Military Bases Agreement: The Impact of US Presence on Philippine Sovereignty and Security

The relationship between the Philippines and the United States has been one of enduring complexity, shaped by a shared history rooted in colonialism, war, and strategic alliances. At the heart of this intricate bond, particularly in the post-World War II era, lay the US military bases in the Philippines. These installations, notably the sprawling Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base, were central to American strategic posture in the Pacific for nearly half a century. Their presence was governed primarily by the Military Bases Agreement (MBA) of 1947, a foundational document that defined the terms of US access and control over significant portions of Philippine territory. This agreement, and the subsequent dynamics it engendered, had a profound and multifaceted impact of US presence on Philippine sovereignty and security, sparking continuous debate and shaping the course of Philippine-American relations for decades.

This article delves into the historical context of the MBA, examining its provisions, the practical implications of US military operations on Philippine soil, and the evolving challenges it presented to Philippine sovereignty and Philippine security. We will explore the key issues of extraterritoriality, jurisdiction, economic effects, social consequences, and the eventual political struggle that culminated in the non-renewal of the agreement in 1991. Furthermore, we will briefly touch upon the post-MBA era and the subsequent agreements like the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), illustrating the continuing relevance of the US-Philippines alliance in a changing geopolitical landscape, particularly concerning the South China Sea. Understanding the history of the US military bases Philippines is crucial for grasping the nuances of modern Filipino nationhood and its place in regional security.

Historical Context: Post-War Philippines and the Dawn of the Bases Era

The end of World War II left the Philippines devastated but on the cusp of formal independence. Having been a US colony since 1898, the grant of independence on July 4, 1946, marked a pivotal moment. However, this independence came hand-in-hand with a series of agreements that tied the nascent republic closely to its former colonial master, particularly in economic and defense matters. The prevailing global scenario – the nascent Cold War and the perceived threat of communism in Asia – heavily influenced the security arrangements put in place.

The Philippines after World War II

The war had highlighted the strategic importance of the Philippine archipelago. As a key battleground and staging area, the islands proved vital for projecting power in the Pacific. The US, emerging as a global superpower, sought to maintain a robust military presence in the region to counter Soviet and later, Chinese influence. The newly independent Philippine government, facing immense rehabilitation challenges and internal security threats (such as the Hukbalahap insurgency), also saw value in a security partnership with the United States, particularly the provision of military aid and training. This mutual, albeit unequal, need set the stage for the military bases negotiations.

Negotiating the 1947 Military Bases Agreement (MBA)

Negotiations for the Military Bases Agreement began even before formal independence. The US leveraged its economic aid packages and the promise of continued military assistance to secure favorable terms. Philippine negotiators, eager for rehabilitation funds and concerned about national security, found themselves in a position of limited bargaining power. Signed on March 14, 1947, the MBA granted the United States the right to retain and use a significant number of military and naval bases in the Philippines for a period of 99 years.

Key Provisions of the MBA

The 1947 MBA was a sweeping document with significant implications for Philippine sovereignty. Some of its most controversial provisions included:

Grant of Rights: The agreement granted the US extensive rights over 23 specified land and naval bases, including the vast facilities at Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base, as well as smaller installations like Mactan Air Base, Basa Air Base, and the San Miguel Naval Communications Station. While technically not a transfer of sovereignty, the US was given the right to use, control, and operate these bases as if they were sovereign territory.
Jurisdiction: Perhaps the most contentious aspect was the issue of criminal jurisdiction. The agreement granted the US broad jurisdiction over US personnel within the bases, often leading to Filipino citizens having limited legal recourse against offenses committed by American servicemen on or off base. This created a dual system of justice that many Filipinos viewed as a direct infringement on their national sovereignty.
Duration: The initial 99-year term was seen by many as excessive and a relic of the colonial past, binding the Philippines to the US strategic framework for nearly a century.
Scope of Use: The US had considerable freedom in the use of the bases, including the storage of arms and equipment, and the deployment of troops, without explicit limitations on types of weapons (a key concern regarding nuclear weapons later on).
Economic Aspects: While the bases provided employment and contributed to local economies, the agreement initially offered limited direct compensation to the Philippine government. Issues of procurement, taxation, and the treatment of Filipino workers on the bases also became sources of friction.

