Philippine Past, Iraqi Future?

Brian Doherty | June 29, 2004

John Judis in the pages of Foreign Policy thinks President Bush should be discouraged by the example of the Philippines when contemplating the future of Iraq. An excerpt:

[T]he U.S. Navy ousted Spain from the Philippines in the Spanish-American War of 1898. But instead of creating a Philippine democracy, the McKinley administration, its confidence inflated by victory in that �splendid little war,� annexed the country and installed a colonial administrator. The United States then waged a brutal war against the same Philippine independence movement it encouraged to fight against Spain. The war dragged on for 14 years. Before it ended, about 120,000 U.S. troops were deployed, more than 4,000 were killed, and more than 200,000 Filipino civilians and soldiers were killed. Resentment lingered a century later during Bush's visit.

As for the Philippines' democracy, the United States can take little credit for what exists and some blame for what doesn't. The electoral machinery the United States designed in 1946 provided a democratic veneer beneath which a handful of families, allied to U.S. investors�and addicted to kickbacks�controlled the Philippine land, economy, and society. The tenuous system broke down in 1973 when Philippine politician Ferdinand Marcos had himself declared president for life. Marcos was finally overthrown in 1986, but even today Philippine democracy remains more dream than reality. Three months before Bush's visit, a group of soldiers staged a mutiny that raised fears of a military coup. With Islamic radicals and communists roaming the countryside, the Philippines is perhaps the least stable of Asian nations. If the analogy between the United States' �liberation� of the Philippines and of Iraq holds true, it will not be to the credit of the Bush administration, but to the skeptics who charged that the White House undertook the invasion of Baghdad with its eyes wide shut.

Comments

|6.29.04 @ 1:02AM|#

It's that Spanish culture... Look at Spain kingship, civil war, Fascism, I mean what hope can they have of democracy... OH Sorry NEVER MIND!
How EXACTLY is the Philipines like Iraq? They are both hot, they both have beaches? They both have had been the subjects of wars that many in the US opposed?
Again, why not Germany or Japan or Korea or Taiwan, Oh yeah, THOSE turned out GOOD and we don't want GOOD, we want bad. US can't be involved nation-building that WORKED, nope, no don't want those examples...

|6.29.04 @ 1:03AM|#

Well, mentioning U.S. actions in the Phillipines is always the perfect counter-argument to the claim that America can "re-build" any country. Indeed, the two examples always cited - Germany and Japan - were already "built" (especially with regard to things like human capital), thus they were relatively easy to re-build.

|6.29.04 @ 1:18AM|#

Joe L.,

When did the U.S. occupy or conquer Taiwan?

I think if you look at the history of American occupations generally that most of them have turned out to be rather underpar affairs. Thus - for example - our need to invade Haiti three times over the past one hundred years.

As to Germany and Japan, those nations were already built - what they required was a lot of capital input, which they in large part created themselves. Indeed, you'll discover that the U.S. largely did not screw with the culture, etc. of either nation - that both nations largely re-built themselves on their own terms. Ascribing these efforts wholly to or largely to the U.S. is fairly a-historical, and also smacks of certain faith in government programs that one would expect of a liberal.

|6.29.04 @ 1:21AM|#

Joe L.,

It should also probably be noted that South Korea fell under the sway of one dictator or another until the Korean people demanded something different and were able to create a democratic society on their own terms. America has supported all these various regimes over the years - tyrants or not.

|6.29.04 @ 2:00AM|#

Brian: your post title should read "Phillipines provide historical justification for Bush's handling of Iraq." I mean, isn't it obvious from the text you cite that we are NOT repeating the mistakes we made in the Phillipines?

"[I]nstead of creating a Philippine democracy, the McKinley administration, its confidence inflated by victory in that �splendid little war,� annexed the country and installed a colonial administrator."

Now, go back and read yesterday's papers.

drf|6.29.04 @ 2:02AM|#

"They both have had been the subjects of wars that many in the US opposed?"

