READER
RESPONSE In
Defense Of The United States Is
the Filipino laboring under some kind of myopia as a result of his rather
close and almost symbiotic relationship with Americans? Or is it just
fashionable and/or obligatory to blame the former colonizer for the ills
besetting the Philippines? By
AMADEO NERI avneri@netzero.net I
am fully aware that the article titled “Ambushed: The US And Its Role in
People Power 2” was a news analysis and therefore reflects the author's
personal views and/or interpretation of events that transpired behind
actual events as witnessed and/or reported. Because it portrays the US in
a not too complimentary light and since this slant seems to be all too
common in reports about Philippine-US relations, harking back to the early
days of the former's independence from the latter, I have taken the
liberty of writing my own analysis of the above analysis. First,
permit me to write some background information so that any reader will
know, more or less, from where I am coming from. I want to dissociate any
reader's mind from any preconceived notion that this is nothing more than
a mean-spirited retort to a rather serious and somber analysis of a very
catastrophic event that happened recently.
I consider this dialogue not only quite serious, but also quite
worthwhile in working toward clearing certain misconceptions that people
may harbor and which may be clouding clear understanding of certain
situations. I am assuming that the statements were made and written out of
a good-faith understanding of events, and not just an intransigence borne
out of disdain for a former colonizer, whose every action must be worthy
of contempt and censure. I
came to this country with my family of four children from the Phillipines
more than 20 years ago and after about the first eight years decided to
assume American citizenship. While at the beginning that decision came out
of a self-serving purpose, the intervening years gave me the opportunities
to realize the full impact and importance of that decision. I became aware
of and committed to not only the concomitant duties and responsibilities
that were attached to that decision, but also that I needed to embark on a
more in-depth understanding of all the facets that make up this country's
totality -- its political and social institutions, its very diverse
population that has produced so many diverse sub-cultures, etc., etc.,
with all their desirable qualities and bold-faced shortcomings, and yes,
even their naked flaws. Armed
and confident with that understanding, I feel that it is incumbent upon me
to come to the defense of its good name. For after all, the US is still
the best country in the world, warts and all. It is still the freest and
most tolerant, and its very diverse population can attest to that. I
realize though that the superlatives, best and most, do not translate to
"perfect." Let
me quote from the first sentence of that article: "..... the US
government - consistent with its interventionist policies in Third World
countries - also had a hand in deposing Estrada." I
guess to this day, the US still has not shaken off its tarnished image as
the Ugly American. The use of the word "ambushed" in the title
itself right away conveys the image of a country being portrayed as a
"bushwhacker" in the rowdy and lawless spirit of the Western
cowboy milieu. Not very complimentary, I say. From
the inside looking out, it appears that the US is quite powerless and
unable to please everyone, no matter what it does. (I confess that,
agitated no end by this dilemma, some quarters here have toyed with the
idea of the US reverting to its old policy of isolationism. But then this
idea is just too medieval for modern thought and circumstances.) From
the outside looking in, it appears to be indelibly perceived as a cunning
individual, waking up every morning and with malevolent intent hatching
plan after plan for creating mayhem and what have you to anybody and
everybody outside its borders, especially the Third World countries. Where
the vibrant entrepreneurship of American business has brought it in the
world, its presence and influence have been undoubtedly perceived as
frightful, blood-sucking and over-reaching tentacles coming from a very
voracious source and designed with one singular purpose, to corrupt and
exploit. But
I liken the almost symbiotic relationship of the US and Philippines to two
families living in the same house, the US being considered the more
materially fortunate and revered family. In this cramped and cozy
situation, there is more transparency and involvement than meets the eye.
There are now more than two million Filipinos here in the States, not
counting those with temporary papers. Filipinos continue to regularly come
to the States for a variety of reasons. Rich families send their kids to
school here, purchasing real estate for them to use while here. Those who
cannot afford go the scholarship or fellowship route to get here. Affluent
families come here for their medical needs or just to shop. I doubt if
there is any Filipino politician of consequence, whether a nationalist or
otherwise, who has not been here to both enjoy and learn from his/her
experiences. He/she probably has sent a kid or two to study here. Most
Filipinos, if given the opportunity, would like to come here either for a
time or for life. I cannot believe that these people come here gravely
troubled with the thought that they are consorting and sleeping with this
enemy, whose tainted hand has undermined the freedom and free will of the
people of the Third World countries. Please,
anybody, enlighten me where I am missing the point, or maybe a show of
clear and incontrovertible proof of support for this allegation. If none
can be shown, let us please for the peace of everybody refrain from making
too quickly such damning allegations. Another
quote: "That act was to be the culmination of a series of moves taken
by the US in its bid to meddle in the country's.......". Again, the
image portrayed is that of a government grossly fixated on its devilish
role, that each morning it devotes precious time and effort cooking plans
to meddle in the affairs of others, rather than mending its own fences
which have had a lot of breaches lately. Do not get me wrong, it does not
completely ignore Philippine affairs but it just has too many other
priorities that require more immediate attention and resources. One has to
be here to witness and feel the internal rumblings within its own walls
and institutions. And right now, Philippine affairs would be the least of
its concerns. Perish the thought. The US is not out to get the
Philippines, to subvert and undermine its independence. Another
quote: "….the US launched covert moves typical of American
interventionism." The articles goes on to state that these moves were
effected through the IMF and some foreign groups identified with US
business/government; the IMF withdrawing its commitment to grant some
loans and the foreign groups giving the Philippine economy a bad grade. Philippine
sources themselves depicted a very badly deteriorating economy under
Estrada. All the economic signs were there. The peso value dropped like a
ton of lead within a few days. Capital flight was at a dizzying pace. Can
anybody blame these groups for stating the facts and staying away? Do we
have to read interventionism as the likely motives for these actions? Another
quote: "The growing reluctance to support the Estrada administration
on the part of the Americans...."
I wonder what additional support would have been required of the US
government under those circumstances? If it did show more aggressive and
"overt" support, wouldn't that smack of interventionism in local
affairs? And this is where my understanding gets more clouded. If the
Philippine is such a nationalistic and independent state, sufficiently
able to chart and execute its destiny, why does it need the support of any
other country, anyway? Why should it matter at all? Then
the article delved on the US insistence that constitutional processes be
adhered to to resolve the present crisis. I can very well understand and
empathize with the embassy officials who made that known to Philippine
officials. In its comparatively long history of the type of democracy that
it practices, the US, with all its flaws and biases, has as a country
always made constitutional processes paramount and almost sacred in the
resolution of its internal problems. Its constitutional processes have
withstood the test of time counting from the Civil War, race riots and
other civil disturbances notwithstanding. For the recipient to ascribe
other or more meaning than that would make such assumption highly
speculative. Is it probable that extra-constitutional measures could bring
about ominous clouds in the region's skies? Yes, it is, but constitutional
processes do not bring one-sided benefits, either. They bode well for
everybody, the Philippines especially. This
rather "invisible" hand of the US in Philippine affairs is
manifested as portrayed by the article in various subtle and not-so-subtle
ways. By and large, Fidel Ramos is portrayed from his role as PhilCag
commander to his role as president and beyond, as a scheming and nefarious
official at worst, and a dismal failure at the very least. And this is all
premised by the statement that he received military training from West
Point and advanced counter-insurgency trainings from other US institutes.
Again, the invisible hand of the US at work through him. But Aquino and
Macapagal also went to US schools. And if one makes a head count, so did a
lot of prominent businessmen, politicians, military officers, and what
have you, both past and current. Isn't it a great stretch then to include
the US into the picture every time any of these individuals are put into
the carpet? Is
the Filipino maybe laboring under some kind of myopia as a result of this
rather close and almost-symbiotic relationship with the US? Especially now
that more and more Filipinos are coming to the US to visit and/or to stay?
Or is this contempt and disdain for the US maybe a result of too much
familiarity, causing undue belligerence in this relationship? Or
is it just fashionable and/or obligatory to smear the blame on the former
colonizer, the US, for the ills besetting the Philippines? It is said that
it is much easier throwing the blame on somebody, rather than taking
personal accountability. Lastly,
my pronouncements are not written in stone, nor intended as gospel truth,
so I would be happy to be informed where I have erred and will gladly
retract. #
|