Journal. [1966]

On Philippine-American Relations*
By the Hon. Richard M. Service
Charge d'affaires, a. i., American Embassy

YOU have asked me to speak upon the subject: "The Paradox of
Philippine-American Relations-A Partnership in Progress."
This title bears a remarkable resemblance to that of Professor
George Taylor's recent excellent book: "Philippine-American Relations-Problems of Partnership."
I do not consider that there is any paradox in Philippine-Amnerican
relations; but I do consider it a "partnership" and I readily concede
that there are problems as well as marvelous promise in this partnership. In any partnership, problems inevitably arise, even in such a
close partnership as that of man and wife. Nevertheless, with understanding on both sides, most problems can be solved with mutual
benefit to the parties involved.
Ours is a relationship unique in the history of international affairs
and one that does not conform to the common pattern in the period of
European colonialism in Asia. After a relatively short colonial period,
beginning with the United States presence in the Philippines at the end
of the last century, we passed to the Commonwealth era, and ultimately
to the status of partnership as sovereign equals, It is, as President
Marcos affirmed recently, a novel relationship between an oriental
and an occidental nation.
We have much in common. As democratic nations committed
to individual liberty and freedom we f-nd ourselves standing side by side
in the struggle to maintain ideals and integrity. At the same time each
of us has particular interests which we must fusther. As the Philippines charts its course through the increasingly complex waters of
relations with its Asian neighbors and the world at large, it is to be
expected that, as our two countries follow their own interests, there
will from time to time be a divergence of courses.
At the same time, what might be considered by some as a drifting
apart is rather a conversion of the older relationship into a happier and
stronger partnership between two sovereign states, as each comes to
appreciate more fully the very real mutual benefits of that partnership,-!conomnilcally, politically, and, of course, militarily. Our common
interests-those things which join us-are far more impressive than
oj:; separate national interests, which sometimes tend to divide us.
Some of the problems of partnership are almost inevitable; there
are indeed sometimes built-in inhibitions to full agreement, inhibitions
caused by differing viewpoints between two peoples who prize freedom
of expression.
If any partnership is to thrive there must nevertheless be a maximum effort by each partner to understand the other and his problems,
It is easy to say, "Why don't you do so and so?" Perhaps it's a bit like
Hen.y Higgins in that now famous song from "My Fair Lady" asking
"Way can't a woman be like a man?" It is also easy and indeed natural
to question the motives of a partner who might appear not to fulfill
a commitment completely. But oftentimes a thoughtful attempt to
understand the problems facing a partner will result in a better appreciation of what the partner has done and why.
Let me cite you an example. It is an easy matter for the President,
or an Ambassador as a President's representative, to state an intention
in international relations. When the fulfillment of that stated intention
requires Congressional approval, as it usually does in the United States
and in thle Philippines, the result is often something somewhat different
A Ciief Executive. or his representative, wl o wants to make a corn
mitment mast be sure that his Congress will support him, or his efforts
will be in vain. T.Uis was a sad lesson which President Woodrow Wilson
learned when he labored to obtain Senate ratification of the Versailles
Treaty after World War I. An even more crushng blow to President
Wilson was his failure to get approval for United States membership
in the League of Nations, even though Wilson was himself the chief
architect of that organization. Similar difficulties have plagued the
ratification of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation
between the Philippines and Japan. And as you all know, it was one
thing for Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II to promise
reimbursement for wartime losses in the Philippines, and it was quite
*Delivered before the Kiwanis Club, Quezon City, July 16.

another thing for his successor to get the necessary legislation passed
by the United States Congress. The will of one man, a Woodrow Wilson,
a Franklin Roosevelt, or a John F. Kennedy, can be very strong. But
in a democracy, as we all know, the will of one man or even one branch
of a go ernment can not guarantee history. Promnises made, intentions
stated in international relations, can sometimes be difficult to follow
through in fact. So it goes with the solving of problems in international
relations, in relations between the United States and the Philippines,frequently a long and tedious process requiring patience, tact, and a
willingness to compromise.
Democratic government is a form of government described in the
preambles of both oar constitutions as being designed "to promote
the general welfare." Such government carries with it a machinery, a
separation of powers, that inevitably requires such a government to
move slowly and carefully in order to protect its citizens.
D URING World War II the Chief Executive of the United States
gave an undertaking without precedent in the history of warfare:
damages suffered in the course of the war would be made good. Excuse
me for repeating this, but I want to emphasize that not since the beginning of states has one country undertaken to make good unpredictable
losses in war. And I would emphasize that this was an entirely voluntary undertaking,-neither arising from or involving any agreement or
obligation on the part of the United States. The French made no such
promises regarding Indo-China, nor did the British in Malaya or the
Dutch in Indonesia. The United States Executive was alone in giving
this undertaking. Because of the necessity for Congressional action,
however, several years passed before the United States Government
was able to fulfill that pledge. In the meantime, there was much impatience on the Pnilippine side-and some mnisunderstanding-and
even today after payments in the Philippines of 678 million dollars
appropriated by the United States Congresis for war damages, there
are some who continue to complain and criticize.
S IMIARLY, the payment of veterans benefits has presented problems.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has paid more
than one billion dollars in Filipino veterans benefits and is today paying
benefits at an annual rate of more than 38 million dollars to more than
85 thousand persons in all 56 provinces of this country. This constiuctive aspect of veterans affairs does not receive the attention it merits.
But if problems remain, we are prepared to work them out in sincerity
and good faith. It is for this reason that negotiations are now in progress
between our two governments.
O THER problems in Philippine-American partnership have centered
on economic relations. These are largely embodied in the LaurelLangley Trade Agreement. One of the aspects of this Agreement is
the provision of a quota-share of the United States market for sugar
to Philippine producers. The Philippines is guaranteed a quota wh-ich
is today roughly equivalent to one-third of all sugar imports into the
United Stater. This is an amount also equivalent to more than onetenth of all sugar consumed in the United States. It is about twice the
domestic Filipino consumption. The Philippines' annual benefits
from this duty-frae quota are significant. The United States buyingprice for sugar, which protects United States sugar growers, is between
6 and 7 cents a pound; the world buying-price is currently only about
2 cents per pound. And I might add the current cost of production in
the Philippines is estimated by the trade to be about 4-1/2 cents per
pound. It has been estimated that the Philippines will receive approximately 115 million dollars in foreign exchange above world market
prices this year for a product which it could not sell on the world market
and make a profit.
The sugar question is sometimes approached with a certain ambivalence by Filipinos who demand so-called complete economic independence from the United States. There are for example those who
agitate for a unilateral Philippine abrogation of the Laurel-Langley
Agreement, without considering that the sugar quota is a part of this
Agreement and that the sugar quota has, since the independence of this
nation was restored in 1946, produced about a half-billion dollars in

346

THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
July, 1966