By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Part 16: Where Brawner sees War, China sees Diplomacy

The Philippine “Independence” Day is celebrated on June 12, 1898 emphasizing the nation’s self-declaration of freedom from Spain, rather than the historically factual independence granted by the United States on July 4, 1946.

The shift was driven by President Diosdado Macapagal, supposedly aimed to solidify the narrative of a Filipino-led struggle for self-governance and fostering a stronger sense of national identity

But the truth is we were never really liberated from Spain, as the United States bought us, together with other countries, for twenty million US dollars as part of the Treaty of Paris of 1898.

Our colonial shackles were merely endorsed from one master onto another; from almost 400 years in a convent and we moved to over 40 years in Hollywood.

As a result, July 4 became Philippine-American “Friendship” Day, with the unintended consequence of obscuring the horrors of the pacification campaign of the United States from 1899 to 1902, resulting in the deaths of approximately 20,000 Filipino combatants and 4,200 American soldiers.

But what were effectively hidden from history written by the Americans were four years of brutal history, a systematic genocide claiming the lives of 200,000 civilians, or 3% of Philippine population at that time.

Conditioned reflex

It was a period marked by a relationship of a dog and its master, a power dynamic leading to dependence on the colonizer holding the authority and making the decisions while the colonized are expected to serve the colonizer’s interests, hence the enslavement of indigenous peoples and their consciousness.

The colonizer often exerts control over the colony’s resources, economy, and political systems, engendering a concept of “colonial mentality” borne out of years of conditioned reflex as the colonized internalize the colonizer’s worldview and perceive their own culture and identity as inferior.

Truth to tell, we were never really free waving the symbol of our new identity at Kawit, Cavite in 1898, nor did we gain independence with the lowering of the American flag at what is now Rizal Park, followed by the hoisting of our own version of red, white and blue, with a symbolic sun and three stars in 1946.

Sadly, as Africans in Burkina Faso and Sahel States, are now kicking out the French forces from their midst, our leaders are hosting American hegemonic ambitions in our part of the globe.

Herman Tiu Laurel, president of the Asian Century Philippine Institute, fast-forwards this to today in his article, entitled “Preemptive Regime Change”:

“The United States’ pervasive but insidious and seemingly unescapable domination of Philippine affairs is accepted by many as inevitable—but it should not be.

“U.S. dominion over the Philippines is a humongous parasitic predator devastating the Philippine economy and society.

“Although in the 1950s, the Philippines enjoyed the crumbs falling from the humongous US exploitation of war in Korea and Vietnam, today it is the reverse as the U.S. sucks the lifeblood out of Filipinos.”

This is neither friendship nor independence.

Laurel continues, “To prepare the Philippines for its proxy-war, the U.S. has made the country accept a ‘self-embargo’ on economic cooperation with the largest market in Asia, China, cutting off billions of tourist, trade and investment dollars; spreading corruption by supporting House profligacy; convoluting national discourse with mainstream disinformation war; diverting funds to weapons buys and halting infrastructure development ad nauseum.”

But Laurel makes a distinction between the conspiracy between the “Balikbayan” colonizer and our present leadership on one end, and the true  sentiments and aspirations of our people on the other end.

“The Filipino people instinctively know that the situation is not well for them, though associating it with U.S. domination is far from their awareness.

“They do sense that hope lies with the Duterte leadership, and they’ve given the Duterte’s win after win, including overwhelming votes in the midterm elections and outpouring of affection for former president Duterte at the Hague.

“The anti-Duterte, anti-Sara and anti-Filipino forces have nothing.

“But institutional power bought by money, corruption and neocolonial force to suppress freedom of independent bloggers with contempt threats in the Congress, sustain massive black propaganda in mainstream and troll social media, use official security agencies to scare and oppress independent sectors, but the people and the Dutertes still win.”

Laurel, however, sees a glimmer of hope in the forthcoming Congress.

“The next stage of the struggle will be in the 20th Senate, where (Sara’s) impeachment must be defeated, where the independent foreign policy and principle of neutrality must be resuscitated and re-enshrined, where the initial steps to expulsion of the U.S. military bases should be taken and where the nation can start galvanizing international support to bring President Duterte back home. All that will be achieved as we end U.S. proxy domination in the Philippines.”

The Asian Century thinktank head also sees the new role for our enlightened countrymen:

“The U.S. and its Filipino proxies are the enemy of the Filipino nation, at the same time the U.S. is the enemy of the World in Ukraine, in Gaza, in the trade and tariff wars. The U.S., the world’s greatest regime change fiend, must be ended. “We can help the world by ending its domination here in our country.”

Read: https://newlinesmag.com/argument/a-notorious-photograph-from-a-us-massacre-in-the-philippines-reveals-an-ugly-truth/

Weak foundation

From the American perspective, the tell-tale signs have been easily picked up by a paper by Dan Green, a research fellow at Allison Center for National Security, and Parker Goodrich, a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

They see President Marcos Jr standing on an even weaker footing, that could adversely affect Philippine-US security alliance, in the light of the recent 2025 senatorial election where the administration-sponsored coalition could only really claim for two out of 12 winning candidates.

Worse as stated hinted, in a late absentee voting of 45,000 most of whom belong to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National Police, none of the administration’s “Alyansa ng Bagong Pilipinas” candidates made it to the magic 12.

What could be a more graphic a withdrawal of support from President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr?

While he has steered the Philippines back toward a stronger security partnership with the United States since 2023, the resurgence of Duterte’s political bloc signals potential turbulence ahead.