This initial agreement laid the groundwork for decades of complex interactions, where the perceived benefits of security and economic activity were constantly weighed against the costs to national dignity and control over national territory. The very existence of foreign military installations on such a scale inherently challenged the concept of full and unfettered Philippine sovereignty.

Sovereignty Under Scrutiny: Extraterritoriality and Jurisdiction

The presence of foreign military bases invariably raises questions about national sovereignty. For the Philippines, a newly independent nation, the scale and terms of the MBA made these questions particularly acute. The issues surrounding extraterritoriality and criminal jurisdiction became potent symbols of perceived inequality and a lack of complete control within one’s own borders.

Issues of Criminal Jurisdiction

Under the original MBA, the US retained primary jurisdiction over offenses committed by US military personnel within the bases. Jurisdiction for offenses committed off-base was often contested and complex, frequently favoring the US military justice system, especially if the act occurred while the serviceman was on duty. This led to numerous incidents where Filipino citizens felt that justice was denied when crimes were committed against them by American personnel. Cases often dragged on, were handled within the US military courts, or resulted in outcomes perceived as lenient by the Filipino public. This unequal application of law within Philippine territory was a constant irritant and a focal point for nationalist protests and the anti-bases movement. Over the years, amendments were made to the MBA to address this, granting the Philippine courts more jurisdiction, but the fundamental issue of potential immunity or preferential treatment for US personnel remained a sensitive point.

The Concept of Extraterritoriality

Beyond criminal jurisdiction, the very concept of the bases operating with a degree of autonomy from Philippine law and administration embodied extraterritoriality. While not formally declared foreign soil, the areas covered by the bases were effectively under US control. Philippine laws regarding labor, customs, and even entry and exit could be subject to different rules within the base parameters. This physical and legal separation, particularly evident at large facilities like Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base, created a sense of an “enclave” within the Philippines, further challenging the idea of complete Philippine sovereignty over its entire territory.

Filipino Laborers and Base Workers

Thousands of Filipinos were employed on the US bases, working in various capacities from maintenance and construction to administrative roles. While this provided valuable employment, it also created labor disputes and issues regarding wages, benefits, and working conditions. Filipino base workers often felt they were treated as second-class citizens compared to their American counterparts, facing discrimination and lacking full protection under Philippine labor laws within the base premises. Their struggles became another layer of the sovereignty debate, highlighting the practical limitations of national authority within the base areas.

Rent/Compensation Disputes

Over the decades, the economic terms of the MBA also became a source of contention. The Philippines argued that the “rent” or compensation provided by the US for the use of the bases was insufficient compared to the strategic value the bases provided to the US and the economic benefits derived from them. While the US provided military and economic aid, the direct payment for the use of the land itself was a recurring point of negotiation and disagreement. This economic aspect intertwined with the sovereignty issue, as critics argued the Philippines was not being fairly compensated for the use of its national territory by a foreign power.

The persistent issues of jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, labor relations, and compensation fueled a growing nationalist sentiment that questioned the wisdom and fairness of the Military Bases Agreement. These concerns were central to the public discourse and political debates surrounding the bases’ presence.

The Security Dimension: Internal Stability and External Defense

While the sovereignty issues were contentious, the presence of US bases was often justified by their contribution to Philippine security. This security dimension operated on two main fronts: internal stability and external defense, particularly within the context of the Cold War.

US Role in Counterinsurgency (Hukbalahap, Communist insurgency)

In the immediate post-war period, the Philippines faced a significant internal threat from the Hukbalahap (Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon), a peasant-based anti-Japanese resistance movement that evolved into an anti-government insurgency with perceived communist leanings. The US, through the Joint US Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) and the presence of its bases, provided substantial military aid, equipment, training, and strategic advice to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). This assistance was crucial in the Philippine government’s efforts to contain and suppress the Huk insurgency. Later, US aid continued to support the AFP against the re-emerging communist New People’s Army (NPA). Proponents of the bases argued that this support was vital for maintaining internal stability, a key aspect of Philippine security.

The Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and Alliance Dynamics

Complementary to the MBA was the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), signed in 1951. This treaty committed both the Philippines and the United States to come to each other’s aid in case of an armed attack in the Pacific area. The MBA provided the physical infrastructure for the US to effectively fulfill its commitments under the MDT. The bases served as critical staging areas and logistical hubs that underpinned the US-Philippines alliance. Proponents argued that the MDT, supported by the bases, deterred external aggression against the Philippines and provided a security umbrella in a volatile region.

