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. #