Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Southeast Asia, Volume XXII

380. Telegram From the Embassy in the Philippines to the Department of State¹

Manila, March 7, 1956—6 p.m.

2494. For Under Secretary Hoover. My telegram 2482.²

1. I consider that the time has come to take a new look at the terms of reference for military base negotiations (Department’s instruction A–574 June 22, 1955³). In view of developments since terms were prepared I believe they are unrealistic and impossible of fulfillment.

2. The central issue is US retention of title to base lands. Attorney General Brownell’s opinion⁴ is anathema to Filipinos who contend that to concede title means portion of Philippine sovereignty has been surrendered, and therefore Philippine independence is not complete. I believe Philippine Government will insist that any title US possessed prior to July 4, 1946, passed automatically to Philippines on independence. Press has reported that Philippines would take question of ownership of lands to International Court of Justice “in the event of a persistent deadlock” on issue between two countries. Senator Delgado⁵ introduced concurrent resolution expressing view that Philippines retains ownership US military and naval bases “before and after grant of Philippine independence” (Embtel 2046⁶). Issue has strong emotional appeal to Filipinos.

3. In article on forthcoming visit of Secretary Dulles,⁷ Philippines-Herald yesterday reported that some months ago an “influential” Philippine Foreign Office official said that “unless the US [garble] the Brownell opinion, negotiations could only result in total failure.”

4. I do not believe that the phasing suggested in the briefing paper prepared for Secretary (PST D–6/7⁸) is at all realistic. We must act now. The terms of reference assume that we have something with which to trade. The Philippine position is that we have nothing to offer. In view of this request that this matter be given urgent consideration so that Secretary Dulles, when he sees President Magsaysay next week, may be in a position to inform Magsaysay that he can announce, at time agreeable to him, that the United States is prepared in advance of, instead of in course of or at end of, negotiations to offer to surrender title to all military and naval lands of whatever category (as United States President is authorized to do by Brownell opinion). This, in effect, will pull the rug out from under extreme nationalistic element who are ever ready to tweak Uncle Sam’s beard. Thus, by one stroke we can retire gracefully from an untenable position, the maintenance of which will bring us nothing but grief, and at the same time forego tendentious legalistic disputation on an issue which is largely academic. Such action should not only result in development of considerable good will in Philippines and elsewhere and redound to our long-range benefit, particularly in this part of world, but would also remove from local political areas an issue of embarrassment to President Magsaysay.

Ferguson

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 711.56396/3–756. Secret; Limited Distribution Department. Repeated to Karachi eyes only for Robertson.
2. In telegram 2482, March 6, Ferguson reported a conversation he had that same day with Philippine Senator Gil Puyat, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Puyat informed him that the Philippine Congress would appropriate funds for the purchase of private lands required for the U.S. military base expansion provided that the United States only wanted to use the land and not acquire title to it and was willing in advance of negotiations to offer to surrender titles to present base lands. (Ibid., 711.56396/3–656)
3. Document 352.
4. See footnote 2, Document 344.
5. Francisco Delgado, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
6. Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 711.56396/1–2556)
7. As part of a short tour of the Far East following the SEATO Council meeting of March 6-8 in Karachi, Secretary Dulles was scheduled to visit the Philippines on March 15 and 16. Documentation on the Dulles trip after the SEATO meeting is Ibid.,FE Conference Files: Lot 60 D 514)
8. Dated February 23, this paper set forth the official position in regard to the military base issue: “We are opposed to any revision of the Agreement, which we feel is operating in satisfactory fashion for both countries, and wish to limit our negotiations to revision of the land areas which we occupy.” (Ibid., Post-SEATO Trip 1956)