The Bases During the Cold War (Vietnam War, regional role)

Throughout the Cold War, Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base were linchpins of the US forward presence in Southeast Asia. They played crucial roles during the Korean War and, most notably, the Vietnam War, serving as major logistical, repair, and staging facilities for US forces. The bases were also integral to US surveillance, intelligence gathering, and power projection capabilities aimed at countering the Soviet Union and communist China. This strategic importance for the US meant the Philippines was deeply embedded in the global superpower rivalry, often without direct involvement in the conflicts themselves, yet assuming associated risks.

Concerns over Nuclear Weapons

A persistent concern regarding US military bases Philippines was the potential storage or transit of nuclear weapons. US policy was generally one of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons at its overseas bases. However, given the strategic role of Clark and Subic during the Cold War, it was widely believed that they were part of the US nuclear deterrent network. This raised serious questions about the Philippines potentially becoming a target in a nuclear conflict, a risk taken on behalf of US strategic interests, without explicit knowledge or control by the Philippine government. This secrecy and potential exposure to nuclear risks further fueled the anti-bases movement and the demand for greater transparency and control over activities on Philippine soil.

While the bases undeniably contributed to the Philippines’ defense capabilities through aid and the MDT, the extent to which they enhanced genuine Philippine security versus making the country a potential target for US adversaries remained a subject of intense debate. The perceived benefits were intertwined with the costs to national sovereignty and potential exposure to superpower conflicts.

Economic and Social Impacts

The presence of large foreign military bases inevitably brings significant economic and social consequences to the host country and surrounding communities. In the Philippines, the areas around Clark Air Base (Angeles City) and Subic Bay Naval Base (Olongapo City) developed economies heavily reliant on the bases.

Economic Benefits (Employment, local economies)

The most direct economic benefit was employment. The bases employed tens of thousands of Filipino workers, providing incomes and supporting families. Base expenditures on local goods and services, housing rentals for personnel, and spending by servicemen stimulated local economies. Cities like Angeles and Olongapo thrived, with service industries, entertainment venues, and retail businesses catering to base personnel. The bases also facilitated infrastructure development in their immediate vicinity. From a purely economic standpoint for these specific localities, the presence was a significant driver of activity.

Social Costs (Prostitution, crime, cultural impact)

However, the economic benefits came with significant social costs. The concentration of large numbers of foreign military personnel, primarily young men, led to the proliferation of prostitution and the exploitation of women and children in the areas surrounding the bases. Crime rates were often higher in these areas. The cultural impact was also significant, with concerns raised about the influence of foreign culture on Filipino youth and the creation of a dependency syndrome in base-dependent communities. Issues of paternity claims by Filipino women against US servicemen also became a recurring social problem with limited avenues for resolution.

Environmental Concerns (Clark and Subic pollution)

The long-term operation of large military installations also resulted in significant environmental degradation. Reports emerged over the years detailing pollution from fuel leaks, hazardous waste disposal, unexploded ordnance, and other military activities on the bases. The soil and groundwater at both Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base were found to contain contaminants. The environmental cost, which would require substantial resources to address after the US departure, added another layer to the negative impacts associated with the bases’ presence.

The economic and social impacts presented a classic dilemma: short-term economic gains for specific communities versus long-term social and environmental costs, and dependency versus sustainable development. This complex reality added further fuel to the discussions around the overall impact of the US presence Philippines.

The Struggle for Termination: The Anti-Bases Movement

As the decades passed, the initial post-war rationale for the 99-year lease began to erode in the eyes of many Filipinos. A strong and vocal anti-bases movement emerged, driven by nationalist fervor, concerns over sovereignty, and the social costs associated with the bases.

Growing Nationalist Sentiment

Filipino nationalism, a potent force since the struggle against Spanish and American colonialism, reasserted itself strongly in the post-war era. The continued presence of large foreign military installations on Philippine soil, governed by an agreement perceived as unequal and infringing on sovereignty, became a major target for nationalist critique. Intellectuals, students, labor groups, and political figures increasingly voiced their opposition, arguing that the bases were incompatible with true independence and national dignity.

