases for as long as they want, please allow us to keep the titles.”
- The opinion by Attorney General Brownell was released on Mar. 15, 1954. A copy is in file 711.56396/8–2853.↩