i vote no to this treaty

8/9/2019 I Vote No to This Treaty

1/8

I Vo t e N o t o t h i s T r e a t y

Senate President Jovito R. Salonga's speech casting his vote against ratification of

the extension of the RP-US Bases Agreement. September 16, 1991

Ginoong Pangulo at mahal na mga kasama sa Senado: Bago ako magsimula, nais kong bumati at magpasalamat sa isang taong lubos kong ginagalang at hinahangaan, isang dakilang Pilipino na nakasama natin sa maraming pakikibaka at pakikipaglaban, sa loob at labas ng Senadong ito,isang lalaking sa kabila ng kanyang karamdaman ay nagkusang magsadya dito upang maging saksi sa makasaysayang desisyon na ating gagawin ngayon.Ang tinutukoy ko ay ang mabunying bayani ng lahi, ang dating Senador Lorenzo

M. Tanada , ang lalaki sa lahat ng panahon - the man for all seasons.Senador Tanada: nais kong malaman ninyo na dahil sa pangunahing papel

na ginampanan ng inyong mahal na anak, ang aming kasamang si Senador Bobby Tanada na siyang i-sponsor ng "Resolution of Non-concurrence" binigyan niya ng pambihirang karangalan ang inyong walang-bahid na pangalan.

Dumating na ang huling sandali ng katotohanan, at palagay ko, sa araw na ito, ay maaari na nating isulat ang isang maningning na kabanata ng ating

kasaysayan.I recall it was around this time nineteen years ago - to be more precise in

September 1972 - when Mr. Marcos imposed martial law and declared that foras long as he was in power, Americans need not worry - US military baseswould stay in the Philippines.

There was not a whimper of protest from Washington. Filipinos began towonder - "How about the assurances of American presidents that US bases inthe Philippines are for the defense of the free world and our democratic way of

life?" The need to maintain US bases in the Philippines explains why the USsupported the corrupt, repressive Marcos dictatorship for almost fourteen years.

Without US acquiescence, Marcos could not have imposed martial law.Without increasing US military and economic support, the Marcos dictatorshipwould have collapsed after a few years.

Today, we have finally summoned the political will to stand up and end fourhundred seventy years of foreign military presence here in the Philippines.

Salonga, The Senate That Said No , UP Press and The UP College of Public Administration, 1995. 1


2/8

To be sure, this decision is not without its cost. There will be temporarydislocations and hardships all around, especially in Central Luzon - but weshould learn the lesson we should have learned long ago: namely, no nationcan become truly free without sacrifice. The trouble is that sometimes we wantfreedom and independence without sweat and without tears. But there is noother way. Salamat na lamang at hindi tayo nagdaan sa isyung ito sa isang malupit at madugong digmaan.

Ang sabi ng ating mga kaibigan - kayo po naman ay hindi nakadanas ng paghihirap. Maawa naman kayo sa amin na mawawalan ng trabaho.

Unemployment is a big problem, indeed and we sympathize. It is because ofour sensitivity to this problem that one of us, Senator Saguisag, on his owninitiative, proposed a three-year phased withdrawal from Subic, so this problemas well as other problems in Central Luzon can be attended to during thatperiod of adjustment which will allow for a smooth transition. But as the nationknows, some of our distinguished colleagues and the Palace shot down thispro-poor proposal, for political reasons. Entirely apart from the Saguisagproposal, what will operate beginning tomorrow (September 17) is Article VII,Section 3 of the Manglapus-Schultz Agreement: .

"Upon the final termination of the use by the Government of the UnitedStates of the Facilities or earlier relinquishment, the United States and the

Republic of the Philippines will take appropriate measures as they shall jointly determine to ensure a smooth transition with respect to custody andcontrol of the Facilities and in order to minimize any disruptive effects of such termination."

Thus, the way is now open to the smooth transfer of Subic from theAmerican military to Filipino hands, so that with the cooperation and goodwill ofthe US, Filipinos can, as soon as possible, service and repair foreign vessels,including American vessels, on a commercial basis.

Let me now be a little personal by way of answer to the argument that wehave not experienced suffering.