Key Figures and Organizations

The anti-bases movement was a broad coalition involving various sectors of Philippine society. Nationalist leaders like Senator Jose P. Laurel Jr., figures from the political left, student activists, and civil society organizations played crucial roles in raising public awareness and organizing protests. The movement gained significant momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly during the Marcos era and the transition back to democracy.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution and its Provisions

A pivotal moment came with the drafting of the 1987 Philippine Constitution following the EDSA People Power Revolution. The new constitution included a significant provision (Article XVIII, Section 25) stating that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, and when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the contracting state. This constitutional mandate provided a clear framework and a higher hurdle for any future agreement on foreign military presence, directly impacting the fate of the MBA. It signaled the nation’s intent to exercise greater control over its territory and security arrangements.

Negotiations Leading to 1991

The original 99-year term of the MBA was amended in 1966, reducing its duration to 25 years from that date, meaning it would expire in 1991. As 1991 approached, negotiations for a new agreement began. The Philippine panel, emboldened by the 1987 Constitution and strong public sentiment, sought terms that would assert greater sovereignty, including full Philippine jurisdiction over offenses committed by US personnel, clear control over base operations, and significantly increased compensation. The US, while acknowledging the need for adjustments, aimed to retain maximum operational flexibility and control, seeing the bases as indispensable to its regional strategy.

The negotiations were protracted and difficult, highlighting the differing priorities and perceptions of the two nations. The Philippine panel was under immense pressure from the anti-bases movement and public opinion to secure terms that truly reflected national sovereignty.

The Philippine Senate Vote of 1991 (Subic Bay, Clark Air Base closure)

The culmination of the process was the vote in the Philippine Senate on September 16, 1991, on a proposed new treaty that would have allowed the continued presence of US forces, primarily at Subic Bay Naval Base, for another 10 years. Despite lobbying from the US government and proponents who emphasized the economic benefits and security umbrella, the Senate, in a historic vote of 12 against and 11 in favor, rejected the treaty. The senators who voted “no” cited reasons primarily related to national sovereignty, the unequal nature of the proposed agreement, and the desire for the Philippines to chart a more independent course.

This vote, often referred to as the “Magnificent 12,” sealed the fate of the major US military bases in the Philippines. Clark Air Base had already been severely damaged by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991, making its operational future uncertain regardless of the vote. The Senate decision led to the orderly withdrawal of US forces from Subic Bay Naval Base and other facilities by the end of 1992, marking the formal end of the era of large, permanent US military bases in the Philippines under the framework of the 1947 MBA.

This event was widely hailed as a victory for Philippine sovereignty and nationalism, demonstrating the capacity of the newly restored democratic institutions to make a decision of national significance against external pressure.

Post-MBA Era: New Agreements and Evolving Relations

The departure of US forces in 1992 did not signify the end of the US-Philippines alliance. The strategic interests of both nations, particularly in the face of evolving regional dynamics, ensured the relationship continued, albeit under new frameworks.

The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)

Recognizing the need for continued security cooperation and interoperability between their armed forces, the Philippines and the US negotiated the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which was ratified by the Philippine Senate in 1999. The VFA provides a legal framework for the presence of US military personnel in the Philippines for joint exercises, training, and other activities. Unlike the MBA, the VFA does not grant the US permanent bases or extraterritorial control over territory. It focuses on the status and treatment of visiting forces. While the VFA allows for continued security engagement, it has also faced criticism regarding issues of jurisdiction and the behavior of visiting troops, echoing some of the concerns raised during the MBA era, albeit on a smaller scale and without permanent installations.

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)

In response to increasing security challenges in the region, particularly China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea, the Philippines and the US signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) in 2014. EDCA is an executive agreement under the VFA that allows the US military to access and utilize designated facilities within Philippine military bases for prepositioning of equipment, construction of facilities, and conducting training. EDCA is framed as a mechanism to enhance rotational presence and improve interoperability and humanitarian assistance capabilities. Crucially, it does not authorize permanent US bases and explicitly respects Philippine sovereignty and the prohibition of nuclear weapons. While EDCA has been upheld by the Philippine Supreme Court, it has also generated debate regarding its constitutionality, its impact on sovereignty, and its implications for regional stability.

Shifting Geopolitical Landscape (South China Sea)

The post-MBA era has coincided with a significant shift in the regional geopolitical landscape, most notably the rise of China and its increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea, areas claimed partly by the Philippines. This has provided a renewed strategic rationale for closer US-Philippines alliance cooperation. The Philippines, facing external security challenges that it cannot address alone, has increasingly leaned on its alliance with the US, particularly the commitments under the Mutual Defense Treaty. The US, in turn, sees the Philippines as a key partner in maintaining regional stability and freedom of navigation.

