Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
to Uncle
Sam
By Roland G. Simbulan
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
(From left): Senators Victor Ziga, Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Wigberto
Taada join rally outside the Senate after the chamber rejects the
proposed bases treaty on Sept. 16, 1991.
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
Sen. Wigberto Taada explaining why the Senate should reject the
proposed treaty.
That votation assured the death of the bases treaty that needed
only eight no votes to be rejected by the Senate. A two-thirds vote
by the chamber was needed to concur with the treaty. It thus paved
the way for the approval of Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Report No. 1422, recommending before the Senate plenary its non-
concurrence with what was in fact a 10-year bases treaty.
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
Sen. Wigberto Taada giving the traditional mano to his father,
former Sen. Lorenzo Taada, right after casting his no vote on the
treaty.
Daily deliberations
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
Committee on Foreign Relations under Sen. Leticia Shahani sat down
to discuss the treaty; the plenary debates were from Sept. 11-15.
But just how was it possible for a traditionally conservative and pro-US
institution like the Philippine Senate, which is regarded as the training
ground for future Presidents, brave American displeasure by
rejecting a bases treaty of extension? In Philippine politics, the
Senate is the turf of pro-US conservatives among Filipino politicians
vying for the highest position in the land. How, many skeptics had
asked, could a handful of traposthe popular acronym for
traditional opportunistic politicians but which in the Philippine
vernacular also derisively means rags turnaround from an age-old
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
stance of compromise and subservience to the United States, and
instead, in a decisive moment, re-make history? How could a
country so economically deprived and politically unstable hold its
ground (or in the words of an American senator, tweak our noses)
before the only remaining superpower in the world?
It became very clear to Filipinos and their future senators that the US
was not truly interested in democracy in the Philippines. If it were a
choice between US strategic interests such as nuclear bases versus
human rights and democracy in the Philippines, the US showed it
would not hesitate to choose the former. Thus, the martial law
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
experience under Marcos had made more Filipinos more critical of
US intentions, motives and interests in its former colony.
Consistent move
The senators who rejected the treaty had argued that the Philippines
could not pay mere lip service to nuclear disarmament both in our
municipal law and international agreements. As a member of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the country had signed the
declaration for a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. It had also
signed the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the
Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water.
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
During the 42nd General Assembly of the United Nations, the
Philippines voted Yes to 39 of the 40 nuclear disarmament
resolutions. In consonance with these constitutional and international
initiatives, the Senate, by a bipartisan vote of 19 affirmative votes, 3
negative votes and 1 abstention, approved on June 6, 1988, the
Freedom from Nuclear Weapons Act.
Time warp
It is now 11 years since that historic day and ten years since the
completion of the US military pullout from the former Subic Naval
Base. Yet, we now seem to be passing through a time warp, where
the Philippines no thanks to the Visiting Forces Agreement,
Balikatan and the proposed Mutual Logistics Support Agreement
has become one whole US military base. Even the remote island of
Batanes is now being used as a staging area for the US so-called
war on terrorism.
Looking back, Sept. 16, 1991 was a day of triumph for the Filipino
people as the Magnificent 12 senators defied US attempts to bully
and bamboozle the Senate into accepting an onerous bases treaty.
Many of the senators who rejected the proposed bases treaty
believed that terminating the agreement was a fitting way of
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
commemorating the coming 1998 centennial of Philippine
independence by having no foreign troops or bases on Philippine
soil.
Armitage, who was just after all looking after his own countrys
strategic and military interests, antagonized the senators with his
brazen and brusque behavior. In doing so, he became the unwitting
ally of the anti-bases senators and the anti-bases movement and
helped ensure the defeat of the proposed treaty.
Armitages arrogance
In his book, Bengzon said that Armitage was so high-handed that the
US official even tried to tell the Philippine government to remove
Bengzon from the Philippine panel. The US thus had a very distorted
view of the situation: it underestimated the capacity of the Filipino
officials to think and act per their own interests.
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
The negotiations for the treaty clearly showed that that US operates
on the assumption that what is good for Uncle Sam must be good for
all freedom-loving peoples in the worldand that it would not
hesitate to resort to bullying the latter to achieve this.
In fact, the draft submitted to the Senate did not even provide for
reciprocal rights and obligations for the two countries: the treaty was
mainly about the rights of the United States over base lands and the
obligations of the Philippines to respect and enforce those US rights.
But by being too greedy, the US lost precisely what it sought to gain:
the retention of its military bases. The loss was suffered at the hands
of a struggling, sovereign people and their Senate.
Surprise
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
and other areas uncovered a vast economic and commercial
potential which would benefit some of the most avid supporters of
the bases retention, like former Olongapo Mayor Richard Gordon.
Gordon would become administrator of the Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority.
Thus, on that rainy day and night of Sept. 16, 1991, the 23 senators
(excluding Raul Manglapus who had been appointed foreign affairs
secretary) cast their final votes and delivered speeches to explain
these. The proceedings began at 9 a.m. and ended at exactly 8:13
p.m. Senate President Salonga, who presided over the marathon
proceedings, was the last to give his vote and explanation that
evening. He said:
September 16, 1991, may well be the day when we in this Senate
found the soul, the true spirit of this nation because we mustered the
courage and the will to declare the end of foreign military presence
in the Philippines. I vote NO to this Treaty and vote Yes to the
Resolution of Non-Concurrence.
Lessons in sovereignty
The real moving spirit behind the 12 senators was the broad and
unified peoples movement outside the Senate. In the end, it was
the power of the people that ended the most visible symbols of our
colonial legacy and the Cold War in the Philippines.
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
arena that is traditionally not its own. The Americans and their
statehood advocates were beaten in their own turf.
There are those who now ask: cant US ships and troops come here
on our terms and abide by our rules and laws as befits a truly
sovereign nation? Can we still be masters of our fate when a foreign
country uses our territory for its military exercises and as a launching
pad against other sovereign nations?
Sept. 16, 1991, is a challenge for all Filipinos, especially those aspiring
to become leaders who will be counted upon to uphold the
national dignity and sovereignty. On that day, former senator
Lorenzo Taada, then a sickly 90-year-old on a wheelchair, arrived in
the Senate to witness his son Wigberto, finally succeed in the lofty
cause the elder Taada had fought so hard to attain since the
1950s. On that day, too, outside the Senate halls, more than 150,000
people waited under a heavy rain for the senators decision.
Optimism and hope were the order of the day.
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/
A historic and economic opportunity awaits the Philippines as the
Filipino people, reinforced by the mandate of their Constitution, now
seek to remove the last most visible vestiges of colonialism in this
country, the US military bases. Upon the powers vested in us by the
will of our people, through the Constitution, let us be a beacon of
the long-shackled hopes of our martyrs and nation.
http://www.yonip.com/september-16-1991-the-day-the-senate-said-no-to-uncle-sam-by-prof-roland-g-
simbulan/