Comment from a reader on Senators Who Kicked Out Bases Wanted CashOn the issue of
who is to blame for the loss of bases in the Philippines, why are we still
beating this dead horse more than 20 years later? Just out of curiosity, my
sources, way back when, indicated that the US was willing to give up Clark, but
wanted to retain the deep water port at Subic. As the story goes, the
Philippines wanted the same annual fee for Subic that had been paid for both
bases, and that the US rejected the offer. Can the Bugle verify or debunk this
version?
From the Bugle: The 1987 constitution added the requirement that foreign military bases needed a treaty in order to operate in the country. By a narrow margin, the Philippine Senate rejected the treaty. That is the bottom line of why they are gone. But in general, the removal of US military bases from the Philippines cannot be boiled down to one simple reason. It was a complex series of events involving history, geopolitics, local politics, and many other things. An excellent overview can be found in: Subic Bay From Magellan To Pinatubo: The History Of The U.S. Naval Station, Subic Bay by Gerald R. Anderson.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are posted anonymously. We don't care who you are, we just care about what you have to say. But let's keep it civil. No slander. Talk about issues, not individuals. No racism. Cool it on the profanity. Like Sinatra said, "You don't need to work blue. You'll never play the big houses with that crap."