Present-Day US-Philippines Alliance

Today, the US-Philippines alliance remains robust, underpinned by the MDT, VFA, and EDCA. While the era of large, permanent US military bases is over, the US continues to maintain a significant rotational presence and provides substantial military assistance to the Philippines. The focus has shifted from garrisoning troops on large bases to enhancing interoperability, conducting joint exercises, and supporting the modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. However, the historical legacy of the Military Bases Agreement and the debates it engendered continue to inform discussions about the nature and limits of the alliance, particularly concerning issues of sovereignty, autonomy in foreign policy, and the extent of alignment with US strategic interests.

A Complex Legacy: Evaluating the Long-Term Impact

Evaluating the long-term impact of US presence on Philippine sovereignty and security under the Military Bases Agreement reveals a complex and often contradictory legacy. There are no simple answers, as the benefits and costs were deeply intertwined and perceived differently across various sectors of Philippine society and over time.

Balancing Sovereignty and Security

The most enduring tension lay in balancing national sovereignty with external security needs. Proponents argued that the bases provided a credible deterrent and contributed significantly to Philippine defense capabilities through military aid and the MDT, effectively safeguarding Philippine security in a dangerous world. Opponents countered that this security came at the unacceptable cost of infringing on national sovereignty, allowing a foreign power undue control and influence within the country’s borders, and potentially embroiling the Philippines in conflicts not of its own making. The Senate vote in 1991 represented a moment where, for a majority, the assertion of sovereignty took precedence over the perceived security benefits offered by the permanent presence of foreign bases.

Economic Transition Post-Closure

The closure of Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base had significant economic repercussions for the surrounding communities. While the transition was challenging, particularly for Olongapo and Angeles, both cities eventually converted the former base facilities into successful economic zones (Clark Freeport Zone and Subic Bay Freeport Zone), attracting foreign investment and creating new jobs. This demonstrated that economic vitality was possible without dependency on foreign military bases, a point often made by the anti-bases movement.

The Enduring Debate

The historical debate surrounding the MBA and the US military bases Philippines continues to resonate in contemporary discussions about the US-Philippines alliance, particularly concerning the VFA and EDCA. Questions about jurisdiction over US personnel, the extent of US access to Philippine facilities, and the alignment of Philippine foreign policy with US strategic interests remain relevant. The legacy of the MBA serves as a historical reference point, reminding Filipinos of the challenges of maintaining sovereignty and charting an independent course while navigating complex international relations and security imperatives.

The history of the Military Bases Agreement is a microcosm of the broader narrative of Philippine-American relations – a relationship marked by profound historical ties, strategic cooperation, but also persistent tensions over equality, sovereignty, and national interest. The impact of the US presence Philippines during the MBA era was undeniably transformative, shaping not only the country’s security landscape but also its political identity and its ongoing quest for full and meaningful sovereignty.

Key Takeaways:

The 1947 Military Bases Agreement granted the US extensive rights over military bases in the Philippines for 99 years.
Key issues under the MBA included contested criminal jurisdiction over US personnel and the perceived infringement on Philippine sovereignty due to extraterritoriality.
The bases contributed to Philippine security through military aid and the Mutual Defense Treaty, particularly during the Cold War and in counterinsurgency efforts.
Economic benefits from the bases were significant for local areas, but came with social costs like prostitution and environmental damage.
The Anti-bases movement, fueled by nationalism and sovereignty concerns, gained strength over the decades.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution set a high bar for future foreign military presence.
The Philippine Senate vote of 1991 rejected a new treaty, leading to the closure of Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base.
Post-MBA agreements like the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) govern contemporary US-Philippines alliance cooperation, without permanent bases.
The legacy of the MBA continues to influence discussions on balancing sovereignty and security in Philippine-American relations.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

Q1: What was the primary purpose of the Military Bases Agreement of 1947? A1: The primary purpose was to allow the United States to retain and operate military and naval bases in the Philippines following the country’s independence. For the US, it was about projecting power and maintaining strategic presence in the Pacific during the burgeoning Cold War. For the Philippines, it was linked to post-war rehabilitation and perceived security needs, including military aid and the promise of defense assistance.