I recall that as a young man of twenty-one, I joined the undergroundresistance in 1942, was eventually captured, then repeatedly tortured in Pasig inthe presence of my father, transferred to Fort Santiago and to three other jails,then sentenced by a Japanese military tribunal to fifteen years of hard labor inMuntinglupa. Kaya't hindi lamang ako ang hamak na Pangulo ng Senado, ako po'y ex-convict din! I was later released during the Foundation Day of Japan -



3/8

but that is another story.

When Marcos imposed martial law in September 1972, I was among theearliest to oppose it openly and publicly. I handled the cases of well-known as

well as obscure political detainees. I was persecuted, arrested and thrown intothe same isolation room where Ninoy Aquino had been imprisoned for morethan seven and a half years of his memorable life. I recall that in the early yearsof martial law we were only a few fighting the Marcos dictatorship.

Ang pinuhunan namin ay buhay--hindi empleo lamang. Hubad yata sa katwiran at katotohanan ang mga patama ng ating mga kaibigan.

Many friends to whom we owe debts of gratitude or are bound by ties ofpakikisama have called us or approached us so we would change our vote from

No to Yes to this one-sided, unjust treaty. To them, I say -

'Malaki ang aking utang na loob sa inyo, at marahil ako y makakabayad din sa inyo balang panahon. Nguni't hindi ko maaaring ipagpalit ang kapakanan at ang kalayaan ngatinglnangBayan.'

Maaring kayo'y pro-bases, nguni't tingnan naman ninyo ang kasunduang ito masyadong api naman at agrabiadong, agrabiado ang bansang Pilipino. "

I would like to thank the many students, teachers, priests and pastors and

nuns and members of NGOs and cause-oriented groups who have come to thisSenate to cheer us up with their parting words - "Stand fast, do not losecourage. Our hope is in you. Do not let us down."

I thought we who are against this treaty had only a few supporters but thanksto the mass media - independent, responsible and objective - mukhang biglang dumami ang mga anti-bases treaty. In any case, let me say to all who came-"Thank you for giving us your support. But even if you were in the pitifulminority, which does not seem to be the case, questions of right and wrong arenot decided by shifting, temporary majorities." In the first referendum as

recorded in the New Testament (Mark 15:6-15), given a choice betweenBarrabas and Jesus Christ, the crowd shouted "Crucify him" (referring to Jesus)and there is no indication that our Lord got even one vote in that first electoralexercise conducted by Pontius Pilate.

But when we are alone, we ask ourselves: Am I right? Could I be wrong?

In the end, we live with our conscience, everyone of us. None of us here inthe Senate, not even the President, can escape the unerring judgment of



4/8

history.

I realize that the nation is divided. We in this Senate are divided. Even thepro-bases senators are apparently divided about their adherence to this one-

sided, anachronistic treaty. Senator Shahani, the chairperson of the Committeeon Foreign Relations, has given a "critical yes" to this Treaty, obviously becauseof the defects she has just pointed out. Senator Santanina Rasul wrote her "verygrave reservations" on the Resolution of concurrence. Senator Alberto Romulowas against the treaty before because it was "lamentably deficient, palpablyinsensitive and purposely vague." Senator Heherson Alvarez delivered athoughtful privilege speech against the Treaty for which he will be longremembered. In International Law, a critical yes, with amendments andreservations, is actually a polite no. Kaya't sa katotohanan higit sa labing-

dalawang disipulo ng kalayaan ang anti-bases Treaty. All of us are apparentlyagreed that this is a flawed, defective agreement! I wish it were possible tofollow the suggestion of Senator Pimentel that we give a unanimous no andthereby heal the division in the Senate. Incidentally, I understand even themembers of Cory's Cabinet are also hopelessly divided!

I think all of us are engaged in a search - a search for the soul of the nation,a quest for the best in the Filipino character, a search for the true Filipino spirit.

We summon the memories of those we honor - from Jose Rizal to Andres

Bonifacio, from Abad Santos to Ninoy Aquino.Their collective message, even on the eve of their death, was one of hope,

not of fear; of faith, not of doubt; of confidence in the capacity of the Filipino tosuffer and overcome, not of his unwillingness to stand the rigors of freedom andindependence.

Those who have spoken before me have examined the Treaty, pro and con.

I shall not repeat and belabor the arguments of those who, like me, areagainst the Treaty.

