The history of the Philippines is intricately woven with that of the United States. From the turn of the 20th century, following the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War, the archipelago transitioned from Spanish colonial rule to becoming a U.S. territory and, later, a close ally. A significant, and often contentious, aspect of this relationship was the presence of large American military installations on Philippine soil. These bases, symbols of strategic alliance and, for many Filipinos, lingering foreign influence, would stand for nearly a century, their eventual US bases Philippines closure marking a profound end of an era in Philippine-American relations.
This article delves into the history, politics, and consequences surrounding the U.S. military bases close in the Philippines. It explores the origins of the bases, the agreements that governed them, the rising tide of Filipino nationalism that challenged their presence, the dramatic events leading to the 1991 Philippine Senate vote 1991, and the subsequent transformation of the former base lands. The story of the base closures is not just about military withdrawal; it is a narrative of a nation asserting its Philippine sovereignty, navigating complex international relations, and grappling with the economic and social implications of a shifting global and regional landscape. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from colossal facilities like Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base was a defining moment, setting the stage for the post-bases era Philippines.
Roots of the American Military Presence
The establishment of American military facilities in the Philippines began almost immediately after the United States acquired the islands from Spain in 1898. Strategic location in the Pacific was paramount for American geopolitical ambitions. Manila Bay, with its deep harbor, was a natural fit for naval power, leading to the development of what would become Subic Naval Base. Similarly, locations were identified for Army and Air Corps facilities, culminating in bases like Fort Stotsenburg (later Clark Air Base) north of Manila.
These early bases were integral to the U.S. military’s posture in Asia, serving as staging areas, repair depots, and communication hubs. During World War II, they played a critical role, first as points of defense (ultimately unsuccessful against the Japanese invasion) and later as crucial elements in the Allied counter-offensive. After the war, with the Cold War beginning and the Philippines gaining formal independence, the future of these bases became a subject of negotiation.
The Military Bases Agreement of 1947: A Foundation Laid
The formal framework for the continued presence of U.S. military forces in the newly independent Republic of the Philippines was established by the Military Bases Agreement of 1947. Signed shortly after the Philippines gained independence on July 4, 1946, under the administration of President Manuel Roxas, this agreement granted the United States the right to retain and operate a number of military and naval bases in the Philippines for a period of 99 years.
Key provisions of the 1947 agreement included:
- Lease Period: A remarkably long 99-year lease for the bases.
- Base Areas: Designation of specific land areas, including the massive Clark Air Base in Pampanga and Subic Naval Base in Zambales, along with numerous smaller sites.
- Jurisdiction: Complex and often controversial provisions regarding criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel.
- Operational Rights: Extensive rights for the U.S. military to operate, construct facilities, and move personnel and equipment freely within the base areas.
While seen by some at the time as necessary for Philippine security in a volatile post-war world and beneficial for economic aid, the 1947 agreement was quickly criticized by others as impinging on Philippine sovereignty. Granting extraterritorial rights and control over significant land areas for nearly a century was viewed by many nationalists as incompatible with true independence. This laid the groundwork for decades of debate and renegotiation attempts.
Decades of Discontent: Rising Nationalism and Calls for Review
Even in the early years of the republic, voices of dissent against the terms of the 1947 agreement were heard. Prominent nationalist figures like Senator Claro M. Recto consistently questioned the wisdom and fairness of the pact, arguing for greater assertion of Philippine control and sovereignty over the bases.
Throughout the administrations of presidents like Carlos P. Garcia (known for his “Filipino First” policy) and Diosdado Macapagal, there were attempts to revise the agreement, primarily focusing on reducing the lease period, asserting Philippine jurisdiction over criminal cases involving U.S. servicemen, and gaining more control over the base lands. These renegotiations often resulted in minor amendments but failed to address the core grievances related to sovereignty and the long duration of the lease.
Under the long authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos, the public expression of anti-bases sentiment was suppressed to some extent, but the underlying issues remained. Nationalist groups, students, and opposition figures continued to advocate for the removal of the bases, viewing them as symbols of American neocolonialism and a potential magnet for nuclear conflict during the Cold War. Environmental concerns and social issues (like prostitution and cultural friction) surrounding the base communities also fueled opposition. Despite the political climate, the Marcos government did engage in further renegotiations, resulting in amendments that technically acknowledged Philippine sovereignty over the base lands, though U.S. operational control remained extensive.
The Path Towards Expiration and the Final Negotiation
The turning point came with the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986, which overthrew Marcos and installed Corazon Aquino as president. The democratic space reopened, allowing nationalist and anti-bases movements to gain significant momentum. Crucially, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, framed after the Marcos era, included a provision (Section 25, Article XVIII) stating that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty concurred in by the Senate, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. This effectively meant the 1947 agreement, unless amended and ratified as a new treaty by the Philippine Senate, would expire.