"Many" opposed the splendid war with spain? since i didn't know this, joe l, what sources would you recommend i read to get up on this war? i do remember the maine and a kooked up reason for war, and i do remember an emotionally charged rally cry (right tom thumb?), and from remembering the maine, people were for the war, not "many were against"... hmmmmmm.

|6.29.04 @ 2:06AM|#

The really specious thing about this parallel is implying that the Iraqi "rebels"--the same guys who are cutting off civilians' heads in the name of Allah--are somehow the same as other historical political independence movements. These guys aren't fighting for independence--they're fighting for tyrrany. But according to today's media, the only tyrrany in the world comes from the US...

|6.29.04 @ 2:18AM|#

Without getting into the morality or effectiveness of our military adventures, the burden on the population is interesting-

Roughly .15% of the US population was stationed in the philipines if the 120,000 troops was true in 1900.

Now we only have .09% of the population in Iraq (based on 275000000 and 250000 troops).

It would be interesting to compare the population of the philipines then vs. Iraq now.

In man power obligations, the philipines was definitely a greater burden. On the other hand, our troops seemed to be much more effective as a killing machine- 4,000 dead vs. 200,000. Madness.

|6.29.04 @ 2:48AM|#

I am still trying to digest the analogy. The territories the US gained after the Spanish-American war were spoils. I really have to read more about this bit of history, but the little I know seems like the US was really anxious to fight Spain. Being a democratic republic, we couldn't take territories and make American colonies out of them without ruining our reputation worldwide and to our own citizenry as well....so we called these places protectorates. By the turn of the 20th century we knew that we had to expand our influence in those less developed parts of the world in order to stay abreast economically with European colonial powers. Britain and France had all sorts of colonies from where they were able to get all kinds of raw materials not available in Europe. The US had the same needs.....especially sugarcane and other products not naturally available in North America. Iraq really cannot be compared to the Philippines because the world is in a different situation than 1898. The Iraqis already have experienced many times the hand of a foreign power....Turks, Britain.....and their own despots and dictators. Sure, we want the oil to flow smoothly. maybe we'll keep bases there to keep an eye on things in the Middle East....but it will have to be in a much more delicate fashion because of world opinion and American opinion as well.

|6.29.04 @ 3:08AM|#

iconoclast,

Well, part so many died because we rounded up large portions of the population and place them in camps - where many died of starvation and disease.

brooklyn dave,

"Being a democratic republic, we couldn't take territories and make American colonies out of them without ruining our reputation worldwide and to our own citizenry as well....so we called these places protectorates."

I think you're putting a rather strange modern gloss on attitudes about brown skin people in the 19th century. (a) The invasion wouldn't have ruined our reputation. (b) Much of the citizenry clamoured for imperialist expansion. You forget that this was the era of the so-called "white man's burden" (though Kipling himself found such a burden a dubious distinction). Indeed, this was not even the first period of American imperialist expansion - the war against Mexico, the effort to gain territory in the NW (54, 40 or Fight!), seizing Hawai'i, designs on Cuba throughout the 19th century, etc. were earlier periods of such.

"The US had the same needs.....especially sugarcane and other products not naturally available in North America."

Ahhh, Louisiana has been growing cane sugar commercially since the early 19th century - indeed, it has been U.S. policy since the 19th century to protect the domestic sugar market - and of course there is also the domestic beet sugar to consider. Furthermore, given America's relationship with the rest of Latin America, the notion that markets there were closed to the U.S. is incorrect (if by "other products" you mean tropical products). Indeed, with regard to the basic components of industry - iron, coal, oil, etc. - the U.S. had no shortage of any of these. Whatever issue it hard with regard to rubber was dealt with by exports from Brazil.


Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that European colonial powers Britain and France created their second empires for economic purposes - indeed, detailed histories of their second empire colonies will demonstrate that these were in many ways empires of happenstance. Only in the case of specific colonies - say Morrocco for France - or of the smaller colonial powers - namely Germany and Italy - was this not the case.

|6.29.04 @ 3:08AM|#

DRF,
you don't know American History, then... The opening of the "Splendid Little War" was well received, however, the Philipino Rebellion generated MUCH domestic opposition. Read Max Boot's "Savage Wars of Peace." There was a My Lai and everything, I believe W J Bryan opposed the war vocally.
FYI, only one war has been nearly universally popular in the US, the Second World War. All other US wars generated a degree of anti-war sentiment.

|6.29.04 @ 3:11AM|#

brooklyn dave,

I would suggest Daniel Headrick's "The Tools of Empire" for a short primer on 19th century imperialism; especially the second empire variety of Britain and France.

|6.29.04 @ 3:13AM|#

Went to war for several reasons:

1) Maine (not really)
2) Certain powerful groups wanted cuba for farming.
3) Human Rights (made up or real, doesn't matter) violations on cuba, etc.
4) In reality, US propoganda / media hellraising was very effective.

Really good book on the war and the times: 1898

As for holding on to the philipines and other spanish islands as procterates, the economic interests were certainly there, but more importantly, the US's interest in realizing it could compete with the Europeans (not that spain was much of a power then) and had an "international" war making capability made it feel threatened and competitive. Those were the days of needing fueling stations - i.e. coal and supply dumps. Economic benefits were also a consideration. Consider how we got our way into China. You're also looking at the time of social darwinism and international competition leading to WWI.

Disclaimer: I'm pulling this from my memory while making calls at work so there are some generalizations.

|6.29.04 @ 3:14AM|#

Regarding whether the US colonial presence rankled in the Philippines - I'm not much of an expert on the Philippines, and I'm sure it did, but having recently read Albert Weinstein's Barbed-Wire Surgeon, it's amazing how much loyalty he describes from Filipinos towards the US. It's really kind of touching and tragic. Of course, Weinstein may have been biased himself, but I think we have to watch out for revising history because it makes current comparisons more compelling.

|6.29.04 @ 3:15AM|#

Rebuilding, in general... Germany and Japan we're NOT simply economically rebuilt. And Japan's society was UPENDED by the Occupation. Rebuilding those nations required reforming their societal structures, not simply creating a modern economy. Further, Iraq has a modern economy, or the makings of one. It has as much infrastructure as Saudi Arabia, oil, oil infrastructure, roads, ports, manufacturing, and an educational system that is fairly widespread. Iraq is NOT Bangladesh by any stretch. The problem is with its political structure, not its economic structure.
And Taiwan relied on US support and was a US dependency. So for those who ask "How can you say Taiwan?'" I simply say Qemoy and Matsu and the current defense negotiations between the US and Taiwan. Taiwan was intimately bound up with the US and still is.

drf|6.29.04 @ 3:22AM|#

Joe L.

egad. from the hoover institution, no less. an entire screed with ad hoc analyses for the current war. i guess i'll read "elders of zion" for similar balance...

W Jennings Bryan most likely was against the war. as was mark twain. the site, "campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/p/ph/philippine_american_war.html" has this: "Opposition to the War
Some Americans, notably Mark Twain, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines. Other Americans mistakenly thought that the Philippines wanted to become part of the United States". i think you're overstating the case.

"FYI, only one war has been nearly universally popular in the US, the Second World War. All other US wars generated a degree of anti-war sentiment. " no kidding. so you've written now one thing where we both agree.

|6.29.04 @ 3:26AM|#

Philippines = Vietnam

|6.29.04 @ 4:13AM|#

Joe L.,

"And Japan's society was UPENDED by the Occupation."

That's simply not true. If you look at the modes of business operations, the way the government works, etc., its remarkably similar even today to what could be found pre-WWII.

"Rebuilding those nations required reforming their societal structures, not simply creating a modern economy."

