392. Telegram From the Commander in Chief, Pacific (Stump), to the Chief of Naval Operations (Burke)1
22046Z. Subj Milba: Sebald’s proposed gestures. AmEmb Manila tel No 3473 to State2 relayed to CINCPAC by CNO 191857Z.
I would be the last to throw cold water on any State–AmEmb Manila proposals to strengthen US-Phil relations. For some years now CINCPAC has advocated breaking out of our customary defensive position in which we merely react to Recto instead of seizing the initiative from him by an affirmative campaign of our own.
These Sebald proposals do not necessarily involve any danger to important US mil interests. He correctly labels them as gestures. But I am constrained to point out that even well intended gestures may backfire dangerously if not appropriately timed and sufficiently safeguarded.
. . . . . . .
In this case, therefore, we must insure that it won’t mean anything we don’t want it to mean. Raising the Phil flag could otherwise [Page 654] operate as a camel’s nose to lift the tent of exclusive US control over, and over access to, US bases of Subic, Sangley and Clark.
The other local danger in the flag raising gesture is that if not appropriately safeguarded and timed, Recto may turn it against us. He could easily make it appear to be the first US recognition of Phil sovereignty over our mil bases. This sovereignty issue has been his most potent and successful emotional appeal to Phil public and politicians. He was the first to stir up anti-US sentiment by claiming the US was impugning Philippine sovereignty.
If the Phil flag raising announcement can be made to appear as evidence that Recto was right in contending that the US had not heretofore recognized Phil sovereignty over mil bases, Recto will appear as the successful champion of Phil independence and dignity against US imperialism and colonialism. Both the US and Magsaysay would suffer from such a result.
If we go for this flag raising gesture, it must be done so as to appear as a reaffirmation of—not as the original recognition of— Philippine sovereignty by the US. It must appear as a tribute to Magsaysay and the Phil people, which we extend as a matter of grace, and not as a victory won by Recto.
But before we commit ourselves to the dual-flag system in the Phil, its possible impact on US bases elsewhere should be evaluated on a worldwide basis.
For example, our recent Ambassador to Canada3 proposed that the Canadian flag be flown at US bases in Newfoundland as an amicable and pleasant gesture to the Canadians.
I believe his rationalization was that because the Canadian flag would be flown at joint Canadian-US bases more recently opened in connection with the DEW Line, etc., it should also be flown at bases in Newfoundland. This overlooked the critical difference that the Newfoundland bases are not joint bases but are exclusively US bases, and hence if we fly 2 flags at exclusive US bases in Newfoundland, we will be expected to fly 2 flags over all types of US bases all over the world.
As to the proposed issuance of public statement by Magsaysay on solution of ownership, I am apprehensive because of the continued harping on the terminology of US “withdrawal of claims”. CNO and Defense have agreed that this expression puts us in position of conceding that we have no substantial rights of ownership in either active or surplus US base rights.
Use of this language would brand us in the eyes of the Phil people as having advanced either ill founded or fraudulent claims to such ownership. Here again we play into Recto’s hands since he is [Page 655] the one identified in the minds of the Phil people as having first and most aggressively challenged US ownership.
The phraseology here should be that the US is prepared to “transfer and turn over to the Phil all title papers and claims held by the US”. Such phraseology will not require the Phil reps to recognize the validity of US ownership. Even more important, it will avoid us debasing ourselves by apparently conceding that all we had were mere claims so ill founded that they will disappear when withdrawn. To much of the valuable land in question, such as Fort McKinley, we hold the actual title certificates and deeds are recorded in the name of the US.
I hate to belabor this point, and would not do so, except that State reps seem infatuated with the pleasant sound to Phil ears of the language US “withdraws claims” to ownership. They overlook the point that we could build up Magsaysay and play down Recto by phraseology which would show that Magsaysay had obtained not merely the “withdrawal of claims” contended for by Recto, but had secured a commitment from the US to turn over the actual titles and deeds to the land.