The 1947 agreement had undergone several revisions, altering certain terms and effectively setting an expiry date of 1991 for the main agreement, though interpretations of specific annexes and provisions varied. With this deadline approaching, the Aquino administration entered into final negotiations with the United States regarding the future of the bases.
The negotiations were intense and complex. The Philippine panel sought terms that affirmed full Philippine sovereignty, significantly reduced the areas retained by the U.S., increased compensation, and limited the duration of any new agreement. The U.S. panel, while acknowledging the changing political landscape, aimed to retain significant operational flexibility and access, particularly for Subic Naval Base, which was the largest U.S. naval facility outside the United States.
After protracted talks, the two sides reached an agreement in August 1991 on a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Security. This proposed treaty would have allowed the U.S. to retain use of Subic Naval Base for another 10 years, with possibilities for extension, while Clark Air Base was already being phased out due to factors including the Mount Pinatubo eruption. The fate of this proposed treaty, and thus the future of the bases, rested with the Philippine Senate.
Mount Pinatubo’s Fury: An Unexpected Catalyst
Just as the negotiations were concluding and the treaty was being prepared for Senate deliberation, a natural disaster of immense proportions struck. On June 15, 1991, Mount Pinatubo, a volcano dormant for centuries, erupted violently. The eruption was one of the 20th century’s most powerful, blanketing vast areas of Central Luzon, including Clark Air Base, with thick layers of ash and volcanic debris.
The damage to Clark Air Base was catastrophic. Runways, buildings, and equipment were severely damaged. The sheer scale of the destruction rendered the base largely inoperable. While the proposed treaty already envisioned the phasing out of Clark, the eruption accelerated this process dramatically. The U.S. military was forced to undertake a massive cleanup and evacuation effort.
Although Subic Naval Base was less severely affected by ashfall (though still impacted), the eruption shifted the context of the bases debate. It highlighted the vulnerability of the facilities to natural disasters and, for some, reinforced the idea that continued reliance on them might be impractical or undesirable. While not the sole reason for the closure, Mount Pinatubo eruption served as a significant, albeit unintended, catalyst, physically demonstrating the impermanence of the structures and providing a practical reason for withdrawal from Clark.
The Historic Philippine Senate Vote of 1991: Asserting Sovereignty
The fate of the U.S. military bases ultimately came down to a vote in the Philippine Senate in September 1991. The proposed Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Security required a two-thirds majority (16 votes out of 23 senators) for ratification according to the Constitution.
The debate in the Senate was impassioned, reflecting the deep divisions within Philippine society regarding the bases. Proponents argued that retaining Subic was vital for national security, providing a defense umbrella against external threats and contributing to regional stability. They also emphasized the significant economic impact of base closures, pointing to the jobs lost, the disruption to the local economy around the bases, and the potential decrease in foreign aid. They argued that a phased withdrawal would be less disruptive.
Opponents, however, framed the issue primarily in terms of Philippine sovereignty and Filipino nationalism. They argued that true independence required the removal of foreign military presence. They questioned the security benefits, suggesting the bases made the Philippines a target. They highlighted social issues, environmental concerns, and the perceived indignity of a sovereign nation hosting foreign troops under unequal terms. They believed the Philippines needed to stand on its own feet.
The senators were subjected to intense public lobbying from both sides. President Aquino strongly endorsed the new treaty, arguing for its ratification. However, a determined bloc of senators, often referred to as the “Magnificent 12,” stood firm against the extension.
| Senator | Stance on Treaty |
|---|---|
| Jovito Salonga | No |
| Teofisto Guingona | No |
| Wigberto Tañada | No |
| Aquilino Pimentel | No |
| Ernesto Maceda | No |
| Juan Ponce Enrile | No |
| Joseph Estrada | No |
| Sotero Laurel | No |
| Rene Saguisag | No |
| Ernesto Herrera | No |
| Orlando Mercado | No |
| Victor Ziga | No |
| Neptali Gonzales | Yes |
| Edgardo Angara | Yes |
| … (Other Senators) | Mixed |
Export to Sheets
On September 16, 1991, in a historic and dramatic session, the Philippine Senate vote 1991 was cast. Twelve senators voted against the treaty, while 11 voted for it. With 12 votes short of the required two-thirds majority, the treaty was rejected.
The “No” vote was a landmark decision, widely celebrated by nationalists as a courageous assertion of independence and self-determination. It meant that the expiration of bases agreement was final, and the United States would have to withdraw its forces by the agreed deadline in 1992. The US bases Philippines closure became an inevitability.