About the only thing that changed for Japan culturally was its military caste was at least temporarily neutered; indeed, the same sort of cultural attributes seen in the military were merely transferred to the business world (amongst other places). No, Japanese society and culture were not radically changed by the war - at least with regard to most core values. Militarism did take a big hit of course, but that is hardly whole sum of Japanese society - indeed, given that militarism was channeled into the business world, one cannot even really argue that Japanese society was changed all that much. What it of course reminds one of is how - with the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate - the new Meiji regime quell militarism by co-opting Daimyo and others into the regime and channeling this militarism towards politics and business.

"Further, Iraq has a modern economy, or the makings of one."

No it doesn't and it never has had one. Geez, the nation's most valuable resource is owned by the government - indeed, all the means by which economic wealth is created by the resource are all owned by the governments. Its a government mandated vertical monopoly. That's NOT modern - its not even remotely modern. Indeed, its no more modern than 14th century English government ownership of that country's woolens trade (its most valuable resource at the time).

"It has as much infrastructure as Saudi Arabia, oil, oil infrastructure, roads, ports, manufacturing..."

Most of these are disrepair and need massive amounts of capital investment get them off life support. Hell, 10% of the country's electricity comes from a dam that is virtually on the verge of collapse in part because the "modernizing" Ba'athists built in an area that cannot support such a dam.

"...and an educational system that is fairly widespread."

As far as I can tell, this is a bit of a myth. Certainly some elements of the population are highly educated, but its no better than most third world countries in this regard from what I've seen.

"And Taiwan relied on US support and was a US dependency."

When was Taiwan a U.S. Dependency exactly? As far as I know, the U.S. never treated Taiwain as a Dependency - indeed, until the end of WWII it remain part of Japan's empire. I know nothing about Taiwan having a dependency status; indeed, since in 1943 the Tehran conference stated that Taiwan was to be handed over to China, and since in October 1945 KMT rule began in Taiwan, your claim seems non-sensical on its face.

"Taiwan was intimately bound up with the US and still is."

So are a lot of countries; however, since the object of debate are nations which the U.S. invaded and occupied, your statement is beside the point. In other words, placing Taiwan in the same class as South Korea, Germany and Japan is an error if the object of debate are nations which the U.S. invaded and occupied - which is clearly the sort of thing that the analogy in the blog post is discussing.

|6.29.04 @ 6:07AM|#

The claim that large numbers of PI civilians were killed by the American army is communist propaganda, similar to stories of the 'Jenin Massacre'. The only war where large numbers of civilians were murdered by the American military was the 'good war,' World War 2. The leader of the insurrection was a wannabe dictator, similar to the many 'big men' who took over various African ex-colonies when the Europeans pulled out. After his defeat the 'insurrection' consisted of moslem terrorism against Christians in the south, which 'blackjack' Pershing defeated by having terrorists executed with bullets soaked in pigs blood and then buried with pig carcasses.

|6.29.04 @ 6:18AM|#

Once again I chuckle when folks compare Iraq to WWII. Maybe have a talk with your grandpa (or great grandpa) sometime.

Go, Gary.

|6.29.04 @ 8:14AM|#

About the only thing that changed for Japan culturally was its military caste was at least temporarily neutered...

For how long had Japan been militaristic? Doesn't that require foreign involvement?

|6.29.04 @ 8:27AM|#

Gary Gunnels,

I don't know about Germany, but Japan was not all readymade for success at the end of WW2. They were never a democracy, didn't have the constitution, or the type of economy they have had since WWII. Granted they were the first industrial nation in Asia, but that is a far cry from being a democratic, manufacturing/trading society that it is now. The influence of military and feudal lords went away along with that of Hirohito. If you don't want to credit the Americans, that is one thing - but to imply it didn't take much effort is wrong.

|6.29.04 @ 9:25AM|#

D Anghelone,

Efforts to curb the appetites of Japan's military caste (the daimyo and their attached samurai) have been going on since at least the 16th century with the rise of men like Odu Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi who laid the path for the Tokugawa Shogunate. What has happened post-WWII is more of a variation on a theme, rather than some abrupt change.

zorel,

"They were never a democracy..."