Green and Goodrich say “If Duterte’s allies gain more influence and her daughter survives impeachment trials, the Philippines could once again start to shift its foreign policy towards China. The Philippines is a critical ally in the Indo-Pacific strategy, and another Duterte family presidency could jeopardize military agreements.”

The current political situation has also shaken the enforceability of U.S.-Philippines Bilateral Defense Guidelines, published May 2023 under the Biden presidency, “reaffirming that an armed attack on either country’s forces in the Pacific, including over disputed territory in the South China Sea, would trigger mutual defense commitments under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).”

But Biden’s hoax has been exposed.

The standing commitment of the MDT regarding an armed attack does not cover disputed territory in the South China Sea. In a clarification of this policy issued in 1975, and declassified by the US Department of State in 2006, Secretary Henry Kissinger stated:

“Spratly Islands all fall outside Philippine territory as ceded to us by 1898 treaty with Spain. US (government)maps accompanying presentation of MDT also exclude Spratlys from territories covered by MDT.”

But on the matter of an armed attack, while Kissinger admitted

“Under most foreseeable circumstances, the treaty would apply if either party were attacked on high seas or in international air space.

…the secretary of state immediately connected a caveat:

“Almost all of the South China Seas is claimed by China as territorial seas, specifically the Spratlys, Paracels, Pratas, Hainan and the Penghu (Pescadores).”

Then Kissinger specifically cited a decisive irony that the US also has not recognized [Philippine] sovereignty over islands”

“In this situation, he said while the US would not term Philippino occupation as illegal invasion of another state, neither can we term this deployment as aspect of collective defense purpose of Mutual Defense Treaty.

“Rather, we view purpose of [Philippine] garrison as establishing and enforcing a claim to sovereignty over openly disputed territory. “MDT does not obligate us to support this type of deployment in event of armed attack.”

This was reaffirmed by Secretary Hillary Clinton in June 2011, responding to ABS-CBN in Washington DC asking “What will America do if China attacks Filipino forces in the Spratly Islands?” and her response was neither here nor there – “the United States honors our Mutual Defense Treaty and our strategic alliance with the Philippines. I’m not going to discuss hypothetical events, but I want to underscore our commitment to the defense of the Philippines.”

The written Biden “iron-clad” commitment included in the May 2023 guidelines serves more of a paper tiger or symbolic propaganda as they did not carry the weight of the US Senate’s ratification for the inclusion of the South China Sea into the treaty.

The Kissinger doctrine explains it all:

“As a practical matter, we see precious little chance Congress or the American people would support US intervention in Spratly dispute. If the [Philippine] garrisons ever were attacked, it seems to me less harmful politically to deny our obligations on legal grounds, than to leave unfulfilled an acknowledged commitment.”

Biden’s verbiage was just yet another braggadocio to open four more US bases, in addition to the five provided for in the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) the two countries signed in 2014, as an expansion of its Agile Combat Employment (ACE) serving more for US strategic positioning near Taiwan.

Filipinos as an American launching pad could however be undercut from within due to the recent election results that forebodes a Philippine Senate that could be independent from the political manipulation of a compromised presidency.

In the impeachment case pending against Vice President Sara Duterte, an overwhelming 18 out of 23 senators voted to send it back to the lower house to certify that its handling of the process had been lawful.

Rough waters ahead

The Heritage paper projects “Beijing has historically capitalized on political division to expand its influence, particularly through economic investments and infrastructure projects. If Duterte’s faction regains power, China will look to strengthen its foothold in the Philippines, potentially undermining U.S. efforts to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

Economic dependence on China also deepened as Duterte secured billions in investment pledges, including infrastructure projects under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Green and Goodrich, however, intentionally missed that many Chinese projects discontinued, because the United States pressured Marcos Jr to hardball on China, in fact embargoing the continuation of the projects because President Duterte’s approach diluted Manila’s alignment with the U.S.

Yet they were shamelessly hinting at American intervention in the next Philippine presidential election, “As the 2028 election approaches, policymakers in Washington must closely monitor the shifting political tides in Manila -because if the Dutertes return to power, the balance of power in the South China Sea could tilt in Beijing’s favor.”

The two writers virtually confirmed a double whammy: first, US intentions in the Philippines is only to use it as a “forward operating base” for its malicious intentions against our neighboring country, and second it does so even to the extent of denying our country of economic stability and progress.

While we cannot blame our military community in ambitioning for better facilities at their disposal, the rest of us must however be discerning on what we give up in exchange for the wages of war. It is sad that while we have given the American an arm and leg to project their armed pivot to the Indo-Pacific, they have done little to promote our economy.

On January 2023, China offered Marcos $23 billion in economic bilateral assistance which Marcos exchanged for military and economic aid way below $1 billion from the United States.

This year, US President Donald Trump added 7% more to our 10% tariff after his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth offered fourth generation 20 F-16 Block 70 multi-role aircraft to the Philippines worth $5.58 billion of debt trap.

Isn’t it time to ask our president what deal Marcos has really made with the Americans that gives us pennies for the dollars they want in return? The incoming Senate must fiscalize Marcos’ dalliance with Americans to curb domestic inflation and ease our economy.

To save this country, we must disentangle ourselves from the conditioned reflex that our former colonial master has taught its canine subjects among us.

            We can never pull ourselves up by our bootstraps if we do not accomplish this unfinished revolution.

To be continued.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: