Indonesia, the Philippines and anti-U.S. sentiment

Indonesia, the Philippines and anti-U.S. sentiment

Max Lane, Visiting Fellow, Center for Asia Pacific Social
Transformation Studies, University of Wollongong, New South Wales,
Australia

In the 1980s, there was a strong anti-American movement active
in Southeast Asia. The center of this movement in the 1980s was
the Philippines. The United States maintained two of its largest
naval and air bases in the world in the Philippines, at Subic Bay
and Clarke Air Base.

The Philippines was often referred to as an "unsinkable
aircraft carrier" for the U.S., which the latter used in a policy
of containment against the Peoples' Republic of China.

What made the Philippines an even greater center of anti-U.S.
sentiment was the U.S.' strong support for the Marcos
dictatorship. U.S. support continued even during the early 1980s
when the Marcos regime resorted to large scale state terror, in
the form of state-armed vigilantes, against a protesting
peasantry. Even after the brazen assassination of Senator Benigno
Aquino at Manila Airport, U.S. support continued.

Abuses against women in the townships around the two U.S.
bases by U.S. servicemen also further fueled anti-U.S. sentiment.
After the people's power movement forced the ouster of Marcos and
then later, through the Senate, the expulsion of the U.S. bases,
active anti-U.S. sentiment subsided.

It appears, however, that a new anti-U.S. movement may be
emerging again in the Philippines and, for that matter, around
Asia. The immediate cause of this is the increased U.S. military
presence in Asia in the aftermath of the U.S. "war against
terrorism. The first sign of this was the founding assembly of
the Asia Peace Alliance in Manila between Aug. 28-31.

More than 57 people and organizations from around Asia and
another 50 from the Philippines attended, including two from
Indonesia representing Jendela Budaya in Yogyakarta and the
Peoples' Democratic Party (PRD).

In the 1970s and 1980s there was almost no anti-U.S. movement
in Indonesia. The 1960s saw the height of anti-American
campaigning as a part of the Sukarnoist movement against the Old
Established Forces (OLDEFO) and neo-colonialism. The setting in
the 1960s was very much the Cold War. In this sense, Indonesia
and the Philippines have a different history on this issue.

An essential reason for this difference was that the Marcos
dictatorship was a clearly identifiable client government of the
U.S.. Marcos signed various treaties with the U.S. that gave the
U.S. government extraordinary influence in Manila. When Gen.
Soeharto came to power, he too was supported by the U.S. and the
Central Intelligence Agency.

However, Soeharto was able to play off the various Western
governments, as well as Japan, against each other. Soeharto
avoided becoming a total client regime of one country.
Furthermore, Indonesia's oil money enabled the Soeharto
government to create an image that it was not economically
dependent on any foreign power.

The Asian economic crisis of 1997 and its aftermath has
brought Indonesia and the Philippines closer together in respect
to the role of the U.S.The Indonesian political elite surrendered
the management of the country's economy to the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1997, thereby massively increasing the
influence of Washington in Jakarta. The IMF and World Bank grip
of the Philippines is no less great.

However, the movement against the IMF and World Bank dominance
of their economies remains stronger in the Philippines than in
Indonesia. The movement of the 1980s left a heritage which is
still felt in the Philippines. One significant representation of
this is the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), which was formed
in the 1980s but still maintains broad support today.

In Indonesia the formation of coalitions such as the FDC is
still at an early stage coming after a prolonged period where
public discontent was focused primarily on the Soeharto
dictatorship, with little consciousness of the role of its
foreign supporters.

The Asian Peace Alliance Assembly also clearly focused
opposition against the rise in U.S. presence in the region,
including the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and U.S. support for
Israeli operations against the Palestinian territories.

Opposition to the increased U.S. presence and aggressiveness
united delegates from Japan and Korea to India and Pakistan. But
the Assembly also focused much criticism on the resort to
military force to resolve a whole range of political conflicts
throughout the region.

The Assembly called for an end to the military option in
Kashmir, Aceh and Mindanao for example. These questions also
pointed to another developing common bond: The resort to force to
solve unresolved legacies of the anti-colonial struggles. In all
these cases, the ruling governments are resorting to military
solutions.

The resort to military solutions also raises issues of the
depth of democratic transformations in these countries and the
ties between the depth of democratic consolidation and
militarization.

The Asian Peace Alliance Assembly appears to point to the
likelihood of a region-wide campaign emerging with two basic
foci. The first will be the emphasis on ending U.S. military
presence in Asia and the second will stress and end to using
military methods to solve long standing political conflicts.

In the 1970s and 1980s Indonesia largely escaped involvement
in the rise of anti-U.S. sentiment throughout Asia. In this decade,
however, the increased and obvious role of Washington, through
the IMF, combined with the campaign by Washington to restore
military ties with Jakarta, means that it is likely that this
time Indonesians will also play an important role in such
campaigns.