This is incorrect - the Meiji period (1868) heralded into place a movement for a democratic government that came into being with the Constitution of 1889 - which established an Imperial Diet (the Teikoku Gikai) which was composed of a popularly elected House of Representatives and a House of Peers whose members were drawn from the nobility and or were appointed by the Emporer.


"...didn't have the constitution..."

Wrong again - Japan has had a constitution since at least 1889; furthermore, they had some form of a bill of rights from the early 1870s onward. I should also note that Japan was ruled from 1868-1889 by what was titled the Charter Oath - a very minimal Constitution which allowed for some public balloting.

Here is a copy of the 1889 constitution:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1889con.html

"or the type of economy they have had since WWII."

Japan had an extremely robust and fast-growing economy throughout the late 19th and into the 20th century. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "type," but Japan was a capitalist economy literally from the downfall of the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1868 onward.

"Granted they were the first industrial nation in Asia, but that is a far cry from being a democratic, manufacturing/trading society that it is now."

They were more than merely the first industrialized nation in Asia; they were an economic power of their own right. Indeed, if they hadn't been they couldn't have fought such a long war with the U.S.

"The influence of military and feudal lords..."

There were no "feudal lords" in Japan after 1868 - feudalism was abolished in that year. Please, read a basic primer on Japanese history before you try to give a disquisition on Japanese history. I really do not like making you look foolish.

"If you don't want to credit the Americans..."

Actually, I largely credit the Japanese for their nation's success; your attitude is insulting and paternalistic, and to be blunt, is the sort of thing that I thought the pro Iraq war folks didn't like.

|6.29.04 @ 12:52PM|#

The determination to maintain the awkward amalgam of diverse cultures imposed by the former colonial ruler is another similarity.

George Cerny|6.29.04 @ 12:59PM|#

How many pairs of shoes will Mrs. Allawi need?

|6.30.04 @ 9:13AM|#

Joe (Troll)

Iraq was divided by the Brits without regard to ethnic/religious boundaries. The Philipines do NOT fit into that mold. They are diverse, yes, but they ARE ISLANDS. Slightly harder to split up an island.

|6.30.04 @ 9:37AM|#

That was not a troll, that was a legitimate point.

In fact, Iraq was not divided by the Brits, it was united by the Brits. And it was not done without regard to ethnicity and religion, but incorporated different groups into a single entity deliberately, in order to foster antagonisms and have groups to play off each other.

|6.30.04 @ 10:28AM|#

If Iraq only achieves half the democracy, decency, and stability of the Phillipines, it will be the most successful country in the Arab world.

|6.30.04 @ 10:31AM|#

If Iraq only achieves half the democracy, decency, and stability of the Phillipines, it will be the most successful country in the Arab world.

|6.30.04 @ 12:20PM|#

Slippery Pete,

That's really not true. The UAE is very stable, very prosperous (largely from non-oil revenues), and has a wonderful water park. Indeed, most of the small Gulf Arab States are very stable and otherwise prosperous places.

|6.30.04 @ 12:24PM|#

Slippery Pete,

BTW, there is a reason why Filipinos work in places like the UAE and not the other way around.

|6.30.04 @ 12:46PM|#

"And Japan's society was UPENDED by the Occupation." Yep, the Emperor was no longer god. /R

|7.1.04 @ 2:45AM|#

None of the Gulf states are a democracy.

|7.1.04 @ 10:53AM|#

"If Iraq only achieves half the democracy, decency, and stability of the Phillipines, it will be the most successful country in the Arab world."

If the Kurds are reduced to half the democracy, decency, and stability of the Phillipines, we will be responsible for snuffing out the first indiginous democracy in the Middle East.