I look at the Treaty once more - it is entitled "A Treaty of Friendship,Cooperation and Security." But when we read the text and analyze itsimplications, it does not strike me as a treaty of friendship, it is a treaty ofsurrender; it is not a treaty of cooperation, it is a treaty of capitulation; it is not atreaty of security, it is a treaty of greater insecurity. Ships and aircraft in transitcarrying nuclear weapons can come in, without the approval or knowledge ofthe Philippine Government. Sea-based nuclear missiles, it should be noted



5/8

parenthetically, are more dangerous than land-based weapons. The release ofland-based nuclear missiles is severely limited by a chain of commandprocedure. In contrast, the firing of seaborne missiles is at the discretion of thecommander of each naval vessel. But, really, what is the point of bringingnuclear weapons here when the US is the only remaining superpower in theworld?

We are told by our friend, Ambassador Pelaez, that even if it is only anexecutive agreement on the US side, the treaty - no matter how one-sided - willbe registered with the United Nations Secretariat by the United States. UnderArticle 102 of the UN Charter, the effect of non-registration with the Secretariatis that, even if it is valid as between the parties, it cannot be invoked before anyorgan of the United Nations. In any case, registration is of little value to the

Philippines, since the side letter of President George Bush - which unlike thetreaty contains some semblance of obligation on the part of the United States -cannot be registered with the UN. Only treaties and international agreements,not side letters, qualify for registration.

Relations between US and the Philippines

We have been told that if we reject this treaty, no matter how unjust and one-sided it may be, the act of rejection will send a wrong signal to Washington. So,we had better ratify - otherwise, we will be punished by Uncle Sam. Once we

ratify, even if there are no concrete obligations imposed upon the United Statesby the Treaty, the generosity and altruism of the US Government would descendupon our poor nation, as a result of our blind act of servility.

Fortunately, we can draw lessons from the words of wisdom of Americanpolicy-makers themselves:

(1) From President Dwight Einsenhower, who once served under Gen.MacArthur in the Philippines and who declared in 1958:

"Everything we do in the foreign field has for its basic purpose ourown national security, our own national prosperity... We are not doingthese things in the foreign field as a matter of altruism and charity."

(2) From Ambassador Charles Bohlen, one of the ablest US ambassadorswho served here in the late 50s. He reminded his Filipino audience: "We in theUS Embassy are here (in the Philippines) to protect American interests. Weexpect your officials to protect your own interests."

What a stinging rebuke to many Filipinos who are inclined to believe that



6/8

they also serve our own interests when they first promote US interests!

The truth of the matter is that for as long as the bases are here, our relationswith the US will not be healthy and normal.

If we ask for a higher compensation, they tell us we are mercenaries and ourbrand of diplomacy a cash-register diplomacy. Iyon pala babaratin tayo nghusto!

When we told them before the eruption of Pinatubo that their bases herewere the biggest US overseas bases in the world and we should get thecompensation we justly deserve, their retort was that we should not view this asa real estate transaction but a mutual security arrangement. But after thePinatubo eruption, the whole thing from their perspective became a real estate

transaction!

Why our relations with the US will never be normal while they have theirbases here is truthfully explained by former Ambassador Francis Underhill (apolitical counsellor in Manila from 1968 to 1971), who advocated their closurelong ago:

"Our relations with the Philippines can never be normal while our basesremain... On the one hand, the bases symbolize their "special relationship"with us... On the other hand, the bases are also regarded as an affront toPhilippine national pride and a symbol of imperfect independence andcontinuing dependency... In third world circles they yearn to join, theFilipinos are condemned and ostracized because of the bases and thesolatium they (now) seek they see as modest compensation for the obloquythey suffer on our account... The base relationship also helps to perpetuate inthe Philippines a neurotic, manipulative, psychically crippling form of dependency. As a consequence, the Philippines is a country that is difficultto take seriously."