Q2: Why was the issue of jurisdiction so controversial under the MBA? A2: The MBA granted the US broad jurisdiction over its military personnel, often limiting the ability of Philippine courts to prosecute American servicemen who committed crimes in the Philippines. This was seen as a direct infringement on Philippine sovereignty and led to perceptions of unequal justice.

Q3: How did the US bases contribute to Philippine security during the Cold War? A3: The bases, along with the Mutual Defense Treaty, provided a security umbrella against external threats and were instrumental in the US providing military aid and training to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which helped in counterinsurgency efforts against groups like the Hukbalahap.

Q4: What were some of the negative impacts of the US military bases on Philippine society? A4: Negative impacts included social issues like increased prostitution and crime around base areas, cultural dependency, labor disputes for Filipino workers on the bases, and significant environmental pollution at sites like Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base.

Q5: What was the role of the Anti-bases movement in the closure of the bases? A5: The Anti-bases movement played a crucial role in raising public awareness, mobilizing political support for termination, and advocating for national sovereignty. Their sustained pressure significantly influenced the political climate and the stance of Filipino negotiators leading up to the 1991 Senate vote.

Q6: What was the significance of the Philippine Senate vote in 1991? A6: The Philippine Senate vote of 1991 rejected a proposed treaty to extend the US military presence, notably at Subic Bay Naval Base. This historic decision led to the withdrawal of US forces and was widely celebrated as a victory for Philippine sovereignty.

Q7: What replaced the Military Bases Agreement after 1991? A7: While no permanent bases were allowed, the US-Philippines alliance continued under new agreements. The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), ratified in 1999, provides a legal framework for the rotational presence of US troops for joint exercises and training. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), signed in 2014, allows the US military to access and use designated facilities within Philippine bases for specific activities.

Q8: How does the South China Sea issue relate to the US-Philippines alliance today? A8: China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea, an area where the Philippines has competing claims, has heightened the strategic importance of the US-Philippines alliance. The US, through agreements like the MDT, VFA, and EDCA, provides security assistance and supports the Philippines’ defense capabilities in the face of these external challenges.

Q9: Is the US military presence in the Philippines today the same as during the MBA era? A9: No. The US military presence today is significantly different. There are no large, permanent US bases with extraterritorial control. Instead, the relationship is based on rotational presence for joint activities under agreements like the VFA and EDCA, which respect Philippine sovereignty and operate within Philippine law, albeit with specific provisions for visiting forces.

Q10: What is the lasting legacy of the Military Bases Agreement? A10: The lasting legacy is the ongoing debate about balancing national sovereignty with security needs in foreign relations. The MBA era serves as a historical reminder of the complexities of hosting foreign military forces and continues to shape discussions about the nature of the US-Philippines alliance and the pursuit of an independent foreign policy.

Sources:

Bonner, Raymond. Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy. Times Books, 1987.
Brands, H. W. Bound to Empire: The United States and the Philippines. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Dueñas-Caparas, M. L. The United States Military Bases in the Philippines: The Evolution of an Issue. University of the Philippines Press, 1989.
Fallows, James. Looking at the Sun: The Rise of the New East Asian Economic and Political System. Pantheon Books, 1994. (Contains sections on the economic impact of the bases).
Hawes, Gary. *The Philippine State and the Marcos Regime: The Politics of Export’. Cornell University Press, 1987. (Discusses the political context).
Karnow, Stanley. In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines. Random House, 1989.
Lichauco, Alejandro. Nationalist Economics: History, Theory and Practice. Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1988. (Provides a nationalist critique).
Mojares, Resil B. The Man Who Would Be President: Sergio Osmeña and Postwar Philippine Politics. Global Oriental, 2000. (Context of post-war negotiations).
Shalom, Stephen Rosskamm. The United States and the Philippines: A Study of Neocolonialism. Philippine Center for Advanced Studies, University of the Philippines, 1981. (Detailed analysis of the bases agreement from a critical perspective).
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/
The Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement, 1947. (Text available in various historical archives and publications).
The Philippine-US Visiting Forces Agreement, 1998. (Text available online).
The Philippine-US Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, 2014. (Text available online).

(Note: Specific academic papers and historical texts focusing on the MBA and related topics can also be found through academic databases and university libraries.)

Category: Third Republic (1946-1972)