The economic policeman speaks
AN OUTSIDERS VIEW |
Ken Fuller |
Ever since independence in 1946, Philippine economic policy has been dictated by foreigners. First — and as a condition of that so-called “independence” — the USA called the tune, to the extent of stationing “advisers” in government departments. The aim, of course, was to ensure that formal independence would not endanger US economic interests; or, as US Sen. Millard Tydings bluntly described the purpose of the Bell Trade Act, to “keep the Philippines economically though we lose them politically.”
Those US interests, by the way, have evolved over time, and it is interesting in this regard to compare the National Security Council’s “Statement of Policy” toward the Philippines of April 5, 1954, with that of June 4, 1958.
While the 1954 policy stated that the Philippines was “important to the United States and the free world” due to its strategic location, its role as a model for other Asians, and because “it is our principal source of copra and hemp, and an important source of sugar and chrome,” the 1958 document reversed the priority of the first two points and amended the third to read that “the Philippines is one of the most important areas of US commercial activity in Asia, both as a market and as a field of investment.” Thus, by the late 1950s US capital had moved from seeing the Philippines as a source of raw materials to viewing it as a destination for capital..... MORE
Source: The Daily Tribune
URL: http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20120410com5.html
0 comments
Post a Comment