The Withdrawal and Handover (1991-1992)
Following the Senate’s rejection, the U.S. military began the process of withdrawing its personnel and assets from the Philippines. The closure of Clark Air Base was accelerated due to the Pinatubo damage, with the formal handover occurring in November 1991.
The more complex withdrawal was from Subic Naval Base. As the largest and most active facility, its closure involved significant logistical challenges, including relocating thousands of personnel, ships, and vast amounts of equipment. The withdrawal was completed by November 24, 1992, when the last U.S. ship, the USS Belleau Wood, sailed out of Subic Bay. A formal ceremony marked the handover of Subic Naval Base to the Philippine government.
The withdrawal was largely peaceful, although it was accompanied by anxieties about the future, particularly concerning the economic impact of base closures on the surrounding communities which had become dependent on the bases for employment and commerce.
Consequences and Transformation: The Post-Bases Era
The departure of the U.S. forces ushered in the post-bases era Philippines, a period marked by significant challenges and opportunities. The economic impact of base closures was immediate and substantial. Tens of thousands of Filipino workers employed directly by the bases lost their jobs. Businesses catering to base personnel faced drastic declines in revenue. The local economies of Angeles City (near Clark) and Olongapo City (near Subic) were hit hard.
However, the closure also opened up vast tracts of prime land and infrastructure to civilian use. Under the administration of President Fidel V. Ramos, efforts were made to convert the former base lands into economic zones.
- Clark Air Base: Transformed into the Clark Special Economic Zone (now Clark Freeport and Special Economic Zone), envisioned as a major aviation and logistics hub, with an international airport, industrial parks, and leisure facilities.
- Subic Naval Base: Converted into the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), a free port and economic zone focused on maritime industries, tourism, and manufacturing. Led initially by Richard Gordon, SBMA quickly became a model for base conversion, attracting significant foreign investment and creating new jobs.
The transformation of these areas, while not without challenges, proved largely successful in mitigating the negative economic impact of base closures and creating new engines of growth.
The closure also had profound implications for Philippine defense and security. The Philippines had to take full responsibility for its own territorial defense. While the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 remained in effect, the absence of permanent U.S. military presence required a re-evaluation of defense strategy and capabilities. This eventually led to the negotiation and ratification of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in 1998, which provided a legal framework for the rotational presence of U.S. military personnel for joint exercises and training, signifying a shift from permanent bases to strategic cooperation. Subsequent agreements like the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) further shaped this relationship.
On a symbolic level, the US bases Philippines closure was a powerful affirmation of Philippine sovereignty. It demonstrated the nation’s capacity to make independent decisions regarding its territory and foreign relations, free from the constraints of the long-standing base agreements. It was a culmination of decades of struggle for greater self-determination and a victory for Filipino nationalism.
Legacy and Continuing Relations
The legacy of the U.S. military bases and their closure continues to resonate in the Philippines. The former base areas stand as tangible reminders of that era, now repurposed into vibrant economic zones. The political debate over foreign military presence continues, albeit under different terms with the VFA and EDCA allowing rotational access rather than permanent basing.
The relationship between the Philippines and the United States remains strong, characterized by the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, economic ties, and a large Filipino diaspora in the U.S. However, the relationship is now conducted between two sovereign equals, a dynamic fundamentally altered by the 1991 Senate vote and the subsequent withdrawal.
The expiration of bases agreement and the US bases Philippines closure represent a defining moment in modern Philippine history. It was a complex interplay of historical legacy, nationalist aspirations, economic realities, and political will. The decision to close the bases was a bold assertion of Philippine sovereignty, reshaping the country’s relationship with its long-standing ally and setting a new course for its future in the region and the world. The post-bases era Philippines is one where the nation exercises greater control over its destiny, a direct consequence of that historic Philippine Senate vote 1991.
Key Takeaways:
- The presence of U.S. military bases in the Philippines stemmed from the post-Spanish-American War period, formalized by the Military Bases Agreement of 1947.
- The 1947 agreement granted the U.S. extensive rights and a long lease period, sparking decades of nationalist opposition and concerns over Philippine sovereignty.
- Various Philippine administrations, including those of Manuel Roxas, Carlos P. Garcia, Diosdado Macapagal, and Ferdinand Marcos, attempted to renegotiate the agreement with limited success in addressing core sovereignty issues.
- The post-EDSA Revolution 1987 Constitution required a treaty ratified by the Senate for foreign bases, setting the stage for the expiration of bases agreement.
- Final negotiations for a new treaty under President Corazon Aquino coincided with the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, which severely damaged Clark Air Base and influenced the context of withdrawal.
