Colonial Amnesia

By Kim Petersen

Angelo de la Cruz, dubbed by his fellow citizens, a "Filipino everyman," has returned home safely after his Iraqi hostage takers, resisting the Anglo-American occupiers and other foreign troops and civilians working for the occupation, released him. Based on the American reaction to Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo having withdrawn her troops from Iraq, it appeared that she offended the feelings of the US hegemon to spare the life of one citizen.

A Filipino friend, who is a teacher in Manila, remarked,

A lot of people say that Gloria decided to pull the RP [Republic of Philippines] troops out of Iraq because it would do her more harm if she prefers our ties with the US over our national interest. She may have been declared the winner in the last elections, but a lot of people still think otherwise.

Of course, a lot of Filipinos felt for Angelo de la Cruz because he is one of those OFWs [Overseas Filipino Workers] who work hard for their families. OFWs have been considered modern day heroes here, and even Gloria affirms that.

Maybe she made a choice to disappoint Bush because the backlash from the Filipinos would even more disappoint her.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell could not hide his displeasure. Said Powell, "I think a very high price was paid for the policy position that the Philippine government took. … it is a serious disappointment to us that the Philippine Government felt that it had to take this action because, in effect, the kidnappers were rewarded for kidnapping."

Powell, a retired general trained in the American military school-of-thought has previously revealed his utter contempt for the sanctity of non-American life, an attitude replicated by top US military brass today in Iraq. If Powell was a little bit "diplomatic," his man in the Philippines, US charge d’affaires Joseph Mussomeli, went so far as to accuse the Philippines of appearing to be "taking orders from the terrorists." Given that the Philippines appears to be under US domination one would assume this to be a given.

Nonetheless, this is a play on the "with us or against us" theme and what US officialdom is undeniably implying is that the Philippines has only one choice to make: either take orders from the squeaky clean (except for rogue elements), non-terrorist US or from the evil terrorists who dare to resist a Heaven-supported foreign occupation. The significance is that US government officials, who fancy the US as a bastion of democracy, contradictorily hurry to criticize sovereign democratic nations such as Spain and the Philippines when they bow to the wishes of their citizens.

Just as the US shows utter contempt for Iraqi sovereignty, the alacrity with which US government officials openly criticizes foreign governments for bowing to the will of their citizens is contemptuous. Considering how the US aggression and occupation of Iraq bears similarities to the US aggression and occupation of the Philippines, what is more galling is that the Philippines had any troops at all stationed in Iraq.

The Philippines is a developing country that suffered under the US imperialist yoke for nearly five decades. While, Philippine sovereignty may be questionable, the big question remains: what were RP troops doing in Iraq in the first place? Had the Philippine government forgotten how their country had suffered at the hands of American imperialism? Are former colonies of the West suffering from colonial amnesia? Or perhaps the sense of inferiority versus big powers is such that objection to imperial coercion does not reach the lips of rulers of the third world countries.

As related by historian Howard Zinn in his book A People’s History of the United States: 1942-Present, during the Spanish-American War the Philippines fought as allies of the US to defeat their mutual enemy Spain. The Philippines’ rich resources and the proximity to the massive Chinese market ineluctably attracted covetous American capitalists. US President William McKinley decided to recolonize the Philippines; Filipinos revolted and fought for independence. It took three murderous years for US forces to put down the "insurgents."

The parallels with Iraq are obvious. US troops harbored racist attitudes to the Filipinos and slaughtered military and civilians with impunity. One US volunteer penned, "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill ’niggers.’ … This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces."

Whereas Iraq was bestowed a pathetically obvious illusion of sovereignty before the end of June, back before the turn of the nineteenth century the US Congress was debating the outright annexation of the Philippines.

Years later Filipinos finally garnered a measure of respect when "people power" ousted the US-backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Thereafter the US forces were compelled to leave the Subic Bay Naval Station in 1992 when the lease was not renewed. The pending eruption of Mt. Pinatubo had earlier accelerated the US evacuation of Clark Air Base in 1991.

Political vicissitudes struck and the democratically-elected President Joseph Estrada was "ousted" in 2001, paving the way for then Vice-President Arroyo to assume the presidency. Soon US troops were back in the Philippines again, purportedly to help in the fight against terrorism.

Ironically, Arroyo, despite the ignominious history of terror suffered by Filipinos at the hands of Americans, offered up Filipino troops to help quell insurgency against the imperialistic take over of Iraq.

A group of prominent citizens concerned about imperialism and the US war on the Philippines formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898. Famous philosopher and league member William James set the tone with his remark: "God damn the US for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles."

James’ powerful remark would apply equally well to US imperialism today in Iraq and would serve to castigate the present Philippine government for its sordid involvement in the occupation of that country.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_10509.shtml