Only yesterday, as if to refute claims that some Southeast Asian countrieswant to host US bases, Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas stated that

Indonesia opposes foreign bases in Southeast Asia. "We cannot accept thepresence of foreign military bases and we do not see the benefits of theirpresence in other countries. They will only raise international tensions," Alatassaid (Sunday Times, September 15,1991, p. 1)

Isn't it sad, isn't it ironic that if we ratify this Treaty, we would go back towhere we were more than half a century ago? Like this Treaty, the PhilippineIndependence Act of 1934, also known as the Tydings-McDuffie Act, providedfor a ten-year transition period after which Philippine independence would be



7/8

proclaimed and military bases in the Philippines would be gone. We wouldcease to be a colony of the United States. Our "independence" was proclaimedon July 14,1946. Nguni't kung pagtitibayin natin ang kasunduang ito, imbis na

pagsulong, tayo ay uurong.The world has changed since 1947 when we ratified the original Military

Bases Agreement. The Soviet Union has agreed to the withdrawal tack - it is asif the Cold War was not yet over. China, rent by restiveness, is now acollaborator of the United States. The logic of events should point to a lesseningof warlike postures in Southeast Asia, especially the Philippines.

Long before the eruption of Pinatubo, responsible American officials, awareof the contradictions and strains that warp Philippine-American relations, haverecommended the withdrawal of American bases in the Philippines. GeorgeKennan, the principal architect of American foreign policy after World War II,had advocated in 1948 that the US must, without any sentimentality, control atheoretically independent Philippines in order to contain Soviet expansion. Butin 1977, at the height of the Marcos dictatorship, Kennan reversed himself andurged "immediate, complete, resolute and wordless" withdrawal of US bases inthe Philippines. He said that paying "huge annual bribes as a form of hushmoney" to keep Filipino leaders quiet and to cause them to "accommodatethemselves reluctantly... is not a position in which the US should ever choose toappear."

And after his election as US president, Jimmy Carter declared that humanrights would be the centerpiece of American policy. But in his testimony beforethe US Congress, his own Secretary of State Cyrus Vance candidly admittedthat "human rights of Filipinos will have to yield to overriding US securityconsiderations" for as long as the US bases are in the Philippines.

I have stayed long enough in exile in the US - more than three years in factafter my release from prison - to know that ordinary Americans do not evenknow where Subic is. They will not even understand why we are voting on thisone-sided treaty even as they could not understand in 1983 why a corrupt,ruthless dictatorship that in their opinion had something to do with the barbaricassassination of Ninoy Aquino should be aided and supported by theirGovernment. I have no doubt that average Americans, known for theirgenerosity of spirit, their decency and sense of fair play would condemn thistreaty as unconscionable, if they had the chance to read it. As for well-informedAmericans in universities, churches and organizations devoted to peace,disarmament and international understanding and for many Americans who



8/8

once served as missionaries and teachers here, I have not yet received anyletter or message asking us to ratify this treaty - all, without any exception, havemanifested their objection to this unjust agreement. The reason is simple - theacts of the Pentagon and the State Department have not always come up to thebasic decency and the sense of fairness of the American people.

One last word. I have been warned by well-meaning friends that my stand onthis Treaty may hurt my chances of becoming president. No matter. That is aninsignificant consequence. In times of great crisis, our martyrs and heroesoffered their lives that our people might become truly free. Anong kuwenta ng puwesto kung ito'y ihahambing natin sa halaga ng buhay? I said it before but Iwill say it again. After walking through the valley of the shadow of death, twice inmy life, titles and positions do not mean that much to me anymore. What is

more important is to be of real service to our people, with or without any positionin Government.

In our history as a nation, our best years were when we took our destiny inour own hands and faced the uncertain future with boldness and hope and faith.Those were the times when Filipinos experienced a sense of national renewaland self-respect. The Revolution of 1896, the battle for the liberation of thePhilippines from 1942 to 1945, the struggle for freedom during the darkest yearsof martial law culminating in the mountain-peak experience of EDSA inFebruary 1986 - how can we ever, ever forget these high moments in the life ofthis nation?

September 16, 1991 may well be the day when we in this Senate found thesoul, the true spirit of this nation because we mustered the courage and the willto declare the end of foreign military presence in the Philippines and help pavethe way to lasting peace here and in the world. "Blessed are the peacemakers,"Jesus said in his deathless Sermon on the Mount, "for they shall be called thechildren of God."

I vote No to this Treaty. And, if it were only possible, I would vote 203 milliontimes No! I vote a resounding Yes to the Resolution of Non-concurrence.

Salamat po at mabuhay ang bansang Pilipino!


i vote no to this treaty

Documents