- The historic Philippine Senate vote 1991, where 12 senators rejected the proposed extension treaty, sealed the fate of the bases, prioritizing Filipino nationalism and Philippine sovereignty over security and economic concerns cited by proponents.
- The US bases Philippines closure concluded in November 1992 with the final withdrawal from Subic Naval Base.
- The economic impact of base closures was significant but mitigated by the successful conversion of the former base areas into economic zones like the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Clark Special Economic Zone under President Fidel V. Ramos.
- The closure led to a shift in Philippine-American relations from permanent basing to rotational access under agreements like the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty remaining in effect.
- The US bases Philippines closure remains a symbol of Philippine independence and a pivotal moment in the nation’s assertion of its sovereign rights.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q1: When exactly did the U.S. military bases in the Philippines close? A1: While Clark Air Base was formally handed over in November 1991 due to the damage from the Mount Pinatubo eruption, the full US bases Philippines closure, particularly the withdrawal from Subic Naval Base, was completed by November 24, 1992.
Q2: What was the primary reason for the closure? A2: The primary reason was the rejection by the Philippine Senate vote 1991 of a new treaty that would have extended the U.S. military presence. This decision was driven by a strong assertion of Philippine sovereignty and Filipino nationalism, as well as constitutional requirements.
Q3: What was the Military Bases Agreement of 1947? A3: The Military Bases Agreement of 1947 was the initial treaty signed between the United States and the Philippines that granted the U.S. the right to maintain military and naval bases in the Philippines for a period of 99 years.
Q4: How did the Mount Pinatubo eruption affect the base closures? A4: The Mount Pinatubo eruption in June 1991 severely damaged Clark Air Base, making its continued operation impractical and accelerating its closure. While it didn’t directly cause the Senate vote against the treaty (which primarily concerned Subic), it significantly altered the landscape of the U.S. presence at a critical time.
Q5: What happened to the former base lands after the U.S. military left? A5: The former base lands were converted into economic zones. Clark Air Base became the Clark Special Economic Zone (now Freeport), and Subic Naval Base became the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). These areas were developed into industrial, commercial, and tourism hubs to mitigate the economic impact of base closures and stimulate growth in the post-bases era Philippines.
Q6: Did the closure of the bases end the military alliance between the Philippines and the United States? A6: No, the military alliance did not end. The RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 remains in effect. However, the nature of the relationship shifted from one involving permanent basing to one centered on cooperation, joint exercises, and rotational presence as facilitated by agreements like the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The sovereignty issues Philippines US bases relationship previously highlighted were addressed by removing permanent foreign bases.
Q7: Who were some key figures involved in the push for base withdrawal? A7: Many individuals played roles, including nationalist senators known as the “Magnificent 12” who voted against the treaty in 1991 (like Jovito Salonga and Wigberto Tañada), earlier nationalists like Claro M. Recto, and civil society activists who advocated for nationalism Philippines US bases. Philippine Presidents like Corazon Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos were also central figures during the final negotiations and post-bases era Philippines transformation.
Sources:
- Brands, H. W. (1992). Bound to Empire: The United States and the Philippines. Oxford University Press. (Provides context on early US presence and relations)
- Stanley, P. W. (1974). A Nation in the Making: The Philippines and the United States, 1899-1921. Harvard University Press. (Details early colonial relationship and base establishment)
- Livezey, W. E. (1977). The Philippines and the United States: Problems of Partnership. University of Oklahoma Press. (Discusses the evolution of RP-US relations and base issues)
- Doeppers, D. F., & Menchik, S. (2019). The Philippines: An Archipelago of Islands, a Fragmented Nation. Ateneo de Manila University Press. (Offers broader historical and political context)
- Kimura, M. (2002). Philippine Nationalism and the American/Japanese Dilemma. University of the Philippines Press. (Explores the development of Filipino nationalism and its relation to foreign powers)
- Selected papers and records from the Philippine Senate regarding the 1991 treaty deliberations. (Primary source material on the vote) – Specific accessible online links can vary, but search terms like “Philippine Senate records US bases treaty 1991”
- Official reports and publications from the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and Clark Special Economic Zone. (Information on base conversion efforts) – e.g., SBMA official website, Clark Freeport official website
- Joint U.S. and Philippine government communiqués and treaty texts regarding the Military Bases Agreement of 1947 and subsequent renegotiations. (Documentation of the formal agreements) – Available in historical archives and treaty databases.
- Contemporary news reports from 1991-1992 covering the Mount Pinatubo eruption, the Senate vote, and the withdrawal process (e.g., New York Times archives, Philippine Daily Inquirer archives).
(Note: Accessing all specific primary source documents and news archives directly may require subscriptions or library access. The sources listed provide the established historical narrative and context.)