Did the Philippines make a historic mistake by asking for independence?

[Jun aka Pekto]

Of course there was help from Uncle Sam, but it came with a string attached - the amendment to the 1935 constitution that gave parity rights to US citizens to develop and exploit natural resources and to operate public utilities in the country. Payment of war damages amounting to US$620 million, as stipulated in the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946, was made contingent on Philippine acceptance of the parity clause. It wasn't a free lunch.

---

There were other bases beside Clark, Subic and Sangley Point ... Poro Point in La Union, John Hay Air Station in Baguio (mainly R&R but is also where the ambassador's summer residence is, and the VOA relay station), and small electronic and communication facilities like the one at Capas, Tarlac and the OTH radar site at Tuba, Benguet (jokingly referred to as Baguio's cooling fans).

Payment for the use of these bases after independence were not categorized as "rent" by the Americans because that would enable the Phil. govt. to demand monetary payment. Instead, rent was given as "aid" so the US can choose the kind of goods it dumped into the Philippines. That's why the AFP loved its Hueys and Nomads (Tora-tora) so much, the WWII ships, and so much more US surplus kits.

BTW it might interest others to know that during the height of the cold war (sorry but I can't recall the exact figures), annual payment for the use of all those bases in the Philippines were nothing compared to the annual US payment to Spain. There wasn't a single American base in Spain. It was payment for landing rights for US aircrafts.

Sorry for being so OT, but we Pinoys are such suckers.

Actually, I was surprised to read the original agreement called for rent-free use of the bases. Here's an article from 1984 about the history of the bases shortly before Marcos was ousted. It's also interesting to note that as late as 1984, the article mentioned the Philippines as one of the most promising in the region.

http://www.heritage.org/research/asi...cific/asb7.cfm

[gearhead]

It is hard to compare ex-colonies through generalisations.

However notice a pattern here...U.S., Aus and NZ were colonies but much of it was built on immigrants from the west. Or even from the colonisers themselves.

Now take Latin America. Initially they had an indigenous population that was mostly wiped out and re-populated by Latin westerners. It is only later in the game where you would have non-Latin western immigrants flowing in like Germans.

Then there are colonies where not too many colonisers settled. If there were it was a handful. That would generally happen in Africa and Asian colonies.

Now which tended to prosper more and which languish more? The ones with least non-Latin European exposure/assimilation or the ones with more?

Of course there are also cycles.