An Anti-Imperialist Movement Grows in the Philippines —
Part One
by Wendy Hazard
I watched the build-up and the launching of the US war on Iraq from the
Philippines, a long way from home and from my friends in the peace movement
in Maine. I had gone to the Philippines in early October on a Fulbright
fellowship, to teach and do research. As soon as I arrived, I found
anti-war sentiment was strong among a people who have had first hand
experience with U.S. imperialism and have as good reason as any to be
suspicious of the US government's global ambitions and new "nation-building"
schemes. The government of the Philippines is, of course, a loyal ally of
the United States and a willing participant in the "war against terrorism."
But tens of thousands of Filipinos across the political spectrum share
profound misgivings about their government's embrace of that war. Peace
groups, religious groups, women's organizations, university students and
human rights activists have united in what they are calling a new
"anti-imperialist movement." It is a movement that opposed the war and the
subsequent occupation of Iraq, as well as the planned re-deployment of U.S.
military troops in the Philippines.
The antipathy that these Filipinos feel toward US policy has roots in events
that occurred over a hundred years ago. In1898, when the Spanish American
war began, Filipino nationalists were struggling for their country's
independence from Spain. The US stepped into the middle of that fight, and
promised Filipinos help in their struggle. When Spain capitulated to the
Americans however, the latter refused to recognize Philippine independence.
Instead, they turned their guns on the soldiers and civilians of the
fledgling Philippine Republic. In 1899, the US formally annexed the
Philippines and claimed it as its first overseas colony. Colonial
administrators proceeded to build roads and bridges and take charge of
schools and hospitals while American companies seized the nation's mining,
logging and agricultural enterprises. Policy makers in Washington called it
"nation-building" at the time, and promised the Philippines
independence...one day. That "one day" came nearly a half century later when
the country finally was granted its independence after World War II. Many
argue however, that independence didn't really come until 1991 when a new
generation of Filipino nationalists finally forced the closure of US
military bases built in the early part of the 20th century. Small wonder
that so many Filipinos today mistrust US promises that the military
occupation of Iraq will be short-lived.
A few Filipinos, notably the country's landed and business elites benefited
handsomely under the US colonial administration. Today, despite crippling
poverty and divisive civil wars that are in part the legacy of that time,
descendents of these men and women are among the nation's wealthiest, most
powerful and privileged members. They continue to revere the US as a
generous benefactor who brought American-style "democracy" and economic
assistance to their country, and they remain solid supporters of U.S.
foreign policy. Others, however, remember their forebears' bitter defeat at
the turn of the last century. They blame the Americans for having exploited
the natural resources of their country and, after independence, for having
supported corrupt and oppressive Filipino regimes that mired the country in
poverty and debt. These men and women remain staunch nationalists and
continue to resist US military and economic policies and the powerful
influence that they have on the Philippines.
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is no Ferdinand Marcos. But she
too is convinced that her country is best served by maintaining close ties
and an unswerving loyalty to the United States. Arroyo, you may remember,
was the second head of state to fly to Washington after 9/11 and pledge her
nation's support of the Bush's "war on terror." In return, she was assured
$356 million in military aid to fight her own government's enemies at home,
and of the assistance of US soldiers in that endeavor. These "enemies"
include Muslim guerrillas fighting for autonomy in Mindanao and Sulu
provinces, and a decades-old communist insurgency in Luzon and Bicol. The
Bush Administration has specifically listed the Abu Sayef, an Islamic
guerilla group in the southern Philippines, as one of the targets of its war
on terror. The Arroyo government has tagged the MILF (Moro Islamic
Liberation Front), the Philippine Communist Party and its armed guerrilla
fighters, The New People's Army (NPA).
Today, as exhausted as Filipinos are from poverty, a failed economy, and
decades of civil wars, many across the political spectrum are protesting
Arroyo's embrace of U.S. policy and what they see as her government's
subservience to Washington. When Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced that
the Pentagon would deploy troops in joint military exercises in Sulu
province to help the Philippine Armed Forces in their struggle with the Abu
Sayef, several Filipino legislators and many in even the mainstream press
cried foul. The plan, they protested, violated the Philippine Constitution
that explicitly prohibits foreign troops from fighting on Filipino soil. To
them, it looked like nothing more than a scheme to reestablish U.S.military
bases in the country. The editor of The Philippine Daily Inquirer, one of
Manila's leading newspapers wrote a feature article that expressed views I
was hearing from colleagues and several of my history students, as well. In
it, he warned, "a nation that has no past has no future." In lurid detail,
accompanied by full page photos, he reminded readers of the "quagmire of
blood"and the "massacre of innocents" in Sulu province between 1906 and 1913
when General "Black Jack" Pershing led a campaign to subdue Filipino Muslim
fighters resisting US occupation. He maintained that the Abu Sayef is a
marginalized group that even the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a far
larger and better organized political force, has renounced. The MILF is
currently engaged in political negotiations with the Philippines government,
and the author argued that the Philippine Armed Forces are quite capable of
dealing with Abu Sayef renegades on their own. He warned that the presence
of American troops would only serve to exacerbate tensions in the region and
draw more Filipinos into the fight.
Others were even more scathing in their comments. One legislator called
President Arroyo "a US girl scout who is single-handedly paving the way for
the return of U.S. forces to the country." One of my students — a volunteer
in the Philippine ROTC told me, "The (American) plan is an insult to our
nation and our military. We don't need the help of the US to fight the Abu
Sayef. They will only cause more trouble for usŠ. It's all just an excuse
for them to take back their (military) bases here, and get control of the
oil resources in the Sulu Sea."
Before the Bush Administration launched its war on Iraq, I attended
teach-ins and protests at the University of the Philippines. The Center for
Imperialist Studies there had published a critical study of US policy,
Unmasking the War on Terror, that includes essays by prominent Filipino
activists and academics critical of U.S. global expansion and the
proliferation of U.S. military operations around the world. Every week,
there were demonstrations in front of the US embassy. Protesters included
teachers and students, nuns and shopkeepers, and many others who were just
terribly worried for the safety of their family members living in the Middle
East. The Philippines #1 export today is its people — Filipino doctors,
nurses, engineers and teachers who can find no work in the Philippines, and
who go abroad, sometimes to practice their professions, often to work as
maids, gardeners, busboys and prostitutes. Many of them end up in Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait or Bahrain. The money they send home supports their
families and is a critical source of income for the Philippines'
cash-starved economy. The mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children and
friends of these overseas workers feared that their loved ones could be
caught in the crossfire of war and might never come home. They swelled the
numbers of demonstrators who, day after day, protested the coming war on
Manila's streets.
Part two of this article will appear in the winter issue of PeaceTalk.
Wendy Hazard teaches American history at the University of Maine in Augusta.
Back to Peace Talk Index